Is it any good though?

Rating: 9/10 (23 July 2012)

You can probably tell by the number of stars I've given it that my answer is yes. But was it an entirely satisfying conclusion? I write this just over 24 hours after I saw the movie in glorious IMAX, and I still can't answer that question. Don't get me wrong, it was epic film-making - the kind of film you don't come out of regretting that you paid good money to go and see it. I could reel off a number of positive descriptive words that have already been used by critics and fans on this site, but that of course would be boring.
I came away from the cinema feeling a little exhausted - partly because Chrisopher Nolan and his colleagues seemed intent on Bane-smashing our senses to a pulp, but also because I couldn't help but feel there was too much going on this film. Not like Spiderman 3, but certainly enough for me to drift off from the film a few times. Now I've read quite a few pieces of criticism from people/critics that say of certain scenes "urgh that's not very realistic" or "he wouldn't heal that quickly" etc etc. I'm not here to wave a big Plot Hole flag at entirely pathetic and minor issues. To paraphrase Nicholson's Joker, in what kind of a world do we live where a man dresses up as a bat?! And to answer, we don't. The Dark Knight Rises is a piece of fiction based on a comic book. It isn't realistic. Nolan's trilogy may be more believable for sure, but I still can't find Gotham on Google Maps if you know what I mean...
What slightly marred the film for me was the flow of it. I would have been quite happy if this film had been 15-20 minutes longer perhaps just so they could take their time with a few of the story arcs and not rush around like they did. I know that it might not have been a popular idea to have a film over 3 hours long. Perhaps the Studio applied pressure to cut down the running time. But on the other hand I also thought there were a few scenes/characters which could have been cut altogether, like Matthew Modine's Deputy Commissioner Foley or Cillian Murphy's Dr Crane. I felt they didn't really add anything to the film.
Also, as much as I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, his character was given an unnecessary amount of screen-time in my opinion. Some of the characters we had come to know and love were occasionally benched to make way for John Blake. (I understand why they did this for sure - I just didn't like it.)
So was the film any good? Absolutely.
Was it a satisfying end? ...err.....I honestly couldn't tell you. Yes and no?
Does Alfred's performance make a grown man want to have a little weep? Too right! (the only other film I've wept in is Team America, but for significantly different reasons).
Did it follow the age-old Original Star Wars model of a strong opener, better sequel and weak conclusion? I would say yes - but I would go as far as saying the Dark Knight Trilogy is better than the Star Wars Trilogy, and The Dark Knight Rises a great deal better than Return of the Jedi.
Sorry to be boring but The Dark Knight Rises is engrossing, magnificent, and a breath-taking experience. And as for it's flaws - nothing that a Director's Cut wouldn't fix.