The Dark Knight Rises (A Review)

Before We Begin:

Super Hero Season 2012 comes to a close in a very somber mood. While Christopher Nolan‘s The Dark Knight Rises is one decent film, its opening was marred by the Denver shootings during its midnight screening, effectively hurting the film’s sales, but more importantly, tragically changed the lives of the survivors and the victims’ relatives. So before we proceed with the review, let us offer a moment’s silence for the victims of the Aurora Shootings. May the Heavenly Father welcome them into His kingdom, and may His grace bring comfort to all those affected by this tragedy.

…

…

…

I wasn’t kidding when I say that The Dark Knight Rises effectively brings Super Hero Season 2012 to a close, despite it being a somber close. What we have here is something of an anomaly. While the film’s disappointment isn’t quite surprising considering that a third film in a trilogy usually is the disappointing one to say the least (yes, I’m looking at you Matrix Revolutions, X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, The Godfather Part 3), this movie manages to dance around it’s underwhelming qualities and give us, thankfully, a satisfying conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. It’s definitely not the best superhero film I watched this year (controversial statement alert, I’d have to go with The Avengers), but thanks to a magnificent story and screenplay, some standout action sequences, stellar acting, and some of the best cinematography and musical score out there, The Dark Knight Rises is a pleasant and satisfying entry in Christopher Nolan’s filmography.

The Good (Possible Spoilers Alert!!!)

What I enjoyed most from this film is the core human story. I’ve mentioned time and time again that despite having a relatively mediocre filmmaking, a core human story would more than compensate for a film’s flaws. Taken is testament to that claim. Sure, it’s basically a Jason Bourne wannabe, with the gritty hand held cinematography and the brutal hand to hand combat, but what most enjoyed in the film, aside from the action sequences, is the story of a father rescuing his daughter from a bunch of Arab slave traders.

That said, The Dark Knight Rises is probably the most human of the three Nolanverse films. This is primarily a Bruce Wayne story. More specifically, it’s a conflict for his soul. Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, the film shows us a damaged Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), suffering from the injuries sustained from his showdown with the Joker and Harvery Dent, as well as grieving the loss of his beloved, Rachel Dawes. But with the emergence of the masked menace known as Bane, Bruce must take up his cape and cowl once more. But Bruce isn’t the same person he was eight years ago, and is literally no match for Bane. As Bane breaks Bruce (literally and figuratively), Bruce must finally come to terms with his doubts and his fears in order to defeat the evil consuming Gotham. He must trust in the once corrupt Gotham police force, his own misgivings, and Alfred (played by an ever fantastic Michael Caine) who’s main concern is for Bruce to finally move on with his life, away from the destructive force that this the Batman.

Yes, I purposely left out the significant plot details as the Bruce Wayne storyline is definitely the best human story I’ve seen this year. What we have here is a battle for the soul. While the Batman symbol was good for a while, just how long can this lifestyle remain healthy for Bruce? He lost the love of his life, resorted to a lie in order to prevent the Joker from completely winning, and is basically rotting away in his mausoleum mansion. Despite having donned the cape and cowl once more, it only led to more suffering, not only for him, but for the rest of Gotham. Thus the Rises in the title because this film is primarily about Bruce finally coming to terms with the tragedies of his life, and finding redemption for the Batman as Gotham City‘s protector.

Enough philosophizing. After all, this film is still a summer blockbuster. The one thing I have to say about this film is how absolutely gorgeous this film looks and sounds. Wally Pfister shows his naturalistic flair, thanks to the high quality IMAX images. The panoramic shots of Gotham City, the opening hijacking, and the epic third act showdown between the forces of good (Batman) and evil (Bane) all look stunning on IMAX. While, sadly, we are still far from a full-length 100 % IMAX film, The Dark Knight Rises is definitely the closest we can get. Additionally, while Nolan and Pfister’s shots aren’t as stylish as most filmmakers nowadays, it does evoke a certain Kubrick sense of a cold and calculated composition of shots. Forget about the flair, what we’re looking for is a superb image quality.

Additionally, Hans Zimmer‘s brutal score effectively accompanies the images on screen. While they may not be the best for a pure album experience, Zimmer’s score is definitely perfect for the film. While it still doesn’t match the thematic beauty of Danny Elfman’s score for the 1989 Batman, his score packs a whallop as it makes the events on screen feel even bigger than they already are.

Finally, while most of the cast did great, the standouts for the film would be Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy. For those who still hate Anne Hathaway’s portrayal of Selina Kyle, you guys should definitely bleed out like the stuck-up pigs you are. Hathaway’s voice and facial antics make her a pretty believable Selina Kyle in the Nolanverse (most especially in the opening burglary sequence in Wayne Manor). As for Tom Hardy, while he cannot possibly top the ferocity and the visceral quality that the late Heath Ledger brought in as the Joker, his take on Bane is just still a pretty menacing take on the villain. And my goodness, those eyes: Tom Hardy made Bane even more menacing just with his eyes. In fact, Bane reminds me of a more terrifying Darth Vader than a Batman villain.

The Bad

I did say that this film is something of a disappointment, didn’t I? Let me point out that this film is definitely solid. The filmmaking is solid, the plot is solid, and the acting is solid. Just what is it that make this film such a disappointment? While I exactly cannot point it out explicitly, at best I would describe this film as less visceral than The Dark Knight.

What exactly does this mean? Remember when the Joker did his magic trick? Remember when Nolan and company flipped a full semi-truck in Chicago? Remember that moment when Gotham’s prisoners and law abiding citizens refused to blow each other up? Remember when Rachel died and Harvey became Two-Face? If you do, you’ll understand when I say that you won’t find those visceral thrills in this film.

In a way, I’m quite relieved that Nolan stuck to his vision for the film. He didn’t sell-out or anything (no trying to be more profound like in the second and third Matrix sequels), he just wanted to tell the story as best as he could by sticking to the theme. And that, I think, was the “downfall”. The film didn’t opt for the “cheap visceral thrills” that made The Dark Knight so unforgettably good. It was more of the spiritual redemption of Bruce Wayne. Take note that what I’m saying that it was the human story that sold this film, this “intellectual” quality of the film was probably not what most film-goers thought when they entered the cinema. Hell, I sure didn’t expect it to be the way it is: I was expecting something even more visceral than The Dark Knight. I guess what I’m really trying to say here is that The Dark Knight Rises isn’t what me and probably most other audiences expected.

The Verdict

I watched this film three times: first on IMAX, the second on a regular screen, and the third on a bigger IMAX  screen. If I absolutely hated this film, I would have stopped after my second viewing (like what I did for Prometheus). This just shows that despite it’s flaws, it’s still a very enjoyable film. Sure, it’s not Dark Knight, it’s impossible for Nolan and Co. to top themselves after The Dark Knight and Inception. Lightning sure wasn’t captured in the bottle, but the bottle did capture some of the energy, leaving that bottle glowing.

Oh, additionally, IMAX is the way to go for this movie. While the standard screen is still good, it’s definitely worth your money on IMAX just for the picture quality and the sound.

4 stars out of 5.

P.S. – The film neither ended with a bang nor a whimper. It was just an “okay” film. But to call a Christopher Nolan film to be “just okay” is definitely disappointing.

Post-Prometheus Reflections

*being more of a reflection than an actual review, expect MAJOR SPOILERS 

As you guys know I finally gave my review of Prometheus last Wednesday, and the verdict was that it was a disappointment. Looking back on it, I feel like I may have set my expectations way too high once more (like what I did for my Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1). After all, I have to admit that I am a huge fanboy of Alien and Aliens and that may have clouded my judgment of Prometheus. With this, I decided to try to take a closer look at the film and critique it on its own terms: a post-review analysis judging Prometheus as a film separate from any preconceptions of Alien.

At best, I would have to say that the film’s biggest weakness is the script. The characters are mostly redshirts, you wouldn’t care for any of them if they die. While some would say that Shaw’s, Vickers’, and David’s characters are engaging, it was more of the actors’ talent than the script’s strength (after all, we ARE talking about Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, and Michael Fassbender playing them).

Another weakness of the script would have to be the leaps of logic and the plot-holes. While some might argue that the film is setting up for a sequel, remember that a narrative must have a sense of completeness in them. Fine, the film’s plot was complete in one way or another: Shaw prevented the lone Engineer from flying to earth, that much is resolved. However, that doesn’t one basic question: why create humanity if they’re only going to destroy it afterwards? It would have been fine if the aliens coming to destroy us were a different type, but it wasn’t the case for Prometheus, Engineers were coming back to destroy Earth. Why? This question leads to another point.

One notable critic which I religiously follow mentions that the film seeks to tackle more cerebral issues. I have to admit that film does pose questions, BIG questions. This is a film trying to address concepts about creation, life, and the God-question: how did life on Earth come about, and why did a deity create life to begin with? Separating my conservative Catholic values and formation, these are questions which have always intrigued me because they are indeed thought provoking. How would  the created come to terms with a creator knowing that we were nothing more than an accident? These are concepts asked time and time again in the history of philosophy, and repeated explored by one particular author who practically gave birth to contemporary horror. To throw these questions to summer audiences is a huge gamble, considering that most mainstream audiences are looking for something straightforward in a movie.

Additionally, asking the Big Questions in a movie is one thing; film craftsmanship is another. If there’s one thing that film appreciation classes in the University taught us, it’s that the film’s point must not be separated from the form. Simply put, the film’s message (for lack of a better term) must be weaved in the narrative: it’s not enough that a character says, “sexual perversion is wrong”, that would be preachy. The better way would be to show, using a film’s elements of cinematography, editing, screenplay, and others, HOW sexual perversion is wrong (which is why, again despite of my conservative Catholic upbringing, I was able to appreciate Shame because of its craftsmanship).

That’s what Prometheus lacked; the melding of form and content. The character’s simply asked (in the most basic sense of the word) the Big Questions. Then when something scary appears they go, “Ah! Our geologist turns into a zombie alien, kill it!”. And they do kill it. If anything, the screenwriters broke the “show, don’t tell” rule in basic narrative writing.

Which leads me to my last point; the film wanted to do A LOT of things.  It wanted to be a thought-provoking film, a summer blockbuster, and a pseudo-prequel to Alien. I understand that Ridley Scott wanted to make a film set in the same universe as Alien. That choice might have been a huge miscalculation on part of the director for in trying to make a blockbuster with huge ideas in it, one is sure to sacrifice one element in the film. Serious film aficionados are sure to enjoy the Big Questions of the film (despite the lack of craftsmanship), while the Alien fanboys would probably want to see more of the Space Jockeys and the xenomorphs.

“But Evil Dr. Bok, you could make a summer blockbuster film while answering thought provoking questions! What about The Dark Knight and Inception? They questioned the very foundations of law and order, as well as the truth and relativity of the world. They also included amazing action set-pieces! Prometheus did the same!”

True, but remember what I said about craftsmanship and the melding of form and content: the film’s content was weaved along the storytelling. I need not give explicit examples; just remember the endings of The Dark Knight and Inception. Prometheus does not of that: they separated the Big Questions from the filmmaking. The film wasn’t cohesive enough to juggle the form and the content. In the end, we have a film suffering from an identity crisis.

In the end, the film suffered the Spider-Man 3 syndrome: in trying to include a lot of things, certain parts of the film were left half-baked. While the Lovecraft inspired questions were definitely appealing, they weren’t handled properly enough. However, I would have to give credit to the filmmakers for their gamble. They did come up with one of the most visually arresting films of 2012, and that alone would merit the surcharge for IMAX.

Still a 3.5 stars out of 5.