Why do you think that everyone likes to criticize TDKR but not Begins and TDK? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people have some kind of conspiracy going on where they got together and said, "I think we'll just hate on TDKR just for the hell of it." I don't think so. The plot holes are much more glaringly obvious in TDKR than they are in TDK or Begins. I can't speak for everyone, but I would assume the Begins and TDK story are much more engrossing and people don't even have time to recognize some of the plot holes or omissions. It isn't that way in TDKR.Mahiya_Borden wrote:Have you ever wondered how Bruce travelled around the world in BB after he destroyed his ID and gave his money too a hobo? No.wbmclamb45 wrote:I thought Rises was the weakest of Nolan's trilogy there were many plot holes and things that didnt make much sense to me. For example when Bruce climbed out of the pit how did he make it back to Gotham and we as the audience have no idea where he is. He had no money or resources to get back to Gotham. This is just one of many plot holes that I noticed while watching the film. :batface: In my opinion Batman Begins is the best followed by a close second TDK. Rises isn't even on the same level as those two films.
Have you ever wondered how Joker managed to put explosives in Gotham Hospital? No.
TDKR did at least explain how all those explosives got in there.
There are as many plot holes in BB and TDK as there are in TDKR. I wouldn't be pissed if people were fair and logicly criticizes the three movies but no they only criticizes TDKR while thinking that BB and TDK were plotholes free.
Be fucking fair!
NF Reviews/Reactions Only
According to you Mr. Negativity.Skyab23 wrote:Why do you think that everyone likes to criticize TDKR but not Begins and TDK? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people have some kind of conspiracy going on where they got together and said, "I think we'll just hate on TDKR just for the hell of it." I don't think so. The plot holes are much more glaringly obvious in TDKR than they are in TDK or Begins. I can't speak for everyone, but I would assume the Begins and TDK story are much more engrossing and people don't even have time to recognize some of the plot holes or omissions. It isn't that way in TDKR.Mahiya_Borden wrote:
Have you ever wondered how Bruce travelled around the world in BB after he destroyed his ID and gave his money too a hobo? No.
Have you ever wondered how Joker managed to put explosives in Gotham Hospital? No.
TDKR did at least explain how all those explosives got in there.
There are as many plot holes in BB and TDK as there are in TDKR. I wouldn't be pissed if people were fair and logicly criticizes the three movies but no they only criticizes TDKR while thinking that BB and TDK were plotholes free.
Be fucking fair!
I won't even bother answering in details because you spit the same shit all the time. You were hating on the movie during the shooting. So when you go and watch a movie with a negative attitude, no shit you'll end up hating it.
Posts: 27
Joined:
April 2013
No need for the language my friend I was just stating facts. If we want to go as far as how the fight scenes are orchestrated they are terrible Bane and Bat were throwing haymakers at one another and it just looked sloppy. These two are supposed to be the best martial artists in the world, they both learned from Ra's Al Ghul (who by the way is a way better villain than Bane ever dreamed of being) and it could have been done way better. I can go on all day long my friend about all the stuff in TDKR that makes it just a good movie not a great one such as BB and TDK.
Last edited by wbmclamb45 on April 13th, 2013, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why are you resorting in attacks on me for my opinion, I tried to give you a rationale answer as to why so many people point out the plot holes in TDKR and not in BB and TDK. If you have a better analysis of why people do that please feel free to share it with us. I don't have a problem with you liking TDKR or defending the film, but you're just attacking those of us who point out the flaws and then attempt to justify why we don't rank it as high as Nolan's previous Batman films.Mahiya_Borden wrote:According to you Mr. Negativity.Skyab23 wrote:
Why do you think that everyone likes to criticize TDKR but not Begins and TDK? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people have some kind of conspiracy going on where they got together and said, "I think we'll just hate on TDKR just for the hell of it." I don't think so. The plot holes are much more glaringly obvious in TDKR than they are in TDK or Begins. I can't speak for everyone, but I would assume the Begins and TDK story are much more engrossing and people don't even have time to recognize some of the plot holes or omissions. It isn't that way in TDKR.
I won't even bother answering in details because you spit the same shit all the time. You were hating on the movie during the shooting. So when you go and watch a movie with a negative attitude, no shit you'll end up hating it.
I like this guy.Mahiya_Borden wrote:Have you ever wondered how Bruce travelled around the world in BB after he destroyed his ID and gave his money too a hobo? No.wbmclamb45 wrote:I thought Rises was the weakest of Nolan's trilogy there were many plot holes and things that didnt make much sense to me. For example when Bruce climbed out of the pit how did he make it back to Gotham and we as the audience have no idea where he is. He had no money or resources to get back to Gotham. This is just one of many plot holes that I noticed while watching the film. :batface: In my opinion Batman Begins is the best followed by a close second TDK. Rises isn't even on the same level as those two films.
Have you ever wondered how Joker managed to put explosives in Gotham Hospital? No.
TDKR did at least explain how all those explosives got in there.
There are as many plot holes in BB and TDK as there are in TDKR. I wouldn't be pissed if people were fair and logicly criticizes the three movies but no they only criticizes TDKR while thinking that BB and TDK were plotholes free.
Be fucking fair!
Posts: 27
Joined:
April 2013
I do appreciate that sir
Just finished watching TDKR again. God, I love this movie. :JGLface:
Posts: 11
Joined:
July 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
8/10
"The Dark Knight Rises lacks the shine and polish that it's predecessor has, but it rises above it's frustration with a grim life-affirming story and a convoluted take on morality that makes it compelling in it's own right."
With the immense success of TDK, TKDR was given a gold standard that most films probably couldn't have met. TKDR does have the framework, but doesn't come together as well as it's predecessor did.
Lots of critics have called it dark, murky and dull. One even saying "why so serious". It's a superhero movie that crossed into drama territory, but still added some actiony bits in for the hell of it.
TDKR knows it's best moments are not the action bits shoehorned in to accommodate low attention span, so it rightfully (to the disgust of lots of fans, I can imagine) keeps it to a minimum. Yet, at moments, it's awkwardly tacked-on anyway. And when it is, the combat is clumsy, lacking imagination and rhythm. Watching Batman and Bane was like watching two cavemen hit each other with clubs. Let's not get started with the lame obligatory motorcycle scenes or the aircrafts.
Talking about Bane. He's no Joker. Let's get that out of our system. I can talk about how I think the Joker was an inherently easier character to make a dynamic performance with but I won't. I do like the idea of the movie having multiple protagonists. It's clear that Bruce isn't the main protagonist, at least. It does introduce lots of characters early on and it does lose focus. The football stadium bombing isn't as well put together as the "prisoner dillemma" on TDK's ferry. The anarchy scenes are short and there just transition between other scenes. There's definitely a lot that could be said about Wall Street and bankruptcy, but they were only brief moments.
Aside from Bruce's butler, most of the cast of characters isn't very likeable. They're rarely sympathetic and don't feel human. Perhaps, they're crushed under the weight of Gotham's downfall or the single-minded focus of saving Gotham has restricted them as characters. Sad enough as it is to say, it was hard to root for anyone. In a decaying city where each person contributed to it's sad state, I think I enjoyed Bane's chaos and anarchy more than any of the other character's ambitions. When Bane is your most charismatic character, it's troubling unless it's the authors intent.
At the same time, I do like the challenge of complex flawed characters. I don't want any character to be a perfect mary-sue. I don't want any black-or-white, right-or-wrong morality system. Yet, perhaps TDKR has gone too far in the other direction by not establishing much boundaries at all.
As for comparisons, TDK, in comparison, seems like a shallow reductionist black-and-white morality lecture. Yes, it takes on interesting moral discussion, but does so in such a binary way. The plot does feel like a phone-in, but stellar acting (as well as editing) saves it. Particularly, the performance of Heath Ledger elevates it from an average summer popcorn flick to an amazing film. TDK doesn't say much, but it has an excellent way of saying it.
TDKR, on the other hand, is the opposite. It has much more depth and much more to say, but it fumbles several times and often is incoherent in it's message. It handles more themes, yet can't meaningfully resolve them, and found the easiest way to do so in making Bruce Wayne a dead martyr. I'd take an amibitious film that sends a message I find a bit confusing or muddled over one that doesn't make much of anything at all. Still, I can't help but feel TDK was more "fun" and "thrilling".
I guess my point is that TDKR wasn't the film it could've been but it had potential to be a masterpiece. And for people who aren't closed-mindedly angry at the fact that the movie wasn't just a 2 hour circle jerk of batman pummeling enemies, there can be lots of discussion to be had. I appreciate films that challenge me and challenge my expectations, but at the same time, I still felt left wanting. One, I have to wrap my head around. You could call it a disappointment, but a deep, fascinating and an overall enjoyable one.
8/10
"The Dark Knight Rises lacks the shine and polish that it's predecessor has, but it rises above it's frustration with a grim life-affirming story and a convoluted take on morality that makes it compelling in it's own right."
With the immense success of TDK, TKDR was given a gold standard that most films probably couldn't have met. TKDR does have the framework, but doesn't come together as well as it's predecessor did.
Lots of critics have called it dark, murky and dull. One even saying "why so serious". It's a superhero movie that crossed into drama territory, but still added some actiony bits in for the hell of it.
TDKR knows it's best moments are not the action bits shoehorned in to accommodate low attention span, so it rightfully (to the disgust of lots of fans, I can imagine) keeps it to a minimum. Yet, at moments, it's awkwardly tacked-on anyway. And when it is, the combat is clumsy, lacking imagination and rhythm. Watching Batman and Bane was like watching two cavemen hit each other with clubs. Let's not get started with the lame obligatory motorcycle scenes or the aircrafts.
Talking about Bane. He's no Joker. Let's get that out of our system. I can talk about how I think the Joker was an inherently easier character to make a dynamic performance with but I won't. I do like the idea of the movie having multiple protagonists. It's clear that Bruce isn't the main protagonist, at least. It does introduce lots of characters early on and it does lose focus. The football stadium bombing isn't as well put together as the "prisoner dillemma" on TDK's ferry. The anarchy scenes are short and there just transition between other scenes. There's definitely a lot that could be said about Wall Street and bankruptcy, but they were only brief moments.
Aside from Bruce's butler, most of the cast of characters isn't very likeable. They're rarely sympathetic and don't feel human. Perhaps, they're crushed under the weight of Gotham's downfall or the single-minded focus of saving Gotham has restricted them as characters. Sad enough as it is to say, it was hard to root for anyone. In a decaying city where each person contributed to it's sad state, I think I enjoyed Bane's chaos and anarchy more than any of the other character's ambitions. When Bane is your most charismatic character, it's troubling unless it's the authors intent.
At the same time, I do like the challenge of complex flawed characters. I don't want any character to be a perfect mary-sue. I don't want any black-or-white, right-or-wrong morality system. Yet, perhaps TDKR has gone too far in the other direction by not establishing much boundaries at all.
As for comparisons, TDK, in comparison, seems like a shallow reductionist black-and-white morality lecture. Yes, it takes on interesting moral discussion, but does so in such a binary way. The plot does feel like a phone-in, but stellar acting (as well as editing) saves it. Particularly, the performance of Heath Ledger elevates it from an average summer popcorn flick to an amazing film. TDK doesn't say much, but it has an excellent way of saying it.
TDKR, on the other hand, is the opposite. It has much more depth and much more to say, but it fumbles several times and often is incoherent in it's message. It handles more themes, yet can't meaningfully resolve them, and found the easiest way to do so in making Bruce Wayne a dead martyr. I'd take an amibitious film that sends a message I find a bit confusing or muddled over one that doesn't make much of anything at all. Still, I can't help but feel TDK was more "fun" and "thrilling".
I guess my point is that TDKR wasn't the film it could've been but it had potential to be a masterpiece. And for people who aren't closed-mindedly angry at the fact that the movie wasn't just a 2 hour circle jerk of batman pummeling enemies, there can be lots of discussion to be had. I appreciate films that challenge me and challenge my expectations, but at the same time, I still felt left wanting. One, I have to wrap my head around. You could call it a disappointment, but a deep, fascinating and an overall enjoyable one.
Posts: 2
Joined:
March 2014
Hi guys. Just got around to watching The Dark Knight Rises since its release, just wanted to share my thoughts. Bit of a long read, but I'd love it if you could stick with it and tell me what you think. I like hearing other peoples opinions.
Story/theme/plot: I have not read a single DC or Marvel comic, so I know nothing of the history of Batman or any other character. I have seen Burtons first Batman, and the Nolan trilogy. That’s abut it, so I can only base my understanding of the character from what the films have said - which is fair, as Nolan cant assume everyone did their homework. So I don't care about the Blake character being an amalgam of Robins or other characters, or the fact that after so many decades Batman finally gets a happy ending etc. That’s fan service. I found the story for this film, like many (if not all) of Nolan's films, to be tied in closely with theme, to the point where plot contrivances occur in order to support it. (I refer here to story and theme as the basic underlying idea of the film, while 'plot' refers to the specific events, pacing etc - the actual telling of that story.) It is apparent that Story and theme come above plot. Evidence of this can be found in the sudden shift from day to night at the stock exchange heist. The theme of Batman and night, his return in darkness was more important an image than keeping continuity. Stock exchanges close in the afternoon, so Bane had to arrive when the sun was still up, but Batman must return at night (so I am told by a friend). Why not have Bane hold hostages for several hours, then leave on bikes at night? I see it that Nolan either thought nobody would notice/care, or he himself did not care. It happened because 'it had to happen that way'. Why doesn't anyone believe the Commissioner when he says there is a terrorist building an army underground, especially after a rather hairy shootout with heavily armed men who ran into the sewers. Why? Because its too early for a police investigation, so they can’t believe him. Bane would be discovered. Plot makes no sense, but Story can continue.
Another example is the entire revolution concept. Bane's thematic plan is all about hope and despair. For this to play out the city must revolt, thus providing hope, and then be destroyed, thus despair. Bane claims "You can not have true despair without hope". This theme also ties in with the pit, and Wayne's journey. However, the actual plot of this makes very little sense. Hope and Despair are not compatible. Hope is by definition a lack of despair, and despair is by definition a total lack of hope. Bane refers to false-hope as a form of despair - but only if you know the hope is false, in which case - why are you hopeful? It makes no sense, but it sounds good. Then, Bane occupies Gotham, forbidding anyone to leave or enter. He also has the people live under fear of nuclear destruction. Not a particularly hope-inspiring environment (nor is the image of empty streets coated in snow - that evokes oppression and fear, not the false-hope of a people who think they are winning their freedom). Not to mention that the people of Gotham seem to believe him, especially with regards to Gordon's note about Harvey Dent, of which he provides no evidence for its authenticity. It is the most basic plot to service the story brief of 'Bane then creates a revolution'. Why not play up the obvious injustice of the Dent act earlier, have actual civilians picketing against it throughout the first act? It would add believability and give the people a better reason to support Bane, but alas, the Dent act is described only once, and it is said to have brought crime to its knees and is pretty much the greatest thing ever (because how else would a city no longer need Batman). Perhaps you can argue the throw-away line somewhere in the mayors speech he mentions 'some people are talking about repealing the Dent Act'. So they knew there was that element - they just did not bother following it through. Which follows into my next point...
"I'm only telling you this once" - This is something Nolan does a few times in this film (and other films), he presents a line of dialogue that explains something about a character, but never continues that idea any further. For example: "They're dumping him in the spring" was played up in trailers, and even in the films opening, yet it fails to pay off. I know it was an attempt at foreshadowing, but it ends up as being unnecessary from a plot point of view. Surely something else could have prophesied the growing gloom in peace-time better than that. Next, in the same scene, we learn that Gordon's family moved out and left for Cleveland. This is obviously a device to have emotional pressure hang on Gordon, showing how his job is taking over his life, but he never really seems any worse off than in the other two films. It is never referred to again, and Gordon's poor mood can more easily be attributed to the direct tragedies of the film itself (such as a bullet to the leg, Bane's revolution, etc.), rather than the loss of his family. This is a treasure trove of emotional storytelling possibilities that go ignored.
The conclusion is that Nolan sees this as a 'you have been told, now you know. My job is done' kind of deal. He does not linger on these things because he thinks all he needs to do is tell us something happened and we will accept it, without him following it up with some visual/emotional weight. That is the difference between knowing something happened and feeling the impact, we may as well be reading an essay. As long as information is provided, the audience will fill in the blanks.
This can be said for the numerous 'plotholes' people keep mentioning. On that note - I agree that most, if not all, are not actual plot holes. They are sometimes jarring gaps of story never explained, and as people have shown, they can be filled with assumptions. However, does that let the filmmakers off the hook? No. The big one is "Bruce Wayne arrives back in Gotham... somehow." Yeah, its not explained, but it IS possible to catch a boat from India to America within the time limit and arrive in time the way he did. It is possible that his ninja skills helped him sneak past quarantine. However, it seems like an arduous journey, right? Does it feel like it - no. He arrives quite chipper, almost like he does this all the time. Even the Special Forces guy 'Captain Jones' is shown sneaking in on a food truck, why not Wayne? Why not just one single shot of him jumping off a boat or something to indicate what happened. That is why so many people hate that scene - because it does not FEEL like he made it back to Gotham.
Blake knows Batman's identity. How? I can see the thematic implications of two angry orphans recognizing each other, and again "It just had to happen so other stuff can happen later", but how it's explained plot-wise is not good enough. Surely at least one other orphan has lost his parents to a killer and is angry. Why is Blake the only one to work it out (as a child, meeting him once - never meeting Batman to draw a connection, not knowing Batman also lost his parents which seems the main bit of necessary info, etc). Another issue with this is that it comes directly out of thin air. Its jarring that a new character suddenly reveals what no other man or woman could. Sure, it’s explained thematically, but its just so unbelievable that it seems lazy on the part of the writers.
Next we have the Tahlia al g'hul plot - or the 'League of Shadows' plot in general. Much of what I could say is subjective, so I wont say it here - but I will say that this plot really does repeat a lot of the story of Batman Begins. Bane and Tahlia want to blow up Gotham to restore balance. Batman has to 'repeat his training' in some respects and stop the league. While there is nothing technically wrong with this plot, it is charted territory for this series. We have seen this threat before, and it’s not original. They needed to follow up The Dark Knight with something big - and they had potential with Bane the Revolutionary Warrior - but they retreated to familiar waters and it is noticeable. However - there is an argument that this was all part of the plan to tell the story of Wayne having to re-take the journey of becoming batman after losing his way after his battle with the Joker etc. After all, the scene when Alfred comes to bring Wayne his green health-shake and finds him in the bat-cave is almost a shot for shot remake of that sequence from The Dark Knight - on purpose, no doubt, to show the parallels. I understand all that stuff, but they did run the risk with that idea that by repeating the same trial for batman also means the audience re-watching the same battle - one we enjoyed already, and already felt the catharsis for. There was potential for people to just get annoyed at the repetition and see it as somewhat of a lack of creativity.
Pacing: The pacing is all over the place, and once again, the structure is completely secondary to Nolan's idea of building to a huge climax. The first act is very slow, despite some rapid editing and fast exposition of new information - which makes it bloated, thus drawing out and seeming even longer. The first hour and ten minutes (thats about when the Batman/Bane fight starts is probably a summary of somewhere between a week and perhaps three weeks (if I'm being generous). Then there is Bane's revolution sequence. This section arguable contains the most heavy story stuff, yet it feels rather rushed. This is mainly because Bane's whole revolution takes up almost 20 minutes of that, mostly in the form of a montage. And of that, only about 2 actual minutes shows citizens in action - rioting etc. The rest is of explosions or of Bane and his men talking/giving speeches. It makes it feel like such a brief little thing. Then 3 months flashes by an around half an hour. Wayne returns at almost exactly the 2 hour mark. Why not make all of that 50 minute sequence part of the revolution? It would both give the revolution more impact, and also relieve some of the very slow sequences of the post revolution depression. It would also give Wayne more horror to feed off during his recovery. It would also make the revolution seem more like the people were descending into Bane's trap of false hope, rather than the oppressive silence that is in the film, which almost contradicts Bane's intentions (unless that's a subtext I missed - that Bane fails to instill false hope?) - I will go into the French Revolution sequence more later on.
Writing: I have separated this from story because they are somewhat different beasts. This is mainly about dialogue and character stuff. Firstly - the expository dialogue. I will only talk about two examples here:
"The Blank Slate" - Daggett's dialogue is just awful here. Catwoman has him pinned and demands the device. His exposition is intended to explain everything to do with the device in one handy bite sized packet, but it could be softened with a simple re-ordering of lines. In the film: Daggett explains the device in unnecessary detail - even mentioning 'just type in your name, date of birth' (why do we need to know that? Its assumed) and then ends with "doesn't it sound a little too good to be true?". The aim here was for him to be patronizing, but it comes off as forced - because it is. Had he started with the line "doesn't it sound a little too good to be true?......." he could proceed to list (some of) the details of the device, and it would feel more like a taunt. Like he's making a fool of her. I was surprised they did not come up with that themselves, considering the praise their writing often receives.
Second, is when Captain Jones arrives, moments before he is killed, where Fox and Blake explain the Bomb. Blake actually says "This bomb is a time bomb." Not only is that line kinda goofy in such a dark movie, but it is something that we, as an audience, have had explained to us already - without expository dialogue. We have seen the countdown clock ourselves, Dr Pavel and Bane explain the unstable reactor to us. This whole conversation is more than unnecessary, its a waste of our time and could even be seen as an insult to our intelligence. Jones could have been briefed off screen. Really the purpose was for Fox to reveal how much time is left - but a shot of the bomb timer would have done that. Or Bane could have checked it. Or Jones could have just asked Fox that by itself and leave it there.
Characters: there are some paper thin characters in this film. Foley, Daggett and Captain Jones are the worst. Foley is the most cliched and stereotypical jerk cop imaginable. He is obsessed with furthering his career, he does not respect the main characters, he is a secret coward - but at the last minute he is actually the biggest hero of them all. He's like a Disney character. This is not necessarily a negative – people love Disney – but in a film that is following from a ‘genre bending game changer’ like The Dark Knight, it’s kind of like a slap to the face.
Next is Daggett. He is a plot device more than a character. He hates Wayne for monetary reasons, and so agrees to help Bane (or rather hires Bane, or thinks he is in control of Bane for some reason) in exchange for absorbing Wayne's company through making Wayne bankrupt. Once this happens he is killed - the concrete-bomb stuff was all handled by others after his death. His interactions with the board serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the story, and everything else he does is devoted to providing early exposition for things like the blank slate, the clean energy project etc. His real purpose in the film is to scare Wayne into trusting Miranda Tate (who he has never met up until that party they went to – unless she has a golden reputation with loads of character references) and then once Bane (not Dagget) bankrupts Wayne, he will entrust Miranda with the location of the Reactor. Its pretty flimsy, considering Dagget’s motivation was secondary to this (simple greed) and Bane would have bankrupted Wayne no matter what (symbolically ‘breaking’ one of his great powers) – so if he was to trust Miranda regardless, there was no need to have Dagget leaning over his shoulder. All that aside, if he MUST be part of the story in order to overcome the plot hole “Wayne his hidden the reactor, so how can Bane find it later?” (plugging that hole is basically the only reason they included Dagget so much in the film), why not flesh him out into a real character? Why kill him so early when he could play a part in later events, even have a character arc - perhaps as the rich are targeted by the 99%. He is the bare minimum of a major talking role.
Captain Jones: I checked how long this guy is in the film. Its less than five minutes. Why is he in this film? He arrives - then talks to Gordon and we see how they hope to locate the bomb. Then he visits fox and Blake for the aforementioned awful and unnecessary ‘time bomb’ exposition, then he is shot and Bane crushes his neck. What was achieved there? Surely some other solution could have been invented to not require this character. Or perhaps give him a more worthwhile part? Maybe he was a big player but they just edited him out? Who knows?
Then there are some truly terrible lines. "No, I came back to stop you." made me laugh out loud at its stupidity. Wayne descends the stairs in Wayne manor not one day after Alfred abandons him (at least I think so - in the language of film its only two cuts later - therefore very soon after, even if Nolan meant it to be 100 years later or whatever) and asks "Alfred?" - Now I saw that coming in the theatre and was praying they would not do it. Needless to say I was disappointed. How did he forget Alfred left? How did the writers think we would forget? It cant be because they want us to feel like Wayne is having a hard time adjusting - as Fox says "Opening your own door now?" and he explains to Tate how he never needed a key to his own house before. Even if you argue that maybe he was tired after waking up and there was a force of habit to ask Alfred - its such an unnecessary line that they should have just cut it. Its just plain stupid. This level of writing is far lower than what we expect from someone like Nolan.
Then we have the sequence when Wayne sleeps with Tate. In The Dark Knight, we see how upset Wayne is about Rachel, in Rises, we see that part of his reclusiveness is about her death - he still cant get over her. He has at least two framed photographs of her in his house, probably more. Then, we are told that he has not yet met Tate - not until later at Miranda's party do they meet. He then sees her a couple more times and they go back to his house. She actually asks him about Rachel, holding up her picture. Then two seconds later they are sleeping together. This feels very forced - once again "It needed to happen" I guess. Although, does it? Do they need to fall in love? Because later he falls in love with Selena Kyle really easily as well. When did he get his mojo back?
Tone: This film is a sequel to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight - arguably (and widely accepted as) two of the best superhero movies ever made. They are groundbreaking for that genre because of the realistic and dark tone - how Batman lives in the real world (despite a few sonar machines and other small stuff). Overall, these are dark, realistic, serious and somewhat intellectual films. The Dark Knight Rises does a little of that, but it also accidentally became a silly action film as well. It just does not fit as well with the previous installments, as if it forgot what series it is part of. A good example of this is the scene where the SWAT team come to rescue the congressman. Rather than a more subdued raid on a building full of civilians, the SWAT team start a small war in the back alleys. This is not a battle that developed because baddies started putting on the pressure and forced the SWAT to escalate to a shootout - no, everyone opens fire pretty much at once, and spark are flying everywhere like a scene from a Schwarzenegger film. This scene goes so crazy so suddenly that it feels like the action writers guide "Now we need an action scene or kids will get bored" kind of thing. Its just so over the top. I have read interviews where Nolan has said that he really wanted to make a large action film - a war film. He wanted to do a ticking bomb just because he likes film noir and that is a staple of Noir suspense (he actually said that, not making it up). I also know that he really wants to make a Bond film etc. He wanted the revolutionary city to feel like a Russian war film etc. Why? It seems he has just picked and chosen things he wants to do and has used this film as an excuse to do them. They don't really suit this series because they were more like crime stories, this one suddenly goes mental and it seems only because Nolan saw a chance to live some dreams. Not because the film needed it but because he wanted to. The result is a fun, over the top action film forced into the tight mold of a Nolanesque Batman crime film. It alternates between sequences of philosophical ideas to stuff like planes being pulled apart by other planes. The Truck flip was as far as the Dark Knight went, and it was great because of its simplicity. No flames, no loud noises, no music. But here we have literally everything in Gotham explode from concrete made out of bombs, a fist fight with cops and terrorists on wall street and men punching holes in stone pillars. It would be fine to have one or the other, but together they form an unusual monster. If you see it as an intellectual film then its stupid and nonsensical a lot of the time, if you see it as simple fun then it’s pretentious. The mid point is just a strange film that does not know what it wants to be.
Story/theme/plot: I have not read a single DC or Marvel comic, so I know nothing of the history of Batman or any other character. I have seen Burtons first Batman, and the Nolan trilogy. That’s abut it, so I can only base my understanding of the character from what the films have said - which is fair, as Nolan cant assume everyone did their homework. So I don't care about the Blake character being an amalgam of Robins or other characters, or the fact that after so many decades Batman finally gets a happy ending etc. That’s fan service. I found the story for this film, like many (if not all) of Nolan's films, to be tied in closely with theme, to the point where plot contrivances occur in order to support it. (I refer here to story and theme as the basic underlying idea of the film, while 'plot' refers to the specific events, pacing etc - the actual telling of that story.) It is apparent that Story and theme come above plot. Evidence of this can be found in the sudden shift from day to night at the stock exchange heist. The theme of Batman and night, his return in darkness was more important an image than keeping continuity. Stock exchanges close in the afternoon, so Bane had to arrive when the sun was still up, but Batman must return at night (so I am told by a friend). Why not have Bane hold hostages for several hours, then leave on bikes at night? I see it that Nolan either thought nobody would notice/care, or he himself did not care. It happened because 'it had to happen that way'. Why doesn't anyone believe the Commissioner when he says there is a terrorist building an army underground, especially after a rather hairy shootout with heavily armed men who ran into the sewers. Why? Because its too early for a police investigation, so they can’t believe him. Bane would be discovered. Plot makes no sense, but Story can continue.
Another example is the entire revolution concept. Bane's thematic plan is all about hope and despair. For this to play out the city must revolt, thus providing hope, and then be destroyed, thus despair. Bane claims "You can not have true despair without hope". This theme also ties in with the pit, and Wayne's journey. However, the actual plot of this makes very little sense. Hope and Despair are not compatible. Hope is by definition a lack of despair, and despair is by definition a total lack of hope. Bane refers to false-hope as a form of despair - but only if you know the hope is false, in which case - why are you hopeful? It makes no sense, but it sounds good. Then, Bane occupies Gotham, forbidding anyone to leave or enter. He also has the people live under fear of nuclear destruction. Not a particularly hope-inspiring environment (nor is the image of empty streets coated in snow - that evokes oppression and fear, not the false-hope of a people who think they are winning their freedom). Not to mention that the people of Gotham seem to believe him, especially with regards to Gordon's note about Harvey Dent, of which he provides no evidence for its authenticity. It is the most basic plot to service the story brief of 'Bane then creates a revolution'. Why not play up the obvious injustice of the Dent act earlier, have actual civilians picketing against it throughout the first act? It would add believability and give the people a better reason to support Bane, but alas, the Dent act is described only once, and it is said to have brought crime to its knees and is pretty much the greatest thing ever (because how else would a city no longer need Batman). Perhaps you can argue the throw-away line somewhere in the mayors speech he mentions 'some people are talking about repealing the Dent Act'. So they knew there was that element - they just did not bother following it through. Which follows into my next point...
"I'm only telling you this once" - This is something Nolan does a few times in this film (and other films), he presents a line of dialogue that explains something about a character, but never continues that idea any further. For example: "They're dumping him in the spring" was played up in trailers, and even in the films opening, yet it fails to pay off. I know it was an attempt at foreshadowing, but it ends up as being unnecessary from a plot point of view. Surely something else could have prophesied the growing gloom in peace-time better than that. Next, in the same scene, we learn that Gordon's family moved out and left for Cleveland. This is obviously a device to have emotional pressure hang on Gordon, showing how his job is taking over his life, but he never really seems any worse off than in the other two films. It is never referred to again, and Gordon's poor mood can more easily be attributed to the direct tragedies of the film itself (such as a bullet to the leg, Bane's revolution, etc.), rather than the loss of his family. This is a treasure trove of emotional storytelling possibilities that go ignored.
The conclusion is that Nolan sees this as a 'you have been told, now you know. My job is done' kind of deal. He does not linger on these things because he thinks all he needs to do is tell us something happened and we will accept it, without him following it up with some visual/emotional weight. That is the difference between knowing something happened and feeling the impact, we may as well be reading an essay. As long as information is provided, the audience will fill in the blanks.
This can be said for the numerous 'plotholes' people keep mentioning. On that note - I agree that most, if not all, are not actual plot holes. They are sometimes jarring gaps of story never explained, and as people have shown, they can be filled with assumptions. However, does that let the filmmakers off the hook? No. The big one is "Bruce Wayne arrives back in Gotham... somehow." Yeah, its not explained, but it IS possible to catch a boat from India to America within the time limit and arrive in time the way he did. It is possible that his ninja skills helped him sneak past quarantine. However, it seems like an arduous journey, right? Does it feel like it - no. He arrives quite chipper, almost like he does this all the time. Even the Special Forces guy 'Captain Jones' is shown sneaking in on a food truck, why not Wayne? Why not just one single shot of him jumping off a boat or something to indicate what happened. That is why so many people hate that scene - because it does not FEEL like he made it back to Gotham.
Blake knows Batman's identity. How? I can see the thematic implications of two angry orphans recognizing each other, and again "It just had to happen so other stuff can happen later", but how it's explained plot-wise is not good enough. Surely at least one other orphan has lost his parents to a killer and is angry. Why is Blake the only one to work it out (as a child, meeting him once - never meeting Batman to draw a connection, not knowing Batman also lost his parents which seems the main bit of necessary info, etc). Another issue with this is that it comes directly out of thin air. Its jarring that a new character suddenly reveals what no other man or woman could. Sure, it’s explained thematically, but its just so unbelievable that it seems lazy on the part of the writers.
Next we have the Tahlia al g'hul plot - or the 'League of Shadows' plot in general. Much of what I could say is subjective, so I wont say it here - but I will say that this plot really does repeat a lot of the story of Batman Begins. Bane and Tahlia want to blow up Gotham to restore balance. Batman has to 'repeat his training' in some respects and stop the league. While there is nothing technically wrong with this plot, it is charted territory for this series. We have seen this threat before, and it’s not original. They needed to follow up The Dark Knight with something big - and they had potential with Bane the Revolutionary Warrior - but they retreated to familiar waters and it is noticeable. However - there is an argument that this was all part of the plan to tell the story of Wayne having to re-take the journey of becoming batman after losing his way after his battle with the Joker etc. After all, the scene when Alfred comes to bring Wayne his green health-shake and finds him in the bat-cave is almost a shot for shot remake of that sequence from The Dark Knight - on purpose, no doubt, to show the parallels. I understand all that stuff, but they did run the risk with that idea that by repeating the same trial for batman also means the audience re-watching the same battle - one we enjoyed already, and already felt the catharsis for. There was potential for people to just get annoyed at the repetition and see it as somewhat of a lack of creativity.
Pacing: The pacing is all over the place, and once again, the structure is completely secondary to Nolan's idea of building to a huge climax. The first act is very slow, despite some rapid editing and fast exposition of new information - which makes it bloated, thus drawing out and seeming even longer. The first hour and ten minutes (thats about when the Batman/Bane fight starts is probably a summary of somewhere between a week and perhaps three weeks (if I'm being generous). Then there is Bane's revolution sequence. This section arguable contains the most heavy story stuff, yet it feels rather rushed. This is mainly because Bane's whole revolution takes up almost 20 minutes of that, mostly in the form of a montage. And of that, only about 2 actual minutes shows citizens in action - rioting etc. The rest is of explosions or of Bane and his men talking/giving speeches. It makes it feel like such a brief little thing. Then 3 months flashes by an around half an hour. Wayne returns at almost exactly the 2 hour mark. Why not make all of that 50 minute sequence part of the revolution? It would both give the revolution more impact, and also relieve some of the very slow sequences of the post revolution depression. It would also give Wayne more horror to feed off during his recovery. It would also make the revolution seem more like the people were descending into Bane's trap of false hope, rather than the oppressive silence that is in the film, which almost contradicts Bane's intentions (unless that's a subtext I missed - that Bane fails to instill false hope?) - I will go into the French Revolution sequence more later on.
Writing: I have separated this from story because they are somewhat different beasts. This is mainly about dialogue and character stuff. Firstly - the expository dialogue. I will only talk about two examples here:
"The Blank Slate" - Daggett's dialogue is just awful here. Catwoman has him pinned and demands the device. His exposition is intended to explain everything to do with the device in one handy bite sized packet, but it could be softened with a simple re-ordering of lines. In the film: Daggett explains the device in unnecessary detail - even mentioning 'just type in your name, date of birth' (why do we need to know that? Its assumed) and then ends with "doesn't it sound a little too good to be true?". The aim here was for him to be patronizing, but it comes off as forced - because it is. Had he started with the line "doesn't it sound a little too good to be true?......." he could proceed to list (some of) the details of the device, and it would feel more like a taunt. Like he's making a fool of her. I was surprised they did not come up with that themselves, considering the praise their writing often receives.
Second, is when Captain Jones arrives, moments before he is killed, where Fox and Blake explain the Bomb. Blake actually says "This bomb is a time bomb." Not only is that line kinda goofy in such a dark movie, but it is something that we, as an audience, have had explained to us already - without expository dialogue. We have seen the countdown clock ourselves, Dr Pavel and Bane explain the unstable reactor to us. This whole conversation is more than unnecessary, its a waste of our time and could even be seen as an insult to our intelligence. Jones could have been briefed off screen. Really the purpose was for Fox to reveal how much time is left - but a shot of the bomb timer would have done that. Or Bane could have checked it. Or Jones could have just asked Fox that by itself and leave it there.
Characters: there are some paper thin characters in this film. Foley, Daggett and Captain Jones are the worst. Foley is the most cliched and stereotypical jerk cop imaginable. He is obsessed with furthering his career, he does not respect the main characters, he is a secret coward - but at the last minute he is actually the biggest hero of them all. He's like a Disney character. This is not necessarily a negative – people love Disney – but in a film that is following from a ‘genre bending game changer’ like The Dark Knight, it’s kind of like a slap to the face.
Next is Daggett. He is a plot device more than a character. He hates Wayne for monetary reasons, and so agrees to help Bane (or rather hires Bane, or thinks he is in control of Bane for some reason) in exchange for absorbing Wayne's company through making Wayne bankrupt. Once this happens he is killed - the concrete-bomb stuff was all handled by others after his death. His interactions with the board serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the story, and everything else he does is devoted to providing early exposition for things like the blank slate, the clean energy project etc. His real purpose in the film is to scare Wayne into trusting Miranda Tate (who he has never met up until that party they went to – unless she has a golden reputation with loads of character references) and then once Bane (not Dagget) bankrupts Wayne, he will entrust Miranda with the location of the Reactor. Its pretty flimsy, considering Dagget’s motivation was secondary to this (simple greed) and Bane would have bankrupted Wayne no matter what (symbolically ‘breaking’ one of his great powers) – so if he was to trust Miranda regardless, there was no need to have Dagget leaning over his shoulder. All that aside, if he MUST be part of the story in order to overcome the plot hole “Wayne his hidden the reactor, so how can Bane find it later?” (plugging that hole is basically the only reason they included Dagget so much in the film), why not flesh him out into a real character? Why kill him so early when he could play a part in later events, even have a character arc - perhaps as the rich are targeted by the 99%. He is the bare minimum of a major talking role.
Captain Jones: I checked how long this guy is in the film. Its less than five minutes. Why is he in this film? He arrives - then talks to Gordon and we see how they hope to locate the bomb. Then he visits fox and Blake for the aforementioned awful and unnecessary ‘time bomb’ exposition, then he is shot and Bane crushes his neck. What was achieved there? Surely some other solution could have been invented to not require this character. Or perhaps give him a more worthwhile part? Maybe he was a big player but they just edited him out? Who knows?
Then there are some truly terrible lines. "No, I came back to stop you." made me laugh out loud at its stupidity. Wayne descends the stairs in Wayne manor not one day after Alfred abandons him (at least I think so - in the language of film its only two cuts later - therefore very soon after, even if Nolan meant it to be 100 years later or whatever) and asks "Alfred?" - Now I saw that coming in the theatre and was praying they would not do it. Needless to say I was disappointed. How did he forget Alfred left? How did the writers think we would forget? It cant be because they want us to feel like Wayne is having a hard time adjusting - as Fox says "Opening your own door now?" and he explains to Tate how he never needed a key to his own house before. Even if you argue that maybe he was tired after waking up and there was a force of habit to ask Alfred - its such an unnecessary line that they should have just cut it. Its just plain stupid. This level of writing is far lower than what we expect from someone like Nolan.
Then we have the sequence when Wayne sleeps with Tate. In The Dark Knight, we see how upset Wayne is about Rachel, in Rises, we see that part of his reclusiveness is about her death - he still cant get over her. He has at least two framed photographs of her in his house, probably more. Then, we are told that he has not yet met Tate - not until later at Miranda's party do they meet. He then sees her a couple more times and they go back to his house. She actually asks him about Rachel, holding up her picture. Then two seconds later they are sleeping together. This feels very forced - once again "It needed to happen" I guess. Although, does it? Do they need to fall in love? Because later he falls in love with Selena Kyle really easily as well. When did he get his mojo back?
Tone: This film is a sequel to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight - arguably (and widely accepted as) two of the best superhero movies ever made. They are groundbreaking for that genre because of the realistic and dark tone - how Batman lives in the real world (despite a few sonar machines and other small stuff). Overall, these are dark, realistic, serious and somewhat intellectual films. The Dark Knight Rises does a little of that, but it also accidentally became a silly action film as well. It just does not fit as well with the previous installments, as if it forgot what series it is part of. A good example of this is the scene where the SWAT team come to rescue the congressman. Rather than a more subdued raid on a building full of civilians, the SWAT team start a small war in the back alleys. This is not a battle that developed because baddies started putting on the pressure and forced the SWAT to escalate to a shootout - no, everyone opens fire pretty much at once, and spark are flying everywhere like a scene from a Schwarzenegger film. This scene goes so crazy so suddenly that it feels like the action writers guide "Now we need an action scene or kids will get bored" kind of thing. Its just so over the top. I have read interviews where Nolan has said that he really wanted to make a large action film - a war film. He wanted to do a ticking bomb just because he likes film noir and that is a staple of Noir suspense (he actually said that, not making it up). I also know that he really wants to make a Bond film etc. He wanted the revolutionary city to feel like a Russian war film etc. Why? It seems he has just picked and chosen things he wants to do and has used this film as an excuse to do them. They don't really suit this series because they were more like crime stories, this one suddenly goes mental and it seems only because Nolan saw a chance to live some dreams. Not because the film needed it but because he wanted to. The result is a fun, over the top action film forced into the tight mold of a Nolanesque Batman crime film. It alternates between sequences of philosophical ideas to stuff like planes being pulled apart by other planes. The Truck flip was as far as the Dark Knight went, and it was great because of its simplicity. No flames, no loud noises, no music. But here we have literally everything in Gotham explode from concrete made out of bombs, a fist fight with cops and terrorists on wall street and men punching holes in stone pillars. It would be fine to have one or the other, but together they form an unusual monster. If you see it as an intellectual film then its stupid and nonsensical a lot of the time, if you see it as simple fun then it’s pretentious. The mid point is just a strange film that does not know what it wants to be.
Posts: 305
Joined:
April 2010
i wrote my final paper for a Film Theory class on TDKR, but im too shy to post it 
