SetGecko reviews The Dark Knight Rises

SetGecko reviews The Dark Knight Rises

Good action, good promise, good plot. Sloppy editing and too much expository dialogue.

Review Opinion
By SetGecko - Jul 29, 2012 10:07 AM EST
Filed Under: The Dark Knight Rises
Source: my head

Now, I was one of the people who trusted Nolan. Actually, I registered here just for Nolan's Batman news. I was waiting for this movie. With that being said, you might be a bit surprised about what I have to say. I will try to present my review in a few quick notes. Some spoilers ahead.

Disclaimer: I didn't see it in IMAX and I didn't see it in the original voice acting. However I will mostly focus on other things, so that shouldn't MUCH hamper my judgement, but be ready to take it with a grain of salt.


The Good:
1) Bane looked absolutely massive when Gordon is brought to him.
2) There is a bit in the second Bane vs Batman fight, where Bane seems like he is punching with light speed. I loved that. Ironically though, this is the only scene in the whole movie, where you can notice that Bane is shorter than Batman.
3) This movie didn't feel like 2h45min. I thought it was 1h30mins. Had to consult my watches, because I seriously thought there was some kind of fraud going on the theater. The plot is really tight, a lot of things are going on and despite what some other people say, I didn't feel like action was void for the first part of the movie. Actually, we get to the next action piece, involving Catwoman and later Bane, pretty quickly.
4) Anne Hathaway gave an amazing performance as Catwoman. I can tell that even without hearing the original voice acting. But I don't think she had enough screen time to warrant an Oscar nod.
5) I loved Bane's eye-acting. However, until I hear the original voice acting, can't judge him.
6) Some people didn't like how Bane was handled in the end, but I loved the reveal, his true role in the pit. That suited him, it was good.

The Bad:
1) I didn't like the way the story was told. There is a whole lot of big scenes, concerning the framework of Bane's plan that are only briefly discussed and you never feel the punch. Everything moves along too quick. I didn't feel any emotional connection with Bruce climbing out of the pit. The recovery was too soon, in the sense that there are 1-2 scenes where he is broken, and figuratively, the 3rd scene - he has escaped. Same with Bane filling concrete with explosives. Now, thinking back, it was ingenius, but it never punched me in the movie. It was so briefly metioned, drowned in some other dialogue, that I nearly missed it, and when I recollected, it was too late to have an impact on me.
2) Already mentioned it in the 1st, but this movie really lacked focusing on the framework. I liked how they explained how Bruce went bankrupt through options, how the concrete was mixed with explosives. But at the same time, there is this magical "clean list" program? the knee-brace, although I could forgive that. Then the supplies for the city. Only one brief scene on the bridge - and thats it, problem solved? I guess, there is no plothole there, but I didn't FEEL the supplies having any effect. The cops in the underground. We never see them underground except for one brief shot where they are eating conserves. And the next thing I know they are standing in the street. Again, ZERO emotional impact on me.
3) Now Bane's plan. He very effectively seized control of the city. for what? he turned out to be just some madman with a bomb. I guess, all the fuss with the revolution was brought to life just to buy time for the bomb to explode? Feels void. I won't even get in the wasted opportunity at moral ambiguity, with the revolution. And it seemed to me they didnt tribute French revolution, they kinda mocked it. It was done badly. And again, the city is under seige right? But there are no shots of people getting food, I don't know, getting terrorized, some new order Nolan INFORMS me that city is under seige, rather than SHOWING it.
4) Too much expository dialogue. Especially when the framework is concerned (how cops are doing under ground? explained rather than shown. How people were surviving 4 months? explained, rather than shown). It's like the movie is trying to convince you that it is good (by talking about how good it is), rather than demonstrating it.
5) In places I really felt that mask hampered Tom's acting ability. The guy does what could be done best with that strap on the face, but it stands in the way. It is cool to look at on the posters, but when it is movie time it hurts. Thanks to Tom's eyes and screen presence, that didnt turn into disaster. Also, from the pieces of original voice acting that I heard, he took advantage of that too. "I AM the lEAgue of shadOWs".


My verdict: good action, some good promise, good plot and good story, sloppy editing, too little focus on the framework to the point of unbelievability.
3/5, or 6.3/10

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Star Joseph Gordon-Levitt Reveals Whether There Was Ever Plans For A ROBIN Spin-Off
Related:

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Star Joseph Gordon-Levitt Reveals Whether There Was Ever Plans For A ROBIN Spin-Off

TDKR And INTERSTELLAR Star Anne Hathaway Credits Christopher Nolan With Getting Her Career Back On Track
Recommended For You:

TDKR And INTERSTELLAR Star Anne Hathaway Credits Christopher Nolan With Getting Her Career Back On Track

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Minotauro
Minotauro - 7/29/2012, 10:58 AM
Fair review.
GreenHalJordan
GreenHalJordan - 7/29/2012, 11:00 AM
I will agree that the editing was a bit off, especially the time lapses! In less than two minutes the plot-time jumped from a 3 month mark to a 4 month mark to a 1 week mark. I personally think it was a pretty great film, but I respect your opinion.
IwasGroot
IwasGroot - 7/29/2012, 11:42 AM
Finally, someone on this site with a brain reviews this movie instead of giving it a pass as the "greatest movie ever because Nolan made it and he is infallible!" Thank you SetGecko!! Nolan has made 2 masterpieces, and not one of them is a Batman film IMO!
GoILL
GoILL - 7/30/2012, 8:04 AM
Nice fair review SetGecko.
IwasGroot
IwasGroot - 7/30/2012, 2:36 PM
anyone notice that when an actual FAIR, well thought out review comes out saying the film wasn't that great, and has little (if anything) to argue with, No one shows up to discuss. If you had written an article sucking Nolan's nutsack, they'd be here in full force to praise you lol
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 8/1/2012, 3:34 PM
Thank you SetGecko for the review. It's interesting that you say it's based on how much you enjoyed the movie not how good the movie actually is.

I would be interested in the latter actually.

Personally I think this movie is beyond terrible. And what's really sad is watching/listening/reading nolan's worshippers extol praises for this cinematic abomination is that nolan is ltierally spitting in the faces of the viewers with the sheer overload of intelligence insulting rubbish onscreen. He is literally looking at us viewers and saying "You are morons and will accept this garbage because I am nolan."
IwasGroot
IwasGroot - 8/2/2012, 7:30 PM
Coldblood6@ although I wouldn't call it a COMPLETE abortion, it still was not an ENJOYABLE movie! Other than that, nail...head!!

SetGecko@ I looked at this movie from both sides that you mentioned. all in all it's all sort of the same though. If you didn't enjoy it, then it wasn't a good movie to you, which is how I felt as well. I didn't come out of this one saying "oh man, that was awesome!! I've gotta tell all my friends to go see this!" I came out saying "wow, what a depressing, disappointing movie."
View Recorder