The Dark Knight Rises Movie - Official DC Comics Batman Film Blu-ray & DVD | Perfect for Home Theater, Movie Nights & Superhero Fans

I just finished watching this for the second time (the first time was in the theater) so I thought I would write my review now. I was eagerly awaiting the release of this movie. I have been a huge fan of the franchise ever since the original Batman Begins [Blu-ray]. Whenever I am really excited about a new movie, I tend to feel a little disappointed the first time I see it. That is why I watched this movie a second time, and I definitely enjoyed it more the second time around. I am not going to give an overview of the plot. Other reviewers have done that. I am going to simply list what I liked about the movie (and one thing, at the end of my review, that I did not like). There are some spoilers in my review so if you have not seen the movie yet you probably should not read my review. This is also a very long review. Once I start writing I usually find it difficult to stop. Alright, enough preface, onto the review!I have always liked the idea of super hero movies, but there are actually very few super hero movies that I really enjoy. In fact, I do not even watch very many of them, because in my experience I am almost always disappointed with them. The three Nolan Batman movies are really the only super hero movies that I think get it right. There are a number of reasons I think these films work so well. Here are some of the reasons I think this particular film works so well.First, it is set in the real world, and not some cartoonish world. I realize that some super heroes can only exist in a cartoonish world. Batman is one of the only super heroes that is, ultimately, just a guy in a suit. When you start talking about actual super powers you have obviously left the real world. Still, I am amazed at how few super hero movies attempt to create realistic characters, with understandable human motivations. Christopher Nolan has done a great job in this film, and the other Batman movies, creating a whole host of interesting and realistic characters. Ra's Al Ghoul, The Scarecrow, The Joker, and Bane are, in my opinion, the most interesting villains I have ever seen on screen. Each one is different, they have different motivations, and, most importantly, they are each unique. Most movie villains are essentially interchangeable with one another, you cannot tell them apart. The villains in these movies are real, full blooded and fully realized, characters, and so are all the other characters. That, on its own, is a real achievement.Second, the writing is very good. I did not think that the writing in this third movie was quite as good as in the first two. There were some lines, which I did not write down and cannot remember off the top of my head, where I thought "I have heard that before". But mostly the writing is quite good. I have been noticing lately how many cliched scenes tend to show up in films and television. I am starting to get the feeling that there are ten or twelve scenes that literally get passed from writing room to writing room, implanted directly from one movie right into the next (how many times have you seen the "it's not your fault" scene?) I did not get the feeling that any of the scenes in this movie were stock scenes that I had seen in half a dozen other movies. The writers put some thought into what they were attempting to say. I especially liked the underground prison which, I thought, was a particularly good metaphor for a kind of Chekhovian despair, and the solution (climb without the rope) was a good piece of writing. I had a few minor quibbles with the overall plot, holding the city to ransom with a nuclear device, but ultimately I think it worked.Third, it is more complex than the standard super hero flick. For example, is Cat Woman a hero or a villain? I love the way that they decided to make her both. All of the Batman movies tend to move past the simplistic good guy/bad guy dichotomy. The world itself is more complex than that. Everything is not all black and white. It is rare to see any kind of moral complexity in a super hero movie.Fourth, the acting is superb all around. Christopher Nolan has a knack for picking really good actors. The repeat characters, or the characters that appear in all three movies, are all excellent of course. Some of the best actors in the world. And all the new characters in this movie were equally excellent. Tom Hardy is excellent as Bane, Anne Hathaway made an excellent Cat Woman, I have always been a big Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan, and Marion Cotillard, who I have had a minor crush on for years, was also excellent as Miranda Tate.Fifth, I love everything about Bane as a villain. Super hero movies are, in my opinion, more about the villain than the hero. If you have a really interesting villain then you are on your way to a really good movie, if you have a lackluster, or overly cartoonish, villain, then the movie is already ruined. Evil, for some reason, is just more interesting than good. The super hero is almost like the straight man. You need a good straight man. A bad straight man, or hero, can ruin a movie as well. But the hero represents us, the viewers, and our values. That is not where the true interest lies. The true interest lies in the villain. Bane is a very interesting and compelling villain. You feel his presence as soon as he enters the screen. Just the way he walks is enough to mesmerize. There is a scene where Cat Woman and Batman are fleeing from Daggett's, and there is a moment where Cat Woman turns around, there are probably a dozen henchman firing guns at her, and then there is Bane, just silently walking, and somehow Bane walking is far more interesting, and menacing, than all the henchman firing guns. He draws the eye, his presence is so much more powerful. It is only a split second, but it is one of my favorite scenes in the movie.Sixth, super hero movies need to be visceral and stir up emotions. I am a philosophy student, and I have actually spent quite a bit of time thinking about why people enjoy super hero movies. I do not really know the answer, but I have a theory. I think that super hero movies empower people. I think most people probably walk around with some unconscious fear or anxiety in their everyday lives. Bad things happen in the world. Even those of us who have never been the victim of a violent crime, know that they happen, and we have all probably been in situations where we were unsure of the outcome, where we felt things could go either way, or where we thought "If things go badly here I am going to be in a lot of trouble." I think that super hero movies are cathartic in the sense that they temporarily purge us of our fears. This movie does a good job tapping into that. There were a lot of "goosebump" moments in the movie for me, and when Batman finally starts to get the upper hand with Bane, you can feel it viscerally, in your body. That is what movies do, I think. They make you feel helpless (which is why you need a strong villain) and then they empower. This movie does that exceptionally well.Seventh, I know some people have complained about what they perceived to be the political message of the movie. It seems as if Bane represents the Occupy Wall Street movement. I do not know what Nolan's politics are, but I saw an interview where he said that they were just trying to show the cracks of society that people would try to wedge open. I actually think that was a good device. It made the movie more realistic, and it tapped into emotions that are already there. That is part of what made the movie visceral. Movies cannot create emotions in people out of thin air, they have to tap into emotions that are already there. I think the movie did a good job tapping into emotions that already exist in our society, complains that people already have, without becoming an overt political statement one way or the other. I think it made it a more powerful movie.There is one minor complaint I had with the movie. I know there were some plot holes, but plot holes, unless they are particularly gaping, do not usually bother me that much. I try to look at things from the writer's perspective. Movies are not meant to be carbon copies of real life, so it makes no sense to demand absolute realism from a movie. If you want absolute realism just live your life. Life itself is very realistic. So I am not going to go through the movie and pick apart the plot holes I thought I saw.There was, however, one place where I felt like the writer's made a real mistake, and that is the way that Bane was killed. Now, it makes total sense that Batman would have a "no gun" policy. When I say "it makes total sense" I do not mean that it makes sense from a moral standpoint, or from the standpoint of realism. No one has any moral objections to cops carrying guns, so they should not have any moral objections to Batman carrying a gun, and I am not sure it is really realistic to assume that a vigilante would adopt a "no guns" policy, for the same reasons that police officers do not have a no guns policy. When I say it makes sense I mean that it makes sense from a movie maker's perspective because Batman is a super hero. No one wants to watch Batman have gun battles. People want to see Batman fight, hand to hand, up close and personal. A hand to hand battle between Bane and Batman is way more interesting and engaging than a gun battle would be. However, it is not a good idea, in my opinion, to constantly remind the audience of the fact that Batman has that "no gun" policy. Particularly when a nuclear bomb is involved.The notion that Batman would still object to using guns when the city is being threatened with a nuclear device is obviously ridiculous. Now, I am not saying that the writer's should have given Batman a gun. Like I said, the audience wants to see Batman fighting, or using his bat stars, not shooting. What the writer's should not have done, in my opinion, is remind the audience over and over that Batman is not using guns. By having Cat Woman ride in on the bike and just shoot Bane the writer's are just reminding the audience that Batman could have killed Bane at any time if he had just been willing to use a gun, and just in case there are any audience members who do not make that connection immediately, they have Cat Woman make a "humorous" quip about Batman's no gun policy right after she does it! Why would you remind the audience that Batman could have killed Bane at any time? Perhaps they were trying to "own it" by getting out ahead of the criticism, but it tends, in my opinion, to undercut the whole movie.Bane took over an entire city because people were afraid of him. Why was everyone so afraid of him when anyone could have just shot him at any time? You do not want the audience to be thinking about such things, which is why I think they should have found another way to have Bane killed, and they should not have highlighted Batman's no gun policy (like the fight scene with Cat Woman). The no gun policy was already established in the prior movies, it should have gone unspoken in this one. That is a minor issue, and it certainly did not ruin the movie for me. All in all, I felt like this movie met my expectations, which were extremely high after the first two movies. Alright, that is the end of my review. Sorry it is so short. I just could not really think of much to say...