The Dark Knight Triumphant- Spoilers!

Rating: 10/10 (31 July 2012)

I wasn't going to review this at all. A friend of mine reviewed it very well lately and articulated a lot of my feelings about this movie, but I've come across a few reviewers who absolutely slated it and I can't let it rest. I don't mind people not liking it; two of my other friends were not that impressed, and they have a good taste in movies. That's OK. Movies are subjective...but that doesn't mean I think The Dark Knight Rises deserves some of the hateful reviews I have been reading lately. I guess this is more a defence than a review. Let me say first off that most reviews have been very positive. Empire and Total Film both gave it 5 stars, and most of the papers loved it, aside from the Daily Mail, a publication that gave Katy Perry's recent 'movie' 4 stars. Yeah. The Dark Knight Rises is being held to an impossibly high standard that the first two never where. Ever since it came out in 2008 the first two films have been praised to the rafters, especially the second one. The Dark Knight is held up as an example of multi-layered sophistication, good writing, great acting (especially from the late Heath Ledger) and realism. The general belief has developed among film fans that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were flawlessly realistic and mature; and for the most part they were...but people seem to have forgotten that they are still at heart comic book movies. In Batman Begins for example, Batman, who doesn't kill, sets off a chain of events that kills Ra's bodyguard and potentially many members of the League of Shadows, right after he refuses to execute a captured murderer. Then he catches Liam Neeson with one arm while hanging off a cliff and proceeds to pull him up. With one arm. Liam Neeson's a big guy. Batman later glides with a cape that goes rigid when electricity is passed through it- true the tech just about exists, but it would never work like that. These things are not realistic, but it doesn't matter. They're cool, and within the rules of Nolan's Batman world, they work. In TDK there are many similar questions. How come the Joker isn't blown away by the bomb blast at the jail when everyone around him is, for example? The biggest departure from realism is 'worse' than anything in TDKR; Harvey Dent. Harvey Dent somehow manages to talk properly with half his lips and jaw missing. Also, he's running around with exposed nerves, muscle and bone and has refused pain killers. The guy should be completely paralysed with unimaginable pain; but he isn't and it's cool, because it's a comic book movie, and the rest of the world is so realistic we accept these things. That's what Chris Nolan achieved- he made Batman not one hundred per cent believable, but just believable enough so we could suspend our disbelief. This is the primary job of all directors, although somebody should tell Michael Bay that! I think some reviewers need to watch the first two again, and understand that they were not 'Batman simulators,' but comic book movies made as realistic as their source material would allow them to be. When it comes to TDKR, some reviewers are holding it to a higher standard than the previous two, by not allowing it to have any filmic/comic book eccentricities. Most complain about the swat team finding the missing councillor within a few minutes (maybe even just one!) and yea, it's a stretch, but they were looking for him in force, we know that. It's not hard to just go with it, is it? Others complain about how Bruce got back to Gotham after escaping from the pit. Does it really matter? He's Batman, go with it. When Nolan has explained so much else so well and intricately, it's a bit miserly to pull him up on this one thing, isn't it? Anyway, Bruce travelled the world exploring the criminal fraternity; it stands to reason he still has some contacts in that world or given he's so well prepared, some off shore accounts. There really are not that many plot holes. Miranda Tate keeps up her pretence so she can be on the inside to thwart any resistance attempts. Fox isn't examining the Bat at the end, as it was destroyed; he's examining the programming for all the prototypes- Bruce wrote a software patch that fixed the auto pilot. Some have complained it was convoluted to begin with- but it's a Chris Nolan movie- it's not convoluted, it's densely plotted, multi-layered. So often we complain about mindless blockbusters, but when someone makes clever ones, it seems we still complain. In fact, some people hate Nolan's movies full stop. I don't love them all- but I do love him as a director. He's intelligent, original, barely uses CGI, is passionate about his work and doesn't let studios push him around. He makes intelligent blockbusters, and that's rare. We need more of that in Hollywood, amidst a storm of Transformers sequels (more on the way) and news of a Fifty Shades of Grey movie (?!)