A superb conclusion to a superb trilogy

Rating: Null/10 (21 July 2012)

It would not be fair to compare this final piece of the trilogy with the middle piece which, despite everything, is more of The Joker than the titular hero (even if ever so slightly). And even with Heath Ledger's monumental achievement aside, the tones of the two are very different. The Dark Knight reached a height through psychological depth which is sheer brilliance for the first time, but would become mediocrity. Christopher Nolan is anything but mediocre. The Dark Knight Rises takes a different direction, aiming to give the audience an epic conclusion in a more traditional, accessible style. The success is complete and indisputable. TDKR is not TDK. IT does not need to be.
There seems to be a general impression, even from seasoned critics, that the initial proliferation of new characters and plots is somewhat confusing. The better ones soon decide, rightly, that there is nothing confusing. This excellent concluding episode has only one plot: the traditional good against evil, although there are some interesting details. The new villain Bane (Tom Hardy), with all his Darth-Vader-like imposing screen presence, is a far cry from The Joker, and for good reasons. Selina the cat woman (Anne Hathaway) is the familiar story of the delinquent, self-centred thief ("a girl must eat") eventually turned heroine. Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is the role-model young and fearless hero going back to the likes of James Stewart and beyond. With Hardy and Gordon-Levitt from the cast of Nolan's masterpiece "Inception", why not a third, Marion Cotillard as Miranda, the rich philanthropist, although this seems to be a considerably lesser role. Or, is it?
Threatening destruction of an entire city (New York rather than Chicago is the proxy for Gotham) via devastating nuclear device is not new (and feels uncannily familiar if you have watched "The Avengers" earlier this year, even in the final rescue). More interesting is the adaptation as backdrop The Tale of Two Cities, complete with Sydney Carton's iconic last words. Equally interesting is the focus on a humanly vulnerable, "suffering hero" which brings to mind effortlessly Daniel Craig's version on 007 in "Casino Royale" (2006).
This movie delivers more drama and character depiction than action, and more Bruce Wayne than Batman. This is what sets it apart. The action sequences, when they appear, are second to none, relying a lot more on the good old camera than computer programs, making the whole thing look a lot more solid and real-life. 3D is abandoned altogether, and about time. Instead, visual wonder is provided through IMAX (reportedly about 70 minutes are filmed in IMAX, compared with only some 20 minutes in the middle episode).
Christian Bale is superb, as are the new additions to the cast mentioned above. The trio that the audience have grown to embrace is given welcomed screen time: Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman. Caine, in particular, is ever so endearing. Cameo appearances include Liam Neeson in a flashback and Cillian Murphy sitting at the head of a kangaroo court. When I checked out IMDb, he is still listed as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow, so perhaps he is sitting there in that role.
TWISTS and SPOILERS !!!
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's role turning out to be "Robin begins" is quite delightful. The big twist of the true villain does have good plot substance and is particularly impressive with its moving love story. However, inasmuch is Marion Cotillard one of my top favourite actresses (if not THE top), I don't think she is sufficiently convincing as the arch villain. Having recently watched "Snow White and the huntsman" and "Prometheus", I am quite convinced that Charlize Theron would be perfect for the role.