Film: The Dark Knight Rises
Jan. 5th, 2013 10:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseI'm not entirely sure if it may just be my concentration span lagging these days but, with The Dark Knight Rises, as with Skyfall, I reached a point around about a quarter to half way in where I was just getting bored with it all. I thoroughly enjoyed the third act, was thrilled to see Commissioner Gordon engaging in physical heroics and was amused at Cat Woman's goggles making perfect sense. But the second act dragged on so laboriously that I found myself muttering that the entire scenario would have been far more interesting if it had involved Talia al Ghul rather than Bane. Thankfully, the twist was that it was Talia's plan to start with, but Bane still struck me as a little lacklustre for all the hype. Even the two big fight scenes between Bane and Batman bored me very early on, and I suspect that that might be due to a lack of evident result of their combat i.e. blood, because I can watch boxing matches and enjoy them well enough.
Following the standard formula, the second act is meant to demonstrate the way in which the situation gets worse/is triggered by the hero's actions and how the hero is broken down so is forced to make a big comeback in the third act, but perhaps, to my mind at least, the Batman films seem to do that far too obviously. There are only so many times that the physically resilient, combat trained, well-equipped, Batman is going to be knocked down far enough that it's believable that it will be a struggle for him to build himself back up to face the final showdown. And perhaps, with Batman, I'm less likely to forgive the obvious formula than I am with less well-armoured, and funded, hero characters. Perhaps also, Batman's trauma is the entire point upon which his story turns, and it's far more obvious than with other characters. The viewer or reader knows everything about Batman's background because we always see the hero's side of the story, it has to be transparent to the audience to evoke sympathy. But after a while it gets old, especially when there are deliberate moves to make the story less fantastical. In fact, I cared more about what Scarecrow had been up to, based entirely on the fact that he seemed quite bored of what he was doing and is the kind of villain who is, in this version at least, unhinged enough to want to be out there actually getting on with something.
Overall, I can't really complain about this film. It was entertaining, even if it did drag somewhat at the start of the second act, and didn't quite make too much impact in the first. I liked the vehicles, the little nods to comic details, and Liam Neeson, as Ra's al Ghul, always goes down a treat. It wasn't a bad way to spend an evening though I do suspect that Tom Hardy can do better.
Following the standard formula, the second act is meant to demonstrate the way in which the situation gets worse/is triggered by the hero's actions and how the hero is broken down so is forced to make a big comeback in the third act, but perhaps, to my mind at least, the Batman films seem to do that far too obviously. There are only so many times that the physically resilient, combat trained, well-equipped, Batman is going to be knocked down far enough that it's believable that it will be a struggle for him to build himself back up to face the final showdown. And perhaps, with Batman, I'm less likely to forgive the obvious formula than I am with less well-armoured, and funded, hero characters. Perhaps also, Batman's trauma is the entire point upon which his story turns, and it's far more obvious than with other characters. The viewer or reader knows everything about Batman's background because we always see the hero's side of the story, it has to be transparent to the audience to evoke sympathy. But after a while it gets old, especially when there are deliberate moves to make the story less fantastical. In fact, I cared more about what Scarecrow had been up to, based entirely on the fact that he seemed quite bored of what he was doing and is the kind of villain who is, in this version at least, unhinged enough to want to be out there actually getting on with something.
Overall, I can't really complain about this film. It was entertaining, even if it did drag somewhat at the start of the second act, and didn't quite make too much impact in the first. I liked the vehicles, the little nods to comic details, and Liam Neeson, as Ra's al Ghul, always goes down a treat. It wasn't a bad way to spend an evening though I do suspect that Tom Hardy can do better.
