Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

The Dark Knight Rises Reviewed: The Legend Ends, But Not As We'd Hoped

by Joe Viglione
19 July 2012 10 Comments

The waiting is over, the hype reached fever pitch, the expectation levels higher than on any other film in recent memory. The verdict? Alas, The Dark Knight Rises just doesn't stand up to the previous two...

The Dark Knight Rises

Director Christopher Nolan is an authority on expansive visuals, just check out the trailer to Batman Begins on YouTube for a refresher course. And though this picks up where The Dark Knight left off, Rises actually continues the story of Batman Begins, almost as if the Heath Ledger film is a stand-alone, not truly part of the trilogy.

Ledger’s acting was so overwhelming that one would have hoped Nolan would have sought out another player with an opportunity to rivet filmgoers’ eyes to the screen. Alas, thespian abilities take a back seat to loud volume, dizzying explosives and a death march that makes for a brooding film that whacks the viewer right on cue. It’s not that Tom Hardy doesn’t play his Bane role with malicious delight, he does, but he’s also about as visible as Ted Levine was playing Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. Heath Ledger’s Joker was omnipresent, the big bad Bane (or Buffalo Bill) is the destroyer, find him…and then catch him if you can.

Thespian abilities take a back seat to loud volume, dizzying explosives and a death march that makes for a brooding film that whacks the viewer right on cue

The seriousness of the Nolan/Christian Bale collaboration is appreciated, though the director spends too much time each outing delving into moral dilemmas. That’s what drags this (and the previous) motion picture sideways. Just give us the Batman in his element, not Bruce Wayne involved in another identity crisis. It’s the same problem with just about every superhero movie having to be yet another “origin of Spiderman”, “origin of Superman”, “origin of Iron Man”…enough already. The audience doesn’t need to know “how” Buffalo Bill was created, so if the villains don’t get a bio-pic every time out, why should the heroes? As we’re at the third part of this series you, thankfully, don’t get that rehashing here, but you do get similar situations where Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) has his moral crisis, where butler Alfred (Michael Caine) has second thoughts (and third and fourth…) with only Lucius Fox (a splendid Morgan Freeman) no such personal dilemma this time around.

The two most fun actors in the film feature the all-grown-up 31 year old Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake (who was 15 years of age when he appeared as Demi Moore’s son in The Juror), and an utterly delightful Anne Hathaway (the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland) as Selina Kyle, the Catwoman. They are the heirs apparent to this franchise and both sparkle with a freshness missing from the standard bearers who have all played their parts twice before. Where Christian Bale seemed inspired to tango with Heath Ledger, to give his acting an extra push, there’s no such impetus here. This particular script doesn’t call for it when fans of the franchise are clamoring for the star of the show to exude strength and outsmart the bad guy(s). Commissioner Gordon gets knocked out of commission for a moment, Batman as well, their roles here about as entertaining as viewing your favorite baseball players on the disabled list – and the film suffers for it just as any major league team takes a hit when a marquee name goes down. Marion Cotillard (from Inception and Contagion) brings a James Bond-ish elegance to the affair, and gets an opportunity to make her mark and it is nice to see Matthew Modine back in action, another blast from the past who works fine in his role.

With an estimated budget of $250 million (about 20 million more than The Amazing Spiderman) it just seems in this era of The Avengers, Green Lantern, Green Hornet and so many more superhero flicks planned we could have experienced the Riddler in a Frank Gorshin-styled brilliance, playing cat and mouse as a more refined, less frazzled answer to Ledger’s the Joker. In a perfect world the Riddler would have entered the realm of the Dark Knight at this point in time, Bane/Dark Knight Rises coming off as a decent sequel to Batman Begins while trying to emulate the Joker’s art deconstruction but not with as much sophisticated chaos. The villains aren’t in the same league and without a great villain one needs to compensate. The compensation here is more volume, more explosions, less Batman, more mind games. It will work because The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger was such a landmark and we all want to see what comes next, but it is still a let down of sorts. Ledger won the Oscar, Tom Hardy won’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell. Not that he doesn’t enjoy himself, he does. It’s just that both the character of the Joker and Ledger’s interpretation were a perfect storm that would be tough to duplicate…so they didn’t even try.

It could have been so much more and as a bookend to this great reboot/series, it deserved to be much much more.

And that, dear reader, is where Director Nolan could have put his energies. Jake Gyllenhaal, coming off of a fantastic appearence in the Sci-Fi thriller Source Code is pliable enough to have riddled the audience…and the Batman…into submission. It would also have been a nice nod to Heath Ledger. Bane, as a villain, has the Darth Vader voice but not the Darth Vader charm. If Senator Lloyd Bentsen were still with us he would say “Bane, I served with Lord Vader. I knew Lord Vader. Lord Vader was a friend of mine. Bane, you’re no Lord Vader.”

Without the master criminal you don’t have the master plan. The Dark Knight Rises has lots of metaphors I won’t bore you with (other critics are on ‘em already), except for one: the repeated attempts of Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne trying to run up the challenging stone wall, trying to get out of the dark. It’s a microcosm of the entire film itself. The Bat needs to stay in the darkness…and what this bat movie needed was lots and lots and lots more bats. Of course you will have to check it out, and it will entertain – there’s no doubt about that.  It’s just that it could have been so much more and as a bookend to this great reboot/series, it deserved to be much much more.

If you enjoyed this, try these…

Kooks, Clowns, Kings And Cocksuckers: Cinema’s Best Rockumentaries

The Forgotten Roles Of Sam Rockwell

From Hitman To Max Payne: The Best And Worst Film Adaptations Of Video Games

Click here for more articles about TV and Film in Sabotage Times

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Markxist 2:17 pm, 19-Jul-2012

Nothing was going to top Heath Ledger. Once the films play that hand, their actual Joker, there's not many places to go. Look at the law of diminishing returns following the first Batman movie. Nicholson's Joker-fab. De Vito's Penguin-no. And so on and so on until we get Batman and Robin *shudders* The film needs to be watched with an open mind, almost choosing to ignore The Joker's appearance and, as such, it's a relief to hear that Nolan chose to consider his second film in the series as a stand alone, preferring to go to the first to close the chapter. If you go in just thinking 'Heath Ledger' or 'The Joker' I think you're going to miss the fun of this being another Batman movie.

Markxist 5:17 pm, 19-Jul-2012

'Jake Gyllenhaal, coming off of a fantastic appearence in the Sci-Fi thriller Source Code is pliable enough to have riddled the audience…and the Batman…into submission. It would also have been a nice nod to Heath Ledger. ' I disagree. I see what you mean but in casting Gyllenhaal, Nolan would have come under some serious flak in terms of measuring him up against Ledger. The criticisms would be huge-'not every Hollywood hunk can play psychotic evil', 'He's a poor replacement for Ledger' etc. Nolan needed to go in a completely different direction

Matches Malone 7:30 pm, 19-Jul-2012

I saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday and I cannot disagree with you more. This film and the previous one are two very different beasts. The Dark Knight is a straight up crime thriller, with The Joker being strictly a criminal as well as the thematic antethesis to Batman; where Bats stands for essentially order, The Joker is - as he himself states - an agent of chaos. On the other hand, The Dark Knight Rises is a film about war. Bane is not an agent of chaos. Bane is a mercenary, a terrorist advocating a new kind of order rather than all out chaos. I would want to say more on this but I do not wish to spoil this for anyone. If you're going to see Rises this weekend then you're in for a treat.

Doesn't matter 10:42 pm, 19-Jul-2012

I'll watch it on Sunday probably so I can't comment on this at the moment. What I will comment on is the Tim Burton movies. Whilst they were fine for the time Nicholsan massively over=played the Joker in a very unpleasant Camp way whereas De Vito just about nailed the Penguin perfectly.

Joe Viglione 5:59 am, 20-Jul-2012

Good posts all. I like different opinions. It's subjective, really, but Christopher Nolan gets a tip of the hat for being creative and, thus far, giving us the best look at Batman on the silver screen yet (and I'm going back to the 40s serials as well). For my personal tastes Bane - mercenary or not - just doesn't match up to what could have been had, say, Anne Hathaway been the main villain with more malice in her heart.

Devious Soul 12:05 pm, 22-Jul-2012

Anne Hathaway was quite brilliant in this, as was Michael Caine. I think the problem with the third chapter is that it was going to be nigh on impossible to top the second. Heath Ledger owned and made that film his own, a finer performance in such a movie I feel we will never see. It's also far too long. The Dark Knight flew by, this dragged in far too many places. Well worth a watch, but I was rather disappointed.

Milt 9:41 pm, 23-Jul-2012

Seeing the film very soon, so will defer comment on it. Just wanted to doff my cap to Doesn't Matter - spot on analysis. Nicholson was a hideous, woeful Joker. In fact, Nicholson was basically Nicholson. He seems to play an exaggerated extension of his own ego in every film he's in. De Vito was splendid as the Penguin, he was just let down by a slightly disappointing sequel.

Herp Derpington 3:11 pm, 24-Jul-2012

"the all-grown-up 31 year old Joseph Gordon-Levitt" i realised there that you dont know much about films or TV - as if he's been missing for 16 years or all his roles were as a child actor. Jake Gyllenhall? Source Code? That was a pile of wank - even sci-fi films should be slightly feasible within its universe ohh, "quantum physics and such - its vey complex" is all the explanation given. You definitely dont know what you're on about and you've never read Knightfall, DKR or No Mans Land

Doesn't matter 8:36 pm, 29-Jul-2012

Indeed Milt, have you got around to watching the latest installment yet? It was better than I expected to be truthful. I should really stop listening ti Internet "experts".

Doesn't matter 8:40 pm, 29-Jul-2012

^to Devious Soul, maybe I didn't just get it but I felt that Michael Caine lacked his normal sparkle in this. I'd need to watch it again really as perhaps that was the point he was trying to convey with his dissalusionment.

Leave a comment

Film image description SABOTAGE