*The review starts after the picture, the introduction is before.
The difference between film and television has changed over the years. At first, television was B status compared to films. You couldn't get any of the magic that films have had on television. Especially when television started, it was more comparable to radio than to film. Radio shows turned into television shows, but films never turned into television. Sure, CBS or ABC would show a film on a weekend night, but television was never even thought of as anything to the quality of film. Even as the years went by, the most successful television programs could not be compared to film. The Golden Age of film was also around the time sitcoms started becoming popular. After Spielberg came in the late 70's and early 80's, summer tentpole films became the guarantee of the box office. The formula was simple, take a subject, any subject and throw lots of money, adventure, action, drama, romance and even comedy at it and make sure everybody knows they have to see it, and the summer movie was invented. However, the tables have turned. Despite the fact that the Golden Age of television is often referred to the genesis of television in the 1940's and 50's, the past decade or so has been the start of another "Golden Age". Sitcoms and procedurals become less and less worthy of critical acclaim while dramas more akin to film have taken over. Ever since the Sopranos aired on HBO, more and more programs have come and gone that can be described as a long movie. Hell, some of these shows are even better than most films released today. The summer tentpole has not been the guarantee that it once was, with studios anchor of the year being a hit or miss and new shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad earning the critical acclaim that the network used to own. Of course millions and millions of people still watch network and the numbers that Mad Men and Breaking Bad both bring would have them cancelled on any network, including the CW, but the fact is quality is becoming more important than quantity. Few directors in film today keep that in mind because if any director were to make a film as good as Mad Men and get the same results that Mad Men get would be considered a failure, despite the high quality. Studios are more and more motivated by profit, and it's hard for first time directors to follow their gut because their career depends on the film being profitable. With summer tentpole's failing, it's extremely rare to find a talented film director who takes risks by making the film they want to make which is released to universal acclaim while adding to the pile of money that the studio heads sit on. There's only one director I can think of working right now whose vision can gross you a billion dollars with a film with near perfect reviews without any cheap ploys or gimmicks. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Christopher Nolan.
Writer, director and his own producer, Nolan has a perfect track record. If your worst film is a thriller with Al Pacino and Robin Williams, which still made money and got good reviews, you're in the clear. Director of Memento, The Prestige, Inception and the current "Dark Knight" trilogy, Nolan is a man who is more akin to a magician than your average film director. He writes the project himself, puts together the damn thing, finds money to finance his vision and executes and delivers films you have to see to believe. Unlike Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan's films work on a lower level more accessible to large audiences. While being nowhere in the league of those two men I mentioned, he still manages to make good summer movies that challenge the audience to use their brain while showing you action sequences that make Michael Bay reconsider his Pyrotechnic Pyromaniac ways. Of course, Nolan wasn't always held to these high standards. Despite releasing Memento back in 2000 (currently #34 on imdB's top 250; peaked in the top 20) and Batman Begins in 2005, Nolan was just another studio director for hire. Even Warner Bros. wasn't fully convinced he was their guy after agreeing to only co-finance the Prestige. Batman Begins wasn't even the cash cow that they had hoped but it was still good enough to grant a sequel and what the hell, let's let the guy direct it anyways. A hyped up project from the beginning due to every actor in Hollywood, from Jack Nicholson and Steve Carrell, putting out a bid for the role of the Joker, Nolan stabbed fans in the back when he picked Heath Ledger. At the time, Ledger was coming off his Academy Award nominated and controversial role in Brokeback Mountain and was not thought of to be the Joker. Yes, I'm not making this up. People doubted Ledger. How can the homosexual cowboy who was in love with Donnie Darko match the performance of Jack Nicholson. Tragedy struck in January of 2008 where Ledger was found dead due to an accidental overdose. And just like that, The Dark Knight and everyone involved including Nolan found themselves on a pedestal. With early promotional material suggesting Ledger's Joker made Nicholson's Joker look like Bozo the Clown, fans were hoped, grief-stricken and psyched to see what Nolan had in store for them. Of course, most of his current fans now were unaware that the guy had yet to deliver a dud and would most likely soar through everyone's expectations. Even if he didn't, Warner Bros. still had a goldmine on their hands because they had what they marketed as "Heath Ledger's last performance" (with Terry Gilliam in shit's creek because Ledger was in the middle of his film at the time he died) and they knew fans would be lining up to see it and along the way giving them their money. Like in a cartoon, Alan F. Horn had dollar signs in his pupils. Of course, Heath Ledger did an amazing job with the Joker. Nobody could deny him that, but the fact that it was posthumous could have added to all the awards, recognition and praise he received due to the fact that he would never have a chance to top it again. Nolan, however, was not dead and the bar that he set for himself was so high the poor guy knew he couldn't do a followup just yet and probably thought he should let the hype die down a little. He just directed the highest grossing non James Cameron film at the time, he held all the cards. With Christian Bale backing Nolan saying he won't do another Batman without him, Warner Bros. had no choice but to let Nolan play his hand (which probably included some Jokers). As a result, we got a four year break in between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises with Inception sandwiched in between which still grossed over 800 million proving that Nolan could make magic on his own. When it came time to start production on The Dark Knight Rises, Warner Bros. gave Nolan notes on what they wanted for a third film (which included the villain as the Riddler with Leonardo DiCaprio as the top choice). Nolan, being the showrunner himself, presumably threw them away and started on his biggest production yet. Instead of the hype dying a bit as Nolan had hoped, the bar was still set high and the hype was in fact larger than it has ever been which, in my opinion, is the reason why the film didn't have as strong of a punch as it's predecessor.
The story was also a main issue for me. The Dark Knight's plot had a slow burn to it. You felt the importance of the events slowly sinking in you while this one started off with too much of a bang. It almost felt like another writer wrote the script. From the minds who brought us Memento and five other films in the top imdB's 250, you'd think that the Nolan brothers would make sure the script is ship-shape. In my honest opinion, it was flawed from beginning to end. Anne Hathaway stealing Bruce Waynes mother's pearls and then he had to get them back, it felt forced because that was what had gotten them together. I feel as if there could have been another way for her to get on his radar. Also Bruce Wayne being a recluse, that part I understand but then for him to jump back in the saddle happened so quickly. I felt the audience got an answer as to why he did, but did not feel why he did. And the ethos is what has driven previous Nolan films. That wasn't all that moved fast, the part where Gotham was taken over and Day 86 of Gotham being taken over was a mere ten seconds in screen time. The plot moved too fast and it didn't feel like the movie I had dreamt of every night more or less for the past 1,462 days. Then there is Miranda Tate, or Talia Al-Ghul as the internet called her for the past year. After an interview with the actress saying she wasn't playing the daughter of Ra's Al-Ghul, we get Talia Al-Ghul. And not only that, her arc was too scripted by far. The whole film we're told it was Bane who escaped the Lazarus pit when he was a boy and we see the images and Bruce says if Bane can escape, then I can. But nope, the images we saw were correct but Bane was the one protecting the boy, who happened to be a little girl. I also didn't think Nolan would resort to ticking time bombs for the main thrill. A ticking time bomb doesn't necessarily have to be a ticking time bomb but something that makes the characters take action right then and there before it's too late. Batman Begins had one but it wasn't the only threat, for this film the only driving force for the action is the ticking time bomb. And the government won't intervene because they don't negotiate with terrorists? It was a nice cameo to see Detective Quinn but that is not realistic at all. The government, in this case, would have a plan in motion to stop a "terrorist" from destroying a nuclear bomb in a city and endangering everyone's life. Let alone let it go almost three months before they do anything. The whole Gotham getting taken over because the League of Shadows wants to destroy it is bullshit. Ra's al Ghul even said that the reason Gotham needed to be destroyed was because of the extreme corruption and crime that the city entailed, and the opening of the Dark Knight Rises shows how much the city has been cleaned up. And by the way, where did Alfred run off too? So far it's been the past two films that Michael Caine spends no time on set. Is it because he leaks information to the press? Probably not but he was probably in Pittsburgh for a mere two weeks and then called in to shoot the end. Speaking of the end, I felt it was one of the biggest cop outs. Almost like executives saw the film and didn't like the fact that Batman died so they threw in some bullshit about the autopilot being fixed at the end and there you go happy ending. If Batman had died, I still would have been pissed but the fact that they let us know after that the autopilot had been fixed was too cheap. If they had slyly thrown it in there towards the middle or something, then nobody would have thought twice and then we saw him we would have been wondering how he survived? There is too much "And Nope" in this review but because there was so much of it in the film. Something we're told directly turns out to be false, unlike his other films where we were led to believe something and then we find out it's not true. It's different because it isn't definitive and we only think that because it's a logical conclusion and when the rug is pulled from under us, we beat ourselves up for thinking that. But why are only getting surprised in this film with a cheap ploy. Any script can tell you something and then negate it, the rug is still underneath me man!
For the positive things about the film. I really liked John Blake. His arc was cheesy but Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an actor who really is on top of game. Once a teen idol, he dropped from the spotlight, became a breakthrough independent star (Brick is one of my favorite films) and reinvented his career as an action hero. He'll probably be the new Robin for a new franchise for Warner Bros. I can't think of any other reason for them to include that in the end if it isn't for a new series of films. It's a way for them to build on what they already have without Nolan and without tearing it down again. Nolan said he won't direct any more Batman films and then he said he won't produce anymore Batman films, he never said anything about not producing any more Robin films. Plus, I feel that directing is becoming more and more of a second gig for him. Syncopy is blowing up and with Man of Steel coming in the next year, Nolan will be box office king yet again. Back to Robin though, Gordon-Levitt was the last to be cast and it was for a small role originally. It wasn't small and he was the moral center for me at least. He did the right thing and provided other characters to keep going on their arc. Also, Tom Hardy as Bane was an amazing performance. I didn't really understand his whole reason for doing everything like the Joker (his reason was Anarchy) but I did enjoy his performance. I've read people say this is Hardy's best role, but none of those people have seen Bronson ("Fucking cunts!" as Bronson would say before knocking every prison guard unconscious). The action sequences were also amazing, when Bane broke Batman's back the whole audience in my theatre clapped. It was a nice gesture for Nolan to include and iconic Batman comic book scene in his film. Everyone wondered how they would do the Lazarus Pit, we even saw that green lava picture from the set but they went about it in a real way. Once you climb out of it, you're reborn. The script as you can see is the major issue for this film, everything else was done superbly.
David S. Goyer left mid-way through writing the script to get a head start on Batman. He wrote the first two with the Nolan's. As anyone would have thought, it seemed as if Goyer was the odd-man out (I mean his past scripts included Blade) but I feel as if his presence was missed. Before I saw the film, I argued for Nolan against the haters that it seemed as if he had a choice to make. Either he would make an honest to good action film or he would write a good story. It seemed as if he chose the former. It would have been impossible to do both but in order to a film that would satisfy the fans, he did something that may have been easier for him to write and made more sense so the Inception haters don't tear him another one for confusing them. I feel that the negative backlash (the very little negative backlash) on that film is what ended up destroying the story for this one. He went back to the storyboards after Inception came out and was fresh on his mind that it made sense for it to be this way and I'm sad to see such a good talented filmmaker as himself make a summer tentpole that sacrifices creativity for dollar signs. Unfortunately, with the tragedy that happened early yesterday morning in Aurora, Nolan will not be making a profit for this film. It will end up making some money but the hit it took this weekend will be the reason it does not profit. No matter what the final number is, it could have been way more. They benefited from the last one, it's only karma that they hurt from this one.
Overall I give it a C+. The action was exciting but Nolan went for quantity rather than quality and because of that we get a 165 minute film that feels like 90 minutes, not in a good way.
(Sorry again about the review and if you had to read the whole thing. I've been too busy with these Shield write up's I'm doing that I haven't been able to get emotionally invested and they end up reading more like rant's. Anyways, let me know what you didn't or did like about the film or the review in general)
