Dark Knight Rises, The
For me, there was only one major annoyance in Nolan’s last Batman film, one piece of horrendous screenwriting as opposed to the dozens in The Dark Knight. And Rises could easily have gone even more emo. But it has jokes here and there! An actual sense of fun! Drawing further comparison to that superior original entry, the set pieces are interesting and exciting and not entirely borrowed. The opening will blow you away.
Okay so after that you won’t see any action for a while, which in itself is no loss but for the fact that the film has no real momentum (build-up scenes functionally too repetitive) until the last act, at which point the easiest movie comparison is actually X-Men: The Last Stand. Like the tertiary edition to Fox’s franchise, this is the point where the world itself changes in a significant way. And also it has a silly mass street brawl. Interestingly, Nolan opts not to show enough detail to let the situation really sink in.
Perhaps it’s because this is not just an ideologically troublesome movie. The last two had perhaps the benefit of the doubt in their ambiguity. With its actualised moral compass Rises is disturbingly closer to the Frank Miller end of the spectrum than Alan Moore, though it borrows liberally from both (and not just their Batman stories). But it is nonetheless fascinating as it (meanwhile) rounds off its modernist vision of the city.
At its best, Rises is as exciting as Begins. And, unlike that middle chapter, it’s actually interesting. Also, Anne Hathaway in latex on the Batpod. One of Nolan’s better films, then.
Agggh, how the hell did you see it first?! Anyway, I’m glad you liked it! Funny that Ebert said there wasn’t enough fun in this while you say there is! : p
1) I am awesome. 2) Me too. 3) There was definitely a lot more than in TDK, though the same could be said of EVERY FILM EVER.
Did you find it predictable at all?
Sure, but not bad-predictable. Apart from the awful, awful bit. But there were some nice little surprises in there.
Enough to keep one engrossed for 2 hours and 45 minutes? Also, did you see it in IMAX?
Entertained, sure, which is an achievement I suppose given the lack of momentum. And yes.
I’ve been thinking of seeing it in IMAX and I know it would be awesome that way, but I get the idea that the images composed for standard screens are better composed overall. Too much “dead space” in the IMAX ones. I might see it in the US over the weekend, though!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DEAD SPACE
David, out of curiosity how did you find the performances of Hathaway and Hardy? Or Levitt? Glad to hear that at its worse, it’s still a perfectly enjoyable movie. That’s really all I could ask for.
Hathaway’s bum was amazing. Hardy is rather like Hugo Weaving’s V. I didn’t actually have that much trouble hearing him. At a couple of points in the film you have to struggle against the music to hear some of the other characters, though. Levitt actually plays a big part in this film. He’s a good presence.
Hehe. You may have got to see it first, but I will probably see it last.
so i’m guessing you were at the première?
Preview screening. They were meant to be simulcasting the premiere, but that didn’t happen. Yay blank screen for an hour and no phones!
LOOOOL