Chunky, self-important, conservative – the trilogy could have done without the third part

Rating: 5/10 (20 February 2013)

I really wanted to like the last part of Nolans Batman trilogy; after all, together with the first "X-Man"-movie and Watchmen", Batman Begins" and The Dark Knight" were among the few comic book adaptations that actually worked. "Batman Begins" gave new life to a franchise that was crippled by Schumacher's "Batman and Robin", while "The Dark Knight" had one of the most iconic performances of recent years (and I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Bales performance).
Where did the final part go wrong? Well, to begin with, it had all the weaknesses of "The Dark Knight", without having TDKs strong points. Bane is not nearly as iconic a villain as was the Joker, and although Tom Hardy does a decent job, he's never able to out-Herod Herod. Plus, it doesn't help that his mask renders him pretty inaudible – I mean, the hero growls, the villain mumbles; come on Nolan, was it part of the concept that the audience cannot understand the main characters? Bale is going through the routine, agreeable as usually, be it as the Howard Hughes-like reclusive millionaire or, later, as more or less rejuvenated Bruce Wayne. Yet, if that is at all possible, his growling and grimacing whenever he's wearing the Batman costume (which seems even chunkier compared to the sleek suit in "Batman Begins") is even more annoying than in the previous parts.
Caine, Oldman and Freeman have little more than cameo appearances. Speaking about the supporting roles: the first two films did a good job casting actors like Rutger Hauer, Michael Jai White or Eric Roberts (to name but a few) in small but effective roles; the third installment features mainly bland, uninteresting extras. It's almost a relief to see 'veterans' like Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson, but again, their appearances are limited to the blink of an eye.
Like in the prior installments, Nolan once again presents the villains as thinly disguised terrorists rather than super powered megalomaniacs. However, other than the Jihadist-like Ras-al-Ghul or the urban terrorist Joker, the Bane character is distinctly influenced by contemporary events, namely the "Occupy Wall Street"-movement which was briefly trendy last year and was the butt of jokes for all but followers of this movement. Not exactly a good premise for a supposedly impressive scenario.
As for the finale: it's neither as grand as the hype would have demanded it, nor is it as witty as it thinks it is. That the non-canonical figure of John Blake would inherit the cowl of the Bat was as foreseeable as tomorrow's sunrise. Rather than a grand showdown between Bane and Batman, Bane is relegated to a mere henchman at the end of the film and disposed off rather unceremoniously; almost as if the Joker had slipped on a banana peel and broke his neck halfway through "The Dark Knight".
It's not mindless, CGI-driven Popcorn cinema like the recent string of Marvel-Superhero films but its trying way too hard to disguise that in essence, the Batman films are first and primarily action flicks.
"TDKR", despite its convoluted storyline, plot-holes big enough to let the bat-plane fly through and often annoying acting, is a solid action flick but wants to be more – but the wish remains the father of the thought.
5/10