After the chilling performance in The Dark Knight, the stakes were high for the third installment of the Batman trilogy, and unfortunately The Dark Knight Rises could not rise high enough to meet them.
I was surprised, considering how many good reviews I've heard. It seems the final Batman has the appearance of a good film--an intense score, action-packed fight scenes and the occasional ideological one liner. But it turns out all of this is purely formulaic, and in the end we're left with a regurgitated plot that stumbles around and never really finds a strong, motivating, convincing foundation.
The backstory behind Bane was certainly interesting, but I felt a little disappointed with the unveiling. Were there any hints about Tate's true identity? I missed them. Twists that aren't subtly foreshadowed are just a let down. I'd rather react this way: "Holy plot twist, Batman! That's awesome. Why did I not see that coming?" There should be clues so that if I went back and watched it again, I'd notice them.
In retrospect, I do realize I should have seen Tate's villainy coming since Batman always seems to fall for the villains in the beginning (see TVTropes: Dating Catwoman and Fatal Attraction), but that's not a satisfying enough hint for me.
Also, I love Anne Hathaway, but I never thought she fit as Catwoman, and I still don't. Although I attribute her annoyingness more to bad writing than bad acting. I cringed through the whole ballroom scene in the beginning: dialogue between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle just felt forced and awkward.
What I loved about Nolan's other two Batman films was how startingly fresh they were to me (note: I do not read the comics and am just comparing Nolan's movies to other Batman films that I've seen). Besides the fact that they were, for all intents and purposes, bringing back the villain from the first movie (since all the "new" villain is doing is "finishing her father's work"), this one felt more like the other Batman films... and that is far from a good thing. I guess some of those Batman films were critically acclaimed, but always thought they were corny and campy.
My boyfriend pointed out that what makes a good superhero movie is a good villain. After all, it is the villain that forces the hero to grow. It is the villain that fuels character development. It is the villain that makes us think. This is what makes The Joker one of the best villain characters in superhero movies. His antics constantly force Batman to question his decisions.
Contrast this to the villains of The Dark Knight Rises: Bane's character was two-dimensional at worst and mysteriously vague at best. Talia was just a female Ra's al Ghul, and she wasn't half as awesome as her father (well, who could ever really live up to Liam Neeson?). Furthermore, why did Talia wait roughly ten years before exacting her revenge? If it was because her plan needed "time to come into fruition," that's just stupid.
The most disappointing aspect for me was that Batman and Robin did not kick ass together. It was obvious from the beginning who Levitt's character was (even if they changed his name and backstory), so I anticipated for the entire movie an awesome action scene where Robin dons his mask and takes his place at Batman's side. And it never happened. Instead they imply that Robin is going to become Batman.
Speaking of Robin donning his mask, Wayne reiterates over and over to Robin that he needs to wear one to protect the people he loves, but 1) we never see him actually listen to this repeated advice and 2) it is not made explicitly clear who Robin would need to protect. I assume it would be the orphanage, but there is never an indication that the orphanage was in trouble because of Robin's identity in the first place, other than Batman predicting it would be.
So, ultimately, Batman failed to deliver on character development and plot development. But that's not really what matters in the end, right? Really it's whether you were entertained. The music was fittingly intense. The motorcycle chase scenes were exhilarating. And let's not forget the explosions! (Remember, the number of plot holes is directly proportional to the number of explosions.) To quote a friend, "It was all plot hole. Just--all of it. But stuff exploded! So whatever."
No comments:
Post a Comment