Knightfail

[faefrost]

And I'm surprised you didn't also bring-up that whole "leap of faith" Bullshit in Batman's escape from the prison. I've said it before and I'll say it again: fear of death is not going to make a twelve year old girl jump further than a fully grown man.

It was the rope. If you get a chance, pay attention to the rope when they show people jumping, the rope goes taut just as they get close to the ledge and they fail to make it. By not using the rope and risking death you can make the jump because the rope no longer prevents you. Neither the kid nor Bruce use the rope when they succeed. That said, I noticed it the first time Bruce tried to jump and was immediately expecting him to go "oh the rope" and try again. Nope, 15 more mins of moping and waiting for a side character to explain something I thought was incredibly obvious.

Hmmm I didn't notice that. But if that's true surely someone else who missed the jump and fell back down could have said: "Next time could you leave me a little slack?" I'm not sure how the rope worked (whether it was tied to the ledge or not) but I seem to remember it did reach all the way down to the bottom from the top when they were climbing. Unless it was some kind double pulley system, I don't see how it would get so short so close to the top.

Yeah but if you fear death.(bruce don't) you'll suspend disbelief that you can have your cake and eat it too.

But it's not even physically necessary. I was hopping for something clever like the fake-out from The Last Crusade or some ingenuity like Mulan when she retrieves the arrow. But no, only 'fear' can give you the boost you need.

It was the weight of the rope, not the tension. But above and beyond that minor detail, the entire sequence was like nails on a chalkboard to any actual long time Batman fans. I know Nolan tried to disassociate his films from the comics, but that was the point where his attempts just stepped so completely out of character to be painful. Absurd even within the premise of Batman.

Batman is a wall climber. Batman is one of the worlds greatest climbers. It's one of his most basic skills. There are whole issues of comics dedicated to various Robins learning to climb and learning rope work. Plus this was reinforced in BB where we watch him learn to climb and realize he will need it as part of his repertoire.

Then we stick him in a pit, lined with walls of rough uneven brick and stone. And we watch him not know how to handle it? I'm sorry but any interpretation of that character could climb out of that 1 handed, with no rope, while asleep. Batman is a free climber. Spending so much time on such a stupid character breaking story point was just awful. Everything else in the movie was between very good to absolutely fantastic. That whole sequence was Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern Bad.

The "Officer Blake is Robin" Twist and the Talia ones were once again horribly done. Anyone who knew Batman could see where it was going all to well from the first scenes with the characters. Anyone else was left scratching their heads at the end.

The Blake one is particularly annoying because of just how blatantly they hit the old school Batfans over the head with it throughout the movie. Let's see he is a cop (a more modern career path taken by Dick Grayson, the original Robin. Cop by day Nightwing by night). He is a streetwise scrappy Dickenslike orphan who grew up on the streets (see; Jason Todd, Robin II). He figured out who Batman was from meeting Bruce Wayne and just knowing, or working it out (see; Tim Drake, Robin III) all that was missing was either he was secretly a girl with a super villain father (see; Spoiler, Robin IV) or he was actually the long lost son of Bruce Wayne and Talia Al Ghul (see; Damien Wayne, Robin V). The entire character story was essentially Nerdbaiting.

Talia wasn't quite as bad, but you just knew who she was as soon as she first opened her mouth and you heard the "exotic but vague" accent.

Contrast that with the Joker and Harvey Dent from TDK. Yeah the fans knew the characters, knew them well. But still virtually everything in that movie was a surprise or a twist to them.

 

[saintchristopher]

The point we're all missing is, and i cannot speak for everybody (especially contrarian assholes who will just disagree anyway), but while we were watching this movie? literally none of these flaws mattered. That's one of Nolan's greatest strengths as a director: his ability to sweep you along with his movies, even if they fall apart with analysis.

 

[Whispering Death]

The point we're all missing is, and i cannot speak for everybody (especially contrarian assholes who will just disagree anyway), but while we were watching this movie? literally none of these flaws mattered. That's one of Nolan's greatest strengths as a director: his ability to sweep you along with his movies, even if they fall apart with analysis.

And they won't matter if I watch it again. It's all just nit picking small issues or saying large things, like the plot twist at the end, just didn't do much for you. There's nothing about the film that ruins it when inspected, the film is still very good. As moviebob said, "None of these things, I stress, makes the film bad in my eyes"

So I find the focus by the nerd media on nick-picking this movie very odd.

Contrast Rises' small issues with Prometheus that was just a horrible mess of plot holes, unanswered questions, characters doing things for no reason, and nothing making sense. Prometheus seemed to have more support for it's horrible abortion of a story in certain corners than Rises does.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I'm surprised the flaw that first threw me out of Gotham and back into an East Texas cinema seems to have not been discussed here yet. Now, maybe I missed some expository line of dialogue. Maybe I don't understand what a police commissioner does. It just confused the hell out of me that Gordon was in that sewer in the first place. Sure, if he happened to be on the scene, and some of his officers were in trouble, Jim Gordon would fight through hell to save them, but why in the name of Crom would the Commissioner himself respond to a call like a beat cop?
With damning, career-ending confessions still in his pocket from at least a day or two ago?
But Thou Must, Jim. The plot demands it.

 

[HalfTangible]

I agree with you for the most part (and what little i disagreed with is mostly inconsequential points - for example, we also get told by the characters in the movie that the bomb's going off in a day or so, but that doesn't really detract from your point)

However, that bit about Robin's name being a joke? Flat-out disagree. It didn't feel like a joke to me, it felt more like a Homage and/or a hint at what's to come for Nolan's Gotham. The impression I got was that Robin becomes Gotham's next dark knight with Batman's stuff if he's ever needed again, Batman himself moves on (took him long enough) and becomes happy.

Otherwise though? Yeah, you're right

 

[pearcinator]

I agree with everything you said...but you didn't go into why you didn't like Catwoman being there at the end did you?

When Alfred was explaining the story about him sitting in the Cafe I knew that was how the movie was going to end. The twist with Talia Al Ghul reveal turned Bane into a pussy. I got the passage of time thing because they kept cutting back there and Morgan Freeman kept saying how long until the bomb goes off.

 

[ThinkerT]

Regarding the passing of time, isn't there something in the Gotham update on the TV in the pit that says "Day 83" or something like that? That's how I got my first realization that a significant amount of time was passing.

And on the Talia twist - I agree that it wasn't done particularly well, but was probably structured to mirror the first movie, where her father also used deception to hide his identity throughout his scheming.

 

[UberNoodle]

Plenty of posters have already covered Bob's misunderstanding about Wayne's first attempt to rise as apposed to his his actual rise. I do not believe that it was a mistep and in fact it's pretty typical story structure. The entire trilogy has been about 'learning to be Batman' vs 'learning to be Wayne' in various ways. His faux return was clearly that.

Anyway, in regard to the revelation of Talia and how that relates to Bane at the end, I do not think it diminishes Bane as a character at all. In fact, I felt an overwhelming sympathy for the man, and in reference to Gul's reported comment that Bane was 'just a monster', I felt that sympathy more so. Talia thus lost any sympathy she may have had with me, as despite her love for the man, in other ways she manipulates him. Bane's tears, and that he decided to go against Talia's order to keep Wayne alive for the bomb, and kill Wayne instead (perhaps for besting Bane, or for jealousy), entirely sold it for me.

Finally, sticklers for the 'Show it don't tell it' rule are misunderstanding the maxim, especially if they also praise a lack of rules in storytelling as a virtue. Like the 'Rule of Thirds' in visual art, or the countless others in other mediums, these rules are seldom designed by the artists themselves but the viewers, critics and teachers observing and making sense of the art. They are DESCRIPTIVE theories, not PRESCRIPTIVE ones.

To apply them so absolutely and contrary to that is to deny a very important point about creation: SOMETIMES THINGS WORK DESPITE FOR ALL THE WORLD APPEARING LIKE THEY SHOULDN'T.

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Artists break rules all the time, and at the level of those rules, such a thing appears a misstep. But the work itself is NOT only viewed at that level, and while dissection is a very interesting thing to do, ultimately, good critics step back and admit that the forest and not the trees is why we enjoy art in the first place. Yet the opposite is all I see Online. It's as if the Net based critical public no longer want to enjoy these stories, or that by finding the supposed holes and trip ups made by the artists, the critic somehow self validates.

It amounts to so much venom and rage, and I'm not talking about this thread. Seldom do we use the connectivity of the Online space to share our varying ideas on art in a non adversarial manner. Movies are never 'not as good as expected'; they are invariably 'overrated', and the inference by the speaker is clear. That 'Nolanite' has become a term applied so regularly in debate on this film is a telling sign. So kudos to you Bob for your cogent article, and I enjoy all of them which you write and voice. We just happen to disagree on finer points, but I certainly understand why you made yours.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I did not get the Bruce Wayne faking his own death until much later, it could have been better told.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I thought it was odd that the movie spent so much time discrediting the moral speech made by Gordon about how sometimes the truth isn't enough at the end of Dark Knight. I don't think I've seen a sequel do so much to discredit its predecessor.

 

[jaketaz]

My disagreements with you are only small nitpicky things. Really, none these flaws kept me from really enjoying the movie, and I do realize you didn't say anything about not enjoying it, just not "falling in love" with it. There are basic structure problems, sure, but as someone who has little knowledge of the formal/technical requirements of good film construction, none of this stuff bothered me because i didn't notice any of it until I read about it in posts like yours (and the Red Letter Media guys of course).

The main things that confuses me a little is that everyone that wasn't (entirely) pleased by the film seems to compare it to The Dark Knight. Most people seem to think The Dark Knight was a better film, and I think I agree... but what TDK does better in terms of story structure is, at least for me personally, completely undercut by the massive implausibility of Joker's entire plan.

The structure of TDK is pretty airtight, linear, straightforward. But so many suspensions of disbelief have to happen in order to buy Joker's plan. The sheer complexity of it, the chance factor (such as Harvey Dent's scarring), and the numerous ways it EASILY could have completely failed - well, these put it at least on par with Rises in terms of "taking me out of the movie".

Like I said, I agree with most of this. But I think that, beyond the cliche of "nothing's perfect," this movie got more right than it got wrong, and the ambition to take a superhero movie farther than usual in terms of visceral impact and empathy for the characters (even the villains) is admirable. I like what Nolan is (or seems to be) trying to do, and it doesn't seem fair to use TDK as a yardstick with which to measure Rises - especially since the former revolved around a plan that is so convoluted and impractical.

 

[jaketaz]

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Very well said, as was the rest of your post. What if Shakespeare or even Tarantino had been squashed because of their "tendency to 'tell'"? An abundance of dialogue has never bothered me personally, and I think it would be a disservice NOT to do so whenever a skilled director is working with fine actors - as has been the case with the vast majority of Nolan's work. I haven't the slightest problem listening to Michael Caine or Tom Hardy deliver a hefty page of text, because they are emotionally convincing actors. Same as I don't mind something like "Inglorious Basterds", which was marketed an action-packed non-stop Nazi beat-down, and turned out to be mostly long stretches of very intense dialogue.

 

[jaketaz]

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Very well said, as was the rest of your post. What if Shakespeare or even Tarantino had been squashed because of their "tendency to 'tell'"? An abundance of dialogue has never bothered me personally, and I think it would be a disservice NOT to do so whenever a skilled director is working with fine actors - as has been the case with the vast majority of Nolan's work. I haven't the slightest problem listening to Michael Caine or Tom Hardy deliver a hefty page of text, because they are emotionally convincing actors. Same as I don't mind something like "Inglorious Basterds", which was marketed an action-packed non-stop Nazi beat-down, and turned out to be mostly long stretches of very intense dialogue.

 

[metal mustache]

I know exactly what you mean by show don't tell Movie Bob. After Bane took over Gotham, I honestly had no idea how much time was left before the bomb went off at any point. It doesn't help that i'm a bad listener i guess.

 

[Captain Pirate]

it's still the best movie of the summer. This is the Return of the King of superhero films as it is the ending to the best series of superhero movies EVER. Nolan broke the 3rd movie curse and has proven he's the best thing that ever happened to comic book movies. This analysis isn't really all that provocative and is merely a difference of opinion

I agree fully.
I didn't think it was as good as The Dark Knight, of course, but nothing could be.
It was the greatest it could be following that, however, and was easily well above par of most films, let alone superhero ones.

Well, while I can't disagree with too much of the article, I think it is worth noting that when Bruce Wayne explains a plot point to himself in the hallucination scene, he gets it wrong...

And yeah, this.
The whole point of that was so that it would lead you off by suggesting Ra's solved it for Bruce, when actually it was all in Bruce's head and he came to a conclusion all on his own. An understandable one, but obviously the wrong one.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Aye, I'm pretty much 100% with Bob on this one.

As has already been mentioned - I find the lack of venom to be quite a disappointment, and also the fact that Bane looked really mutated-muscular in the promo shot and in the movie it turned out to be just a very fit Tom Hardy. To be completely honest: Hardy blew me away as Bronson in the movie of the same name, and there his physique was plenty more impressive than the silly mask power ranger stunt he's reduced to here.

I'm really disappointed and dissatisfied with this movie, and I hate having had the feeling of having been somewhat shyamalaned by Nolan. The twists don't add much to the story, the characters remain but sketches and the over-narration by one much respected actor and some other guy in a pit were extremely below par.

This movie made me genuinely sad, and it made me miss Heath Ledger, the guy I've sworn to hate after the insanely crap A Knight's Tale. I caught myself wondering what Heath Ledger might have become once he got older. Would he be a handsome Jack Nicholson? Or a little more sane version of Mel Gibson? Alas, it won't happen. Maybe everything will soon be drowned out and forgotten in all those non-sequitur jokes of prequels, alternate reality versions, origin stories and whatever the hell serves as a valid excuse for not producing original movies these days.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Completely disagree over the passage of time problems, but must agree that Gotham would be rather a lot dirtier after 5 months of mob rule.

Which doesn't even matter. So what if the city isn't all that dirty?

I didn't like how Bane was killed off though. He was amazing until they introduced Talia as the mastermind behind the whole plot to destroy Gotham. But it did make me feel a bit of sympathy for the guy. So I guess it's a good thing in a way because the way he was treated in the end gave him another layer as a character.

I did like how Bane's mask was basically what kept him from being more like Venom fueled Bane.

 

[wooty]

Hmmmm, even though I've been to see this film 3 times now I still didn't even notice any of those "problems" Bobby boy mentioned.

Then again I'm not a full on Batman fan and I was just out to enjoy the chaos.

 

[wooty]

I'm surprised the flaw that first threw me out of Gotham and back into an East Texas cinema seems to have not been discussed here yet. Now, maybe I missed some expository line of dialogue. Maybe I don't understand what a police commissioner does. It just confused the hell out of me that Gordon was in that sewer in the first place. Sure, if he happened to be on the scene, and some of his officers were in trouble, Jim Gordon would fight through hell to save them, but why in the name of Crom would the Commissioner himself respond to a call like a beat cop?

I thought he responded to it because it was where that congressman was being held. That plus Jim Gordon is an old fashioned cop who likes to be on the ground.