Those of us who care have had a good opportunity to digest "The Dark Knight Rises." So, I think it's time for some reflections. I was listening to an episode of the "Games, Dammit" podcast. In this episode, the 1up.com/IGN.com writers were discussing the movie rather than their normal topic of video games. Overall, they were pretty down on the movie. Their criticisms were much the same as many of the other criticisms I've heard about the movie. Cheesy lines, nonsensical plot points, and sub-par fight scenes are typical criticisms of the movie. I would argue that in these respects, "Rises" is not all that different than "The Dark Knight."
Compare some of the nonsensical plot points. In "Rises," you have the fact that Talia and Bane could have flooded the reactor room as soon as they pulled the core out, leaving the good guys with less of a chance to stop the detonation. You have the entire stock exchange heist that was used to put the reactor into Talia's hands. These are ridiculous plot points that require serious suspension of disbelief, without a doubt. But are they worse than the fact that nobody noticed the cop in the funeral firing squad with the heinous Joker scars? What about the fact that the Joker was able to plan complicated attacks with military precision on seemingly a moment's notice?
Then there's the dialogue. There are lines such as the exchange between Batman and Catwoman when she first gets into "The Bat," or Batman's line after Catwoman disappears off of the building when he's not looking. I can see why these might bother some people, I don't think they're any more cringe-worthy than Harvey Dent's "interrogation" of the schizophrenic cop impersonator, or Gordon's lines during the final confrontation with Two-Face. Admittedly, the off-putting part of these lines was the delivery in my opinion, not the written lines, but I think the point stands.
Then, there's the complaint that the movie wasn't about Batman, but Bane. I would argue that the movie was about Bane and Bruce Wayne, which is standard for the series. Batman had frustratingly little screen time, I grant you, but I don't think that thematically alters the course of the series. "Begins" was very much about Bruce Wayne and his need for Batman. "The Dark Knight" was about the other side of the Batman coin, Joker. "Rises" was about Bruce realizing his original goal for becoming Batman, and being able to walk away. None of these movies were about Batman in the way the movies in the 90s were. I'm not sure why people expected different in "Rises."
It's clear that "Rises" was a disappointment for many people, especially after "The Dark Knight." The problem is that people didn't seem to realize, though I've been arguing it for a couple of years now, that "The Dark Knight" a quality action movie that was elevated exponentially by the once-in-a-lifetime performance of Heath Ledger. Replace Ledger's performance with even an above average movie villain, and most of the complaints people have about "Rises" will be almost immediately noticed in "The Dark Knight." Had Ledger been able to reprise his role, we might not be talking about these complaints with "Rises," but we'll never know. To compound things, Ledger's death forced Nolan to tie "Rises" more closely to "Begins" than to "The Dark Knight," which people also seem to be griping about.
I think that "Rises" falls into the same category as "Return of the Jedi." Both are very good movies and satisfying conclusions to fantastic stories. Both, however fail to live up to the historical brilliance of their predecessors. The difference is that if you realize how much of the expectation for "Rises" was based on a historic and unrepeatable performance of one actor, the expectations placed on "Rises" seem even less fair than those placed on "Jedi." "Rises" was a very good movie, and I'm not going to let the brilliance that was Ledger's Joker cloud my judgment on that. You shouldn't either.
