Christopher Nolan's baroque opus is a worthy trilogy closer, both seriously epic and epically serious.
As the dust settles on another manic day in Gotham, a statue is unveiled outside City Hall. It is both a symbol of deep gratitude and a statement of defiance that says whatever the fate of its winged guardian – come siege or storm – Gotham will endure.
There's another layer of meaning here, a humble acknowledgement that Batman is bigger than any one filmmaker, that no man can wear the cape forever. It might be Christian Bale's unmistakable jawline set in bronze, but the mould will soon be recast. For better or worse, the dark knight will rise again.
And yet Christopher Nolan's vision – his hero – has surely been immortalised over the course of this outstanding trilogy. Not for any technical milestones the director has hurdled or because he has made a Batman saga for the ages, but precisely because The Dark Knight Rises is so inextricably rooted in the here and now.
Just as Frank Miller's graphic novel template offered a response to the capitalist hedonism of the late '80s, so Nolan's film addresses contemporary sociopolitical concerns – domestic and international terrorism, economic collapse, the decline of family values, the dissolution of community. A twentieth-century idol repurposed to soothe twenty-first-century ills.
Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, eight years since Harvey Dent's death ushered in a new era of civil harmony, freedom from organised crime, Gotham is waking up to a new threat. Bane (Tom Hardy) is the city's self-proclaimed reckoning, a menacing, merciless terrorist hellbent on reducing its inherently corrupt citizens (as he sees them) to ashes.
Superficially, Bane's prolapsed facehugger grill and whackjob accent make him a textbook comic book baddie. Crucially, however, his powers (like Batman's) are the result of circumstance, not some misc radioactive blunder or ungodly genetic buggery. He's also endowed with the brains to match his imposing bulk. Make no mistake, though, these newfound nemeses aren't about to settle down for a game of chess. Theirs is a straightforward heavyweight slog, a good honest cheek-bruiser that is stimulating and fatiguing to watch in equal measure.
Batman's greatest battles, of course, have always been with himself. Once a pillar of the society he has sworn himself to protect, Bruce Wayne has become a scruffy, self-pitying recluse, his restless psychosis compounded by the loss of the love of his life, Rachel Dawes. True to the character, he is again painted by Nolan as a deeply flawed protagonist, the tragic victim of his own vigilantism. A monster shrouded in myth and intrigue more typical of his exiled alter ego.
Never has the existential crisis of putting on the mask been examined so intimately. To that end it is Bale – so often overlooked throughout this series – who delivers the standout performance, undoubtedly his finest in the role. Together he and Nolan break Bruce Wayne down, body and soul, slowly, agonisingly, until both man and moniker are ready to be resculpted into something harder, something more robust and resilient than before. In the process our hero is left open to the minxy allure of Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle, a duplicitous presence whose seductive feminist purr is pacified in disappointingly conventional fashion.
Humanising a silver-spooned billionaire like Bruce Wayne has never felt so pertinent, not least because of the stigma that has become attached to the One Percent in the intervening years since TDK. And yet here is a film without a true emotional hook. An immaculately crafted, fatally clinical last hurrah that's dotted with dazzling exclamation marks, signed off with a mischievous ellipsis and underlined in cold-blooded ceremony.
Nolan's endlessly inventive use of in-camera pyrotechnics, coupled with Hans Zimmer's relentless percussive score, mean that, even at a rump-numbing 164 minutes, TDKR is nothing less than an awesome sensory feast. Not a dime of its estimated $250m budget has gone to waste. There's not a stodgy frame in sight. Neither a single spoken word nor spray of debris out of place. At once seriously epic and epically serious, this is blockbuster filmmaking of the highest order, and nothing more than that.
Can Bale and Nolan bow out with a bang?
A spectacular, towering feat of endurance cinema.
Despite its shortcomings, Nolan's series puts all other comic book franchises in the shade.
View 31 comments
Luke Jones
• 11 months agoMandy
• 11 months agoDumDumBoy
• 11 months agoJon
• 11 months agoNot saying it’s a perfect film though. The score didn’t bother me too much, but I thought Marion Cotillard’s character was a bit poor (not her fault). And I can think of a handful of other nit-picky things.
And it’s not the best of the trilogy. If you're waiting for a truly great Batman film well you must have missed The Dark Knight. It's hard to see how that could be topped.
Oh and the idea of a James Cameron version of the Dark Knight returns with Clint Eastwood is abominable.
I'm Batman!
• 11 months agoMatt Bochenski
• 11 months ago1. After the Evil Businessman has hired Catwoman to steal Bruce Wayne's fingerprints in order to stage a clever-clever financial crime and take over Wayne Enterprises, why does he then have Bane storm into the Wall St stock exchange and take hostages while executing that part of the crime? What's the point? And why, the next day, aren't all the trades that happened during this crime investigated or suspended? This is stupid.
2. How does Bane get Batman to a prison in the middle of nowhere in about 3 seconds? And how, more to the point, does Batman get back from Nowheresville to Gotham when the city is locked down, he has no money and is recovering from a broken back. This is also stupid.
3. Can anyone point me in the direction of a single memorable and/or classic action scene (or any scene) in this film to rank with, say, the Joker freeway truck heist bit from The Dark Knight Returns? I'm betting not.
octopusluke
• 11 months agoAs the last in trilogy, I think that TDKR left so many questions unsatisfyingly answered. It felt like a great deal of sequences were only used as plot continuations, rather than pivotal points.
As for your final question, I actually found the first Batman vs. Bane encounter to be pretty captivating. With no orchestration from Hans Zimmer in earshot, and some unrelenting close-ups, we saw the two battle it out in such a visceral way that was unlike anything else we'd seen in the previous films.
For me, it was the most disappointing of the trilogy, but still a brilliant blockbuster nonetheless.
jon
• 11 months agoLiz
• 11 months agoMatt Bochenski
• 11 months agoMatt Bochenski
• 11 months agoJon
• 10 months agoMatt Bochenski
• 10 months agoAnd also, of all the films, this one most definitely wasn't all about Batman. This is about the rest of the city's heroes having to step up and do their thing, whether that's Robin, Gordon or Matthew Modine.
On a minor side note, how bad was some of the editing? Talk about pulling punches for the rating. (SPOILER!!!!) Matthew Modine's death was shorn of any power at all because of the dumb cut that just showed him lying on the floor.
jon
• 10 months agoActress
• 10 months agoIs this review the author or does it represent the LWL collective view and or the Editor's view?
It would be fascinating to hear more on this film from LWL.
Rob Boffard
• 10 months agoTalia Al-Ghul escapes from the pit at, say, age ten, and is helped by Bane, who, judging from his appearance in the pit is about twenty...
In the events in the Gotham, Talia / Miranda doesn't look younger than thirty-five. That would mean about three decades have passed. Which would make Bane a healthy fifty.
Sorry, don't buy it.
Adam LWLies
• 10 months agoIt's my individual opinion, but we may well do a follow-up piece to offer a broader LWLies perspective on the film (and series as a whole).
ilikejoeparker
• 10 months agoThe second issue I had were the fights scenes, knew I should never have watched The Raid (Thanks LWL). They seemed infuriatingly slow, viscerally disappointing and unmemorable. Though I liked Anne Hathaway, every kick she did were shown slightly out of shot and the ones she did were highly unconvincing.
Finally, I thought the film as a whole had very few stand out moments that were 'Batmany', some of them looked plain terrible (the part were he is on the Batmobile and jumps past all the police cars was below average at best). The first third of the film dragged, plot holes already mentioned by Matt and clichéd dialogue.
Now I don't want to sound like a troll, I love that people enjoyed this film and it is their favourite of the series, I just can't quite see it. There were brilliant points, some of the acting was series best, the introduction to characters (though that twist was as obvious as a batarang to the face) and some interesting narrative concepts, thought I mainly wanted more Batman. For me, this is on par with Begins, 7.5 and still a must watch for any fan.
Just don't batman an eyelid if you are a little disappointed. Now I'm off to watch Spidey, Parker is a much better name to Wayne anyway.
Actress
• 10 months agoAdam LWLies
• 10 months agojon
• 10 months agoWatched it again last night, and possibly enjoyed it even more (which is rare). There's so much that Nolan gets right, I think it's unfair to focus so much (and I'm talking mainly about other some other reviewers here) on the small things he got wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't be called out, only that they're in perspective. LWL always gives a fair and unbiased review, but I've got the impression that many other critics were gunning for this before it came out.
Matt Bochenski
• 10 months agoMatt Bochenski
• 10 months agojon
• 10 months agoBut yes, there are many inconsistencies
Anton Bitel
• 10 months agoDutch_Manley
• 10 months agoHollie
• 10 months agoNolan should NOT have humanised Bane. The comic book character's back story is so brutal and profound, why did you have to cut his balls off and let someone barely significant take the credit?
Talia Al Ghul is a very deceptive character so it must be why he did this but...it didn't work! I thought it was unnecessary.
I really enjoyed watching the film and everything else that happens toward the end but was left so disappointed by the baddie twist.
Alec
• 10 months agoRoss
• 10 months agoRoss
• 10 months agoPadraig
• 10 months agoI first saw TDK on release week and loved it as much as anyone else, until I saw it a second time and wondered really whether I'd seen the same film. I found it to have real pacing problems, Christian Bale at his pompous best (or worst?), and during any scene Ledger's Joker wasn't present I was asking "Where did Ledger's Joker go?", so totally does he dominate TDK.
As for TDKR I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I do have issues with it. Hardy was fantastic as Bane, and any voice issues are not as problematic as the "Batman Growl". I'm not his biggest fan but Bale was the best I'd seen him for a long time. Again, there were pacing problems, and no real sense of timing - as Wayne disappears into the hole and shortly after POW it's the depth of winter and Wayne is free again.
None of these problems bothered me as much as - why are the Gotham police such pushovers? Is Blake the only cop who cares? The whole peace time/war time argument doesn't wash for me - it would breed incompetence and sluggishness, sure, but not SUCH complacency as we see here. In the first shoot out, not 20 minutes in, the commissioner and a full SWAT team pursue a gun-toting gang into the sewers. By my count we see 4-5 officers shot down by a sniper, 3-4 BLOWN UP in the sewers, not to mention the Commissioner himself disappears after them. Blake wishes to investigate, but the commanding officer berates him as "a hot head"? And continues to complain about Gordon and his "hot-heads", "We could do with a few less hot-heads around here"? A cinematic convention of city police is that of the biggest gang in town, the "legit gang" that you don't mess with, and will certainly come down hard on a cop-killer. This rings especially true in a film set in what is so clearly an allegory for New York. The Blake character evidenced these ideas perfectly, but what I found hard to believe was that he was the only one. Apparently it takes all 3000 of them being buried alive under the city to galvanise GPD into a willing deterrent. They can push us around, shoot us down, hospitalise us, run us over, make us look like idiots, but burying us alive!? That's just TOO much!
This may sound niggly and specific, but if it is so minor a detail to pick up on then it is surely indicative of larger problems that I haven't noticed. I agree I wasn't nearly so bothered by any issues with the Avengers, which may be unfair, but I also agree that Nolan's Batman wishes to be taken very seriously. Perhaps the fact we are taking it so seriously is an extremely high compliment.
That, and I do not agree for a second that it's a '12'.