I disagree with the notion that there is no message or thesis about Batman in this movie other than the OWS-esque theme; the latter is Selina's theme, but it becomes clear pretty quickly that it's not a central idea to the movie. Nor were there two "back to Batman" phases in the movie, but only the one, which spans the entire film.
As I saw it, the movie showed two things. It shows a terrorist (i.e. Bane) able to control fear about as well as anyone in the Batman universe, and able to do it in a way that can't be contested by force (this is probably the most political the movie gets). And then it shows a Batman who had learned a little too well to control fear within himself, to the point where he didn't recognize that fear is as crucial to being a good hero as it can be a weakness. He approaches his first encounter with Bane with the ideology that all he has to do to win is conquer his fear of dying to take away Bane's power over him, and learns the hard way that it's a lot more complicated than that. The ideology causes him to embrace a too-Nilistic interpretation of "Batman is a symbol," which doesn't allow him to play to his strengths, because he believes it's alright to give his life to the cause, because Batman can be anyone (which completely zaps all motivation to actually keep his life as a high-priority in a fight, which becomes his downfall in that first one). He has to learn not to suppress or control his fear of death, but learn how to embrace and harness that fear to fuel his strengths, which allows him to finally defeat Bane in their second encounter. These two fights were easily the most emotionally-charged fights in the entire trilogy.
I thought the pacing was fine; it moved faster and had more urgency than Batman Begins, and I felt like whereas The Dark Knight went too fast at times, to the point where plot points were rushed over and therefore didn't have emotional weight, this movie finally found a good middle-ground between the two. I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.
I went into this movie thinking I was going to hate it (Bane of all villains? Anne Hathaway as Catwoman?), but I think it was the one that finally hit its stride in the series.
As I saw it, the movie showed two things. It shows a terrorist (i.e. Bane) able to control fear about as well as anyone in the Batman universe, and able to do it in a way that can't be contested by force (this is probably the most political the movie gets). And then it shows a Batman who had learned a little too well to control fear within himself, to the point where he didn't recognize that fear is as crucial to being a good hero as it can be a weakness. He approaches his first encounter with Bane with the ideology that all he has to do to win is conquer his fear of dying to take away Bane's power over him, and learns the hard way that it's a lot more complicated than that. The ideology causes him to embrace a too-Nilistic interpretation of "Batman is a symbol," which doesn't allow him to play to his strengths, because he believes it's alright to give his life to the cause, because Batman can be anyone (which completely zaps all motivation to actually keep his life as a high-priority in a fight, which becomes his downfall in that first one). He has to learn not to suppress or control his fear of death, but learn how to embrace and harness that fear to fuel his strengths, which allows him to finally defeat Bane in their second encounter. These two fights were easily the most emotionally-charged fights in the entire trilogy.
I thought the pacing was fine; it moved faster and had more urgency than Batman Begins, and I felt like whereas The Dark Knight went too fast at times, to the point where plot points were rushed over and therefore didn't have emotional weight, this movie finally found a good middle-ground between the two. I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.
I went into this movie thinking I was going to hate it (Bane of all villains? Anne Hathaway as Catwoman?), but I think it was the one that finally hit its stride in the series.
I agree 100% with this.Dr. Dan Challis said:I find the criticisms of the structure and pacing extremely odd; despite its length Rises is easily the fastest moving of the trilogy, and the one with the strongest story arc. The construction of Rises' script has a definite edge over Dark Knight's, even if the end product isn't quite as good because it lacks...dead horse alert...a villain as flamboyant and entertaining as Heath Ledger's Joker. Dark Knight crescendos at the 90 minute mark and spends the second half of the film trying to regain the momentum it's lost. The material with Harvey and (especially) the ferries rigged to explode just isn't as compelling as the beginning with the Joker and the mob. Ledger pretty much carried the entire last hour of DK on his shoulders. That he pulled it off more than justified his Oscar win. Bane's plot, on the other hand, lends Rises a lot more narrative thrust and does a nice job of tying into plotlines established in Batman Begins in satisfying, if not unexpected, ways.