So here it is, the conclusion to probably one of the most epic superhero stories ever told on the big screen. Years of anticipation, intense excitement and high hopes come to end now that "The Dark Knight Rises" is finally released. But I can't help but feel a little let down.
OK, before I go into the details, first a little history lesson about the Christopher Nolan Batman saga. When revived in 2005 with the glorious "Batman Begins" after the insanely trashy (and nonetheless entertaining as hell) "Batman & Robin" in 1997 Nolan brought a seriousness to the caped crusader that was fresh and proved to be a great way to tackle the source material. When "The Dark Knight" rolled around in 2008, it was even an even bigger step-up, serious movie critics compared the film to major crime epics like "Heat" and Heath Ledger's remarkable performance as the Joker combined with his tragic death was probably a big catalyst for it to be the first comic book movie to cross the billion dollar mark in worldwide gross. And that brings us to Summer 2012 and to "The Dark Knight Rises".
The film takes place eight years after the events of "The Dark Knight" with Bruce Wayne living as a recluse in his mansion. But when his fortune is brought down by the hands of a mysterious brute named Bane who threatens to take over Gotham City it's time for Bruce Wayne to put on the batsuit again.
What the film does well is to continue the story arc from the previous two films and although my short synopsis seems rather simple, it is all, of course, much more complicated, especially since Nolan fills the void left behind by the Joker with not just one but three baddies. Besides Bane, played by an unbelievably beefed-up Tom Hardy, we are also introduced to Selina Kyle who's better known by fanboys as Catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway and on top of that we get the legacy of Ra's al Ghul from the first movie. Didn't they learn their lesson from the overstacking of villains from "Spider-Man 3"? But don't worry, "The Dark Knight Rises" does an immensely better job of integrating its bad guys into a coherent whole than Peter Parker's third cinematic outing.
Nonetheless with a running time of 164 minutes the movie takes its sweet time for exposition and the introduction of rookie cop Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and deputy Foley, played by Matthew Modine. Together with all the recurring characters (Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Fox) and of course Christian Bale in the title role there's a lot of ground to be covered.
And that's where we encounter the first problem. The film has too much going on, too many subplots and side characters, to such an extent that our main protagonist Batman/Bruce Wayne isn't even in the movie anymore for large parts of it. It seems that the whole scale got a little bit out of hand. I respect the filmmaker's epic ambitions but it surely bothered me that Batman becomes a minor character in his own movie. For all the realism and subtle commentary we shouldn't forget that we are basically watching a comic book movie and not an episodic Robert Altman film.
This becomes blatantly apparent when compared with the tightly wrapped package that was "The Dark Knight". While this movie was also epic and bolstered with supporting players, it had at its heart the exciting duel between Batman and the Joker. Compare that to "The Dark Knight Rises" and you will ultimately feel let down. Hardy is menacing enough in his attitude and attire but his Bane is more often than not just a brutal thug, strong on physical power but missing the looming anarchy and uncomfortableness that made the Joker so memorable.
Also, while the acting is generally good, some of the characters are either extremely flat and one dimensional (Matthew Modine is a prime example as the ignorant deputy), superfluous (What was the purpose of Juno Temple as Anne Hathaway's friend?), wasted in the narrative (Morgan Freeman has practically nothing to do) or lack depth and explanation needed for the audience's understanding (Marion Cotillard's character's sudden relationship with Bruce Wayne came practically out of nowhere).
All those issues can be narrowed down to one single problem: The script. With a little more tweaking and less overplotting "The Dark Knight Rises" could have been on the same level as its predecessor. Because for all its shortcomings there are a lot of things that the film does brilliantly. The score and cinematography are bombastic and will leave you breathless, the actors keep you involved (Anne Hathaway is probably the most positive surprise) and Nolan delivers the visual goods and goosebump moments when it comes to the cinematic climax.
As it stands now "The Dark Knight Rises" is a good and satisfying conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy but it just falls short of matching the grandness of "The Dark Knight", it's a classical case of less would have been more.
No comments:
Post a Comment