Batman isn't even the star of his own movie!

Rating: 6/10 (5 August 2012)

I know that this movie is commended by almost every poster on IMDb who has seen it, and not to say it was a bad film- it wasn't. But it did not hold as bright of a candle to "The Dark Knight." Not a die-hard fan of the comics, though I was pleased to read how faithful the brothers Nolan had remained with the comics when writing the scripts to these movies. What I have always liked about Nolan's approach to these films is that he never pushes it into extreme campiness in where it's hard to watch (I have Joel Schumacher in mind with his bastardization of the earlier Batman films). Harking back to the last movie, Heath Ledger doesn't prance around in silly clown make-up or don a permanent 'smile' for no apparent reason ("Why so sad?"): he explains as to why at one point. I liked how Anne Hathaway wore her get-up with the goggles that at first glance, appeared to be silly "cat ears"- but then wore them for what they were at times when the scenes called for it. Although everything about Bane was pretty implausible.
Is it my imagination, or did it feel as if Batman wasn't even the star of his own film after about 45 minutes into this? Reminded me of "Superman III" with how it became the Richard Pryor Show. It was tailored more for Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Batman and "The Cat" moved over while we dealt with the "suited villains," Matthew Modine, Morgan Freeman and supporting characters assuming command of the film (whom I think we were supposed to be shocked and awed by, but weren't). Christopher Nolan makes very ambitious films, no doubt- but I don't seem to share the same enthusiasm so many others have for his work. Personally, I'm an admirer of "Memento," but afterward, Nolan's films seem to fall into a predictable pattern with how the story is structured. At times, this felt like a continuing re-hash of "The Dark Knight," with some "Inception" and even "Batman Begins" peppered into it. But come to think of it, his films seem to always have a shocking beginning; followed by an hour or so of expository talk; and SO many characters that we don't know who we're supposed to keep focus on; followed up with a four to five layered climax in where it takes at least a half-hour to wrap up- that it all becomes pedestrian and boring. (Michael Mann follows a similar pattern to his films in terms of story- structure: Heat; Miami Vice; Public Enemies) And why is it that he always picks the same talent? With the exception of Bale reprising the title role, we have Cillian Murphy (4 films now); Michael Caine (EVERY film he does- there must be a clause in his contract to appear in every Nolan film, or vice-versa); Joseph Gordon-Levitt (two); Marion Cottliard (two); Tom Hardy (two)Oy vey! There are other actors out there, you know! I don't mean disrespect for Mr. Caine, but he is the same guy in every movie.
Sadly, this film never seemed to reach the emotional zenith I could tell it was trying to convey. If Nolan intends (or intended) to have Gordon-Levitt carry the torch- he isn't handsome nor charismatic enough to be a superhero. Not to say that that's a requirement these days, but for him to be Robin? Why? A previous poster stated that they didn't buy the love-story between Wayne and Kyle, but it made an interesting twist at the end. Not a believable one (since they never had any chemistry to begin with), but nevertheless- they looked good together. I think that was Nolan's desire.