The Dark Knight Rises

Ici, l’effet de surprise « Ouaw ! » qui aurait normalement masqué le traitement primitif des personnages a disparu. Le traitement en question était encore plus ou moins pardonnable dans le volet précédent, mais le numéro trois se noie dedans. Il est impossible d’absorber chaque retournement de situation et son influence sur les personnages, lesquels sont trop nombreux et continuent d’apparaître et de disparaître comme sur commande, dans le seul but manifeste de faire quelque chose de cool et de sortir une réplique bien tapée (dont aucune n’est mémorable). De plus, Christopher Nolan, une fois de plus (après Inception) sous-estime l’intelligence du spectateur et lui jette en pâture des sophismes bon marché. Le méchant incarné par Tom Hardy n’est qu’une montagne de muscles insipide. Son « museau » et sa voix sont intéressants, mais il n’inspire ni crainte ni respect. Quant à Catwoman (ou qui qu'elle puisse être), la seule chose positive que je lui trouve, ce sont ses fesses galbées quand elle roule à moto. Le seul à se démarquer par ses efforts dans cette trilogie, c’est Hans Zimmer. Il utilise les motifs des volets précédents, en ajoute de nouveaux (le piano balkanique de Sherlock pour l’insidieuse Catwoman et les chants anarchistes pour Bane font du bien) et transforme ainsi une masse informe, sombre et dépressive, en un environnement d’action décapant et d’une abondance orchestrale. Alors, pourquoi mettre quatre étoiles après tant de critiques ? Parce que le film maintient cet aspect colossal que seul Nolan a pu conférer à ce jour. C’est du grand spectacle qui vous emporte et vous entraîne irrésistiblement, même si vous ne vous intéressez pas à l’intrigue ou que vous ne savez pas pourquoi ni sur quoi tout cela va déboucher. (19/07/2012)

A monumental film – maybe too much so. It exhausted me as if I’d had to carry Bane on my back for three hours. The Dark Knight Rises has a massive scope, it follows about a billion different characters and the network of motivations and relationships among them it’s never very clear (at least not after watching it once). In all this burnt-out expanse, it needs to resort to various shortcuts (someone always comes and meets someone – without it being clear how they knew that said someone would be there – then they say something important and carry on – repeat and rinse after a bit) and pathetic holy speeches (and I won’t even mention the bus full of orphans), while Bane’s plan and its execution feels very dodgy. Yeah, it’s (only) a “comic book movie” and you also can find similar “comic book” twists, motifs and dialogues in the previous two parts, but here it’s a bit too much and Nolan is trying to take his very realistic concept too far. Naturally, the movie is technically flawless. In the end, it’s the character of Bruce the one who gets most of the attention, so as a conclusion to “his” trilogy, it does work well in all its fatality and epic (8/10). As a standalone film, however, it grinds a little. Let’s hope that in two years Christopher will go for something smaller. PS: Of course, it’s very likely that watching it a second time will make the film feel more cohesive, complex and clear (as usual with Nolan), but I don’t feel like going through it again so soon. (01/08/2012)

Horse versus hoarse. The Dark Knight Rises and I told myself that I would not be bowled over, but... I was, like a pin. The finale of the trilogy that can be faulted for just one thing. Unlike The Dark Knight, which found it’s own way and not be a mere Hollywood sequel, the conclusion of the trilogy suffers from this syndrome, mainly in the closing third. It’s simply exactly the same as The Dark Knight, just in a more epic, spectacular, dumber and over-the-top packaging during which Nolan is chasing too many birds in bushes. Often less is more, but in that case it is an exception that proves the rule, because even though this is a worse movie than part two due to the fact that Bruce Wayne (or else his alter ego) isn’t “sort of extra" and, in the deep shadow of the Joker, Dent, Gordon trio, this time plays central role (despite being absent for at least half the movie); and thanks to that emotions work and thanks to that consequently the conclusion of the concluding part works SO exceptionally, despite the fact that nobody pays the ultimate price. Which seems almost out of place. However, part one remains unsurpassed, not because it’s so much better, but it’s the only one that isn’t pretentious. P.S.: And if there will be a number four, in view of the trend that has been set, the only person capable of filming it would be Michael Mann. (26/07/2012)

It was only after the second viewing that I fully understood and appreciated why Nolan turned the wheel after the acclaimed second film and once again rode the comic book waves, just like he did with the first one. More than anything else, the third film concludes the trilogy. I can understand the disappointed responses that were expecting something in the style of a funny anarchist madman Joker, but I don't buy the criticism about the poorly told story. The phrase "monstrous epic," used by many around here, suits this film better than anything else. The uncompromising Bane brings Gotham to its knees with brute force to make it suffer before giving it a taste of death. As well as its black-caped guardian. This isn't the Nolan brothers expressing their worldview, this is a critique of everyone for whom the idea of social justice is a political idol. Therefore, before the last atom completes the fission reaction, it is necessary to rise physically, but especially spiritually. This is the engine of the entire film, building Nolan's precise narrative that works both in the characters' dialogue and in the surprisingly spare but superbly raw action. All of this is then only perfectly complemented by Zimmer's thunderous music, without which the film would work a third less. If anyone wants to restart this at Warner Brothers, they should be thinking about changing careers by now. PS: Christopher Nolan is, along with David Fincher, the best cinematic storyteller of his generation. No question about it. (27/07/2012)

Until the American anthem was played, this the best I've ever seen in an American blockbuster - for a lot of people this means that they'll be bored for about the first hour, but I enjoyed the masterful tension with which Nolan completely controls the screen. He is able to do so without action, and only with a massively built feeling of restlessness. After the American anthem, I began to have issues with the film - the brothers probably heard the criticism that came down against the Dark Knight's ideological background from the left and seemed to want to settle accounts with supporters of social justice and redistribution. However, they chose a destructive "weapon of choice" - Bane is an enchanting, overwhelming and utterly demonic character that allows Bale’s Wayne / Batman to do what they are strongest at: sacrificing themselves for the film / Gotham. In the end, I was missing more systematic work with the story and characters, the pace is deliberately very impetuous and the dosing out of information is cumbersome. The quite contradictory return to the "comic" mythology of the first film is also quite surprising... The final mega-twist, which weakens Bane's pure evil aura a little, tore me out of a pious ravings about one of the best characters in the trilogy. But I wonder in vain when the last time was that I saw something so overwhelming, monstrous, majestic and yet honed in terms of filmmaking. It was said that Batman would be the king of the season - and despite many objections, he definitely was for me. Edit: Only the second viewing will reveal how consistent and yet emotionally fertile this film is. The IMAX copy is stunning, and the film gains through every detail. Grandiose... (19/07/2012)