Profoundly Bad

Rating: 3/10 (4 August 2012)

How does the guy who did "Inception" make something so very poor? I think on purpose.
This thing was so listless, lazy, rambling, badly acted (from great actors), nonsensical and stupid. Even surprisingly poorly shot vs. his other films.
Based on the first two movies, I never really thought that Nolan liked the material. The first was talky and pompous. The 2nd only entertaining. I didn't think he liked action movies. After "Inception", I had to abandon the action movie theory.
1. There are devices that are done over and over in movies for a reason. They work. They can be bad if the director is bad. They can be good if the director is good. This includes story elements and execution in the film-making itself.
2. I think Nolan considered those elements and, for whatever reason, said "I'm not using those." Thus, he replaced those with a variety of elements that were substantially inferior to the others.
3. My theory is he wanted to make a movie very bland and labored that still made a lot of money. Maybe to comment on how much the public will patronize bland movies if the broad elements are in place. Why go to the 1st midnight show when the exact same movie is shown at 3pm the next day?
Now let me comment on the elements of the movie itself.
1. I didn't buy that Bruce Wayne went into seclusion. Batman, yes (because of his hypothesis of making Dent a hero, which was weak and labored to begin with). Wayne? No. His motivation was 'cause his love was killed. But there were no flashbacks to solidify such. And I didn't feel it in Bale's performance. And it was out-of-character for Wayne.
2. The middle 1.5 hours was talky, preachy and a roundabout to the siege. A parade of stale-looking shots of talking heads in small and boring areas.
3. Hathaway's vamp image and power over men wasn't workin' for me. No work was put into it.
4. The siege of Gotham. Why? Why wait for five months from when you take it over and then destroy it?
5. How does Bane NOT get word that Wayne has escaped?
6. The logistical impossibilities were silly, even if you consider dramatic license and satire.
8. Clocks-a-tickin' on the bomb and Batman takes the time to set-up the burning bat symbol on the bridge? And he's always in the exact right place for dramatic effect.
9. Why let the cops in the tunnels live?
10. Why run towards a group of bad guys that are firing guns right at you?
11. They just stand around and let the bad gal ramble on as she dies while the bomb ticks away? Then the exchange with Batman and Catwoman? Then the exchange with Batman and Gordon? PLEASE! Clocks-a-tickin'.
12. (Was it me or did the bad gal go from trailing the bomb truck, to being in the passenger seat of the bomb truck, to driving, to passenger, to driver?)
13. Okay, Wayne fakes his death, takes the first train out of Gotham and sits in that café at the exact right time so Michael Caine can have closure? Send a postcard. (He sure got over his lost love and his one-night-stand pretty easily.)
(I have to admit I totally missed the Robin reveal at the end 'til it happened.)
I personally was offended by the premise. It suggested that Bane was the champion of the 99% and thus made the 99% the bad guys. It made the rich the good guys. It made the city a Garden of Eden. And its savior the rich man. Romney would be proud!
You're going to see it. Out of curiosity. That's why I went. I just didn't expect it to be so much worse than the other two.