Did he have to sink so low... before he rises?

Rating: 7/10 (23 May 2018)

Well, I just wished he could rise a little higher above my expectations.
This is certainly not a bad movie, far from it, it's effective in the way it wraps us all the elements of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" and heads them into a satisfactory conclusion. But if you discount the ending, the film was a real downer... with every character carrying the most contradictory motives, even Bruce Wayne who lived recluse after Batman's disgrace had to drown his soul in a contemplative ennui that irritates Alfred... and ordinary viewers do not have Alfred's patience.
I got back to my reviews of the first two first films, and both had one thing in common: they were positively thrilling, something that hooked your mind and filled your heart with an enthusiastic je-ne-sais-quoi. "Batman Begins" started 'slowly' as it didn't show much of the archetypal Batman until his reveal, but boy, what a great moment! I cheered when Batman made his entrance and later came full circle with his demons. Then the Joker deconstructed the edifice of pompousness built by the "good guys" and with such style and gusto he almost made his "point" and confronted both Batman and Harvey Dent to painful ironies (delightful for him). Dent lost his idealism but not Wayne.

Now "The Dark Knight Rises" was necessary because Batman needed a rehabilitation. Or did he? After all, Gotham City lived in peace and since 'innocent is too strong a word to use against' Gotham people, it was quite an achievement. If the price was Honest Gordon praising the man who threatened his own child and Batman's exile, why would Wayne care? After all, vigilante wasn't a vocation but a necessity, to serve justice and fight criminals, if crime stopped, so should his melancholy. Yet Wayne is clearly affected, health problems and loss of cartilage forced him to walk with a cane, but we suspect the pain is underneath rather on the body. I think that romantic grieving angle could have been more interesting than the predictable urban mayhem that strikes Gotham in every "Gotham" episode.
Indeed, I wish Nolan was less ambitious on the field of special effects and cared a little more for Bruce Wayne like he did in the first films, wishful thinking. Wayne is the same all right and there's nothing two-dimensional in Christian Bale's portrayal, the problem is simply arithmetic. In the first film, we had Wayne, in the second Wayne/Dent/Joker, here, we have to concentrate on so many supporting players that I wondered if the film wasn't intended for the hardcore fans who'll watch it over and over again. I'm afraid that a first viewing isn't enough to get the film, it was for the previous ones.
Where to start? You have Catwoman who swings between the role of a protagonist and then antagonist with the agility of a cat jumping between clotheslines. Anne Hathaway is actually terrific but exudes so many sensual "femme fatale" vibes that she creates an unfortunate sense of redundancy with Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate. Wayne has a way with women but Nolan should have thought about making them a little more different, sometimes it goes as simply as making one blonde and another dark-haired. Both women are secretive, talk in enigmatic insinuation and existential innuendo, there's always an element of seduction you can't put your finger on but after a while, you start to envy Alfred's celibacy.
Now, Nolan isn't exactly the ideal director when you yearn for clarity but I take again the first "Batman" films, both had complex plots but not complicated... and they had great villains. Another problem is with the Alpha-villain in this film, Bane has a spectacular action-establishing moment that leaves no doubt that he's the match for Batman... as he seems as tortured a soul and in pain than his nemesis. But then again, I was really scratching my head to figure out what Bane's real motives were, he speaks like some revolutionary leader who believe the ends justify the means but his vision of chaos seem rather pointless... except if it was to get his kicks, that would have been good enough for me, does every character need to be tormented about something?
The Joker loved chaos and disorder because they could reveal deeper truths about our own ambivalences, and whatever he did, he did it with style. Tom Hardy is great as Bane, and intimidating as well, as hell, but he's just like a rollercoaster of muscle with a Darth-Vader face and a Scottish accent, whenever he appeared on the film, I just felt uneasy. I know his presence would mean pain, punches, killing, intimidations, which is good for a villain, but the film was way too dark and gloomy that I was begging for a little relief. I think what I get from the "Batman" series is that the villains have fun being bad, pleasing oneself being the most selfish motive, Bane didn't have fun at all... and he was the main villain, so that didn't leave much fun to the story.
So let's recapitulate, we have similar female characters with uncertain motives (some revealed near the end), Wayne in his usual "who am I?" quest, a villain who doesn't enjoy what he does but feels it's necessary, a commissioner who can't get over his lies and his separation, in this ocean of gloom, only Joseph Gordon Levitt as a Batman admirer seems to carry the last hope of idealism... not that it brings much to the film.
Paraphrasing Alfred, I wouldn't say that Nolan failed his fans (not according to IMDb ratings) but one of the reasons I avoided these films is because he always struck me as a director who like his characters sorry, sad, angry, and way too serious, I was glad I was wrong with the first two films, I was for that third opus, maybe he should have pulled a Joker and ask himself indeed "why so serious?".