Five Spoiler-Heavy Reasons The Dark Knight Rises Fell Flat

As I excited the theatre early Friday morning after a midnight showing of the third and final film in Christopher Nolan's acclaimed Batman trilogy, the air was filled with excited chatter. "I didn't see that coming!" "I knew it all along!" "I want to see it again!" The crowd seemed quite pleased. I wasn't feeling it.

Then, from somewhere deep within the roiling crowd it came. "It sucked." Now that I felt. While there were plenty of moments in the movie I genuinely enjoyed, ultimately I felt more let down than uplifted.

Why do we suck, Master Bruce?

In case you didn't read the headline of this article before clicking on it (it happens), this is not going to be five paragraphs of beating around the bush. If you've yet to see The Dark Knight Rises and don't want the entire movie ruined for you for all eternity, stop reading now. I'm gonna wreck it.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with Evan Narcisse's critical take on The Dark Knight Rises. He makes several good points, and his ultimate conclusion is sound. "The Dark Knight Rises finishes an operatic cycle of myth-making where a familiar story becomes re-imagined for new times and layered with increased resonance." It does indeed do that thing.

It just does several other things that keep me from enjoying the ultimate entry in that operatic cycle. For instance...

Alfred Gives Away the Ending

Alfred hoped that Bruce Wayne would never come home from his initial self-imposed exile from Gotham. Every year during the time Bruce was away he'd take a vacation, sit in a cafe somewhere, and image he saw the young Master Wayne sitting there with a woman, maybe a couple of kids. They'd not speak — that would ruin the magical moment. No, they'd just nod to each other, and Alfred would know that Bruce had finally made it to the end of the film.

Oh wait, not the end of the film. Just true happiness.

And then end of the film.

As soon as Alfred launched into the tale of his vacation days I knew which way the movie was headed. Had Nolan only included Alfred mentioning the story in passing I might have been thrown off, but he filmed Alfred sitting in the cafe. He filmed Bruce sitting there with his fake girlfriend. He burned the image into our minds so that when it rolled back around to it at the end everyone would see what an excellent film craftsman he is.

I imagine Bruce got completely sick of going to that cafe every day for lunch until Alfred eventually showed up. I'd like to think that immediately after the scene ended he ran off to find an iHop. Nothing washes away the taste of telegraphed callbacks like a Rooty Tooty Fresh-and-Fruity.

I Know You're Batman Because I'm Hurting Too

When commissioner Gordon tells Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake that the city needs Batman, Blake makes a beeline for stately Wayne Manor, because he's the greatest emotional detective that ever lived. He knew Wayne and Bats were one in the same because he too had felt the pain of losing his parents.

No, it doesn't make much sense.

Blake explains that he's no stranger to putting on a mask to please others; to hiding the pain of his parents' passing behind the facade of a smile. Years ago, when Bruce Wayne visited the orphanage Blake was raised in, he saw that same pain. That means that Bruce Wayne is Batman. It just makes sense. Joseph Gordon-Levitt isn't Batman, so who else could it possibly be? That other in-pain guy.

I'm thinking that the fact that Bruce Wayne went all recluse at exactly the same time Batman stopped prowling the night had something to do with it as well.

Why Do We Fall? The Pad the Movie by 20 minutes.

Oh my fucking god just get out of the pit already.

I realise the whole prison scene was an important part of Batman's recovery not just from his Bane-induced spinal dislocation, but of years of morning and wallowing in self-pity. I understand that we needed to see Bruce Wayne at his absolute lowest point. We had to rise with him out of that giant hole in the ground filled with people that no one knows about in this age of satellite imagery and Google maps. I get that.

I was just not entertained by it. We knew he was getting out. Seeing him fail once would have been enough. Hell, I would have loved a montage of him failing, perhaps accompanied by "Harder Better Faster Stronger".

What I really would have preferred, however, was to see how Bruce Wayne got home after being stranded on the other side of the world with absolutely nothing except a passing resemblance to that guy from American Psycho.

The Only Reason Catwoman is Wearing the Leather Outfit is For the Shot of Her Riding the Bike

As the mysterious thief Selina Kyle rode off into the night, all we could see was the light reflected off of her arse.

And Robin Was His Name-O

Oh come on, Robin John Blake? Not Timothy Drake, or Jason Todd or Dick Grayson? I suppose any permutations of those would have been a dead giveaway, but let's not fool ourselves; it was always a dead giveaway. You don't feature an incidental character as prominently as John Blake was in the pre-release media without there being a damn good reason behind it.

It's the same situation with Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate. The actress had to outright lie in order to throw fans and press off the obvious trail they picked up the moment she was cast in the film. Any fan immediately knew who she was really playing, just as any fan knows that Robin was never the real name of Robin, and was only used so the non-fans in the audience would get the reference.

There's plenty to love about The Dark Knight Rises. Catwoman has some great lines. Bane is impressive as hell, even if the movie's final twist neuters him somewhat. And hey, isn't that the guy from Torchwood? I love that guy.

Ultimately the film is a chance for Batman to live a normal life, something the comic books can never let happen. Through this series of annoying events he's earned his final rest. He'll live the rest of his life as a normal Joe, just like you or me.

Unless someone notices a supposedly dead former billionaire wandering about and snaps an iPhone picture.



    I got exactly what I wanted out of the movie. It was a conclusion to the trilogy. Sure, there were imperfections (Robin John Blake was just damned clunky) but overall, I enjoyed it.

    That's all that matters to me. If anyone else didn't, that's fine but I sure as hell don't sympathise with them.

      Robin was a nice touch. It helps people who weren't familiar with the comics to see that it's officially Nolan's Robin, and at the same time, the batman afficionados won't cuss his character if they revealed him to be drake or grayson, because he was nothing like them.

      also, wayne got back to gotham through the justice league.

        ^Thats the conclusion me and my buddy ended up agreeing on. Though its interesting that though they didn't go for any obscure Robin references, there is a Killer Croc reference that im sure a lot of people didnt pick up.

    3 word in article. Mistake.

    What up proof reading?

      You mean '3rd word in the article' right?

        There's a difference between making a mistake in a user comment, and a mistake in an article when your job is a journalist.

        It's not like it wouldn't take any more than 5 minutes to proof read your article - it indicates they just don't give a shit or take pride in what they do.

          Yeah, but being a smarmy prick and pointing out a mistake in an article whilst making a mistake yourself just makes you look like a twat.

          As for the movie, I really didn't like it much and agree with all of those points (and more). So disappointing.

            There's a lot more mistakes that could have been pointed out.
            If it was my job to write articles, I would definitely ensure it was done correctly.

            Smarmy prick or not.

            It's elitist pricks like you that ruin the world, movie was phenomenal and amazing case closed all you whiny losers get off your devices get some sunlight

              You sound like the whiniest loser of them all, take your own advice.

              Do they really ruin the world? The movie still exists and you were amazed at how phenomenal it was. What are the elitist pricks actually ruining by disagreeing with you?

        No, I accidentally typed like a nuffy...

      There is also the issue that Bruce was morning(mourning) in the pit :(

    Did you know it's cooler to not like something popular?

    I hate these articles that try to discredit things because someone failed to maintain an air of disbelief. I'm not opposed to criticism of TDKR, I actually felt a few (not all) of the things listed here. I guess I just came into this little article thinking there'd be a bit more than a bunch of "oh puh-lease!" remarks. I would have liked a little more insight than the average facebook post.

      This is Kotaku, what were you expecting?

      I totally agree. The writer here clearly went in with a massive amount of cynicism and crossed arms. I'm glad the movie went in the directions it did in spite of viewers like this, because when you start pandering to a negative audience.... Oh dear! Really enjoyed it.

    The Robin thing bugged me a little, but the rest just seem like nit-picking (especially the leather suit thing. Cat-woman has always worn something tight, it's practically lore.)

    The only major issue I took with the movie in the end was their treatment of Bane! Bane is this awesome, highly intelligent and beastly character in the comics, and appears so in the film to begin with. I understand not mentioning venom, since it'd just complicate the plot more than it needs to be, but turning him into a lackey? That's just not Bane at all!

    It was a good movie, great trilogy, bad interpretation of Batman.
    From the point where Batman lets Ra's die "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", and especially in TDK where he's trying to retire and hang out with Rachel, it was clear Nolan was not going to portray Batman properly.

      Assuming by 'properly' you mean 'as he is in the comics / other material'. Nolan's Batman isn't the Comics Batman, he's Nolan's Batman. That means he's portrayed differently. Not wrong, just different to the way Batman is portrayed in some of the comics. It's like saying that the Adam West Batman stuff 'doesn't portray Batman properly'. It's a different take, but it's not wrong.

        There's nothing wrong with a different take. Bat Nolan changed the core of what makes Batman who he is.

        What defines Batman is his dedication to The Mission. The Batman that Nolan Portrayed was flippant as all hell. He took himself to hell and back, travelled the world for 10 years training mind and body, and then 1 or 2 years later tries to retire and let someone else do it.

        His parents are killed in front of him, and his reaction is to become the saviour of Gotham, to wipe out crime, and yet his childhood crush dies, and he becomes a sad-sack hermit for 8 years?

          You know despite your argument on what makes Batman who he is, Batman has been written by dozens upon dozens of writers, each with a slightly different idea of who Batman is.

          There is no core to Batman besides "puts on the cowl to protect Gotham." He's been everything from the campy Adam West Batman to the pyschotic raving mad-man who blows up cops and kidnaps small children in All-Star Batman and Robin.

            Absolutely agree Shoaken.

            Batman is a man with a mask and a cowl that fights bad guys. That's the black. Batman is also a very rich businessman and not many people know this. That's the white. Everything else in between is grey and its up to whoever has the rights to the character to fill those greys with a colourful story.

   the nipple erect, armed with a bat credit card George Clooney Batman :P

          Should be pointed out that because of batman supposedly killing dent the Dent Act had basically given the police the power to keep any criminal locked up. As Gordon says at one point the police attend matters that are supremely trivial because the crime simply isn't there for them to fight.

          The difference here is that in the comics crime never ends Batman doesn't have the ability to retire because he's always needed.

          At the start of dark knight rises they basically equate that Gotham is at peace now and a war hero like Gordon isn't needed to keep the city safe

          Nolan's films are allowed to have an endpoint because unlike with the comics your not after having a new one every month.

          Which means instead of having batman and his enemies dance the same dance in circles for all of eternity they could show that he had achieved something that could allow him to retire

          Also batman beyond had him as a mopey old dude when his heart had gotten too weak to endure the kind of punishment that he would put it through to fight crime.

          In the dark knight we see this to a lesser extent with the fact that his knees are stuffed(though they magically worked in the pit. Since it seems unlikely bane left him with the knee brace)

          Every writer has had a different play on him

    My only issue with Dark Knight Rises was there wasn't enough Batman being Batman.

      I think that's my main criticism of it too. Other than that I rather liked it.

    OK, let's go:

    1) Yes, you know how it's going to end. But it's a nice way to show that Bruce has moved on from Batman and is living happily somewhere else, and most people in the audience have probably forgotten about that scene two hours later. (Also, he's Batman. He'd be tracking Alfred's flight and working out when he's going to be there, not spending every day there until Alfred shows up.)

    2) Blake knows the pain that Bruce felt, as an orphan. What the movie doesn't explicitly say is that Blake is a cop, driven to crime-fighting as a way of stopping what happened to him from happening to others. Once he knows that Bruce Wayne has that same drive in him, and isn't publicly doing anything to fight crime, and arrived in Gotham about the same time as the Batman, and clearly Batman is rich to have all that stuff... it's a pretty obvious jump. Could have been more clear, but I think the logic holds.

    3) It's important, as well, because (spoilers, but spoiler topic) it frames Talia as Bruce's equal, having also risen from the pit. It gives us a load of crucial backstory on the woman who is going to come out of "nowhere" and be the ultimate bad guy. And it's a reflection of the themes - pain and hope. Bruce can't get out until he's gotten through his pain, but he also can't get out until he /wills/ himself to get out. And I enjoyed it - a clever blend of Bane's origin and the Knightfall equivalent "getting better" section.

    4) This is a complaint? (She's a master thief. Catsuits are expected of master thieves.)

    5) You touch on the reason for this: I saw the movie with my family, including my mother. If he'd been Dick Grayson, the first thing she'd asked would have been "who's Dick Grayson?" And given that Blake is substantially different to all three Robins (he's mostly Grayson and Drake, but he's not close to either) nerds would have exploded that the character wasn't like in the comics. This is an elegant compromise. On top of that: his name being Robin is the best explanation for that superhero name that we've ever gotten.

      Thank you, I completely agree. As I huge Batman fan/nerd myself, I'm getting pretty sick of nit-picking negative comments on the movie. Was The Dark Knight Rises perfect? No, but neither was the The Dark Knight or Batman Begins.
      The Dark Knight Rises was as damn close as possible to being the perfect ending to the perfect super-hero trilogy. If people can't allow themselves to enjoy the 90% of the film that was sensational, then they clearly suffer from the tall poppy syndrome.


      No movie is without its flaws, but this was a pretty great movie. Oh and super LoLz at...
      "I was just not entertained by it. We knew he was getting out."
      That's great guy, I guess you don't like any of the other many, many movies where we know the PROTAGONIST is gonna make it eventually.

        Still had a better ending then Mass Effect 3

          +1 to all of these. This article is just one long bitching rant. No substance to it. Great replies guys.

      Good call Michael, I almost forget that the non-fans (who's Dick Grayson?) also go to see this film.

    1. He is not exactly giving away the ending. You can't have the ending of batman without the Alfred talk of Florence or else the whole scene at the end would not make sense. The whole talk of the Florence in the Alfred scene established what Alfred wanted of Bruce Wayne. And it was good way to connect it to the ending.

    2. He knows. But Bruce never acknowledges it. Sure probably in the movie many people would have made rumours about Bruce Wayne being Batman. But the scene showed how Blake and Bruce are similar people.

    3. Are you kidding me? The reason it wasn't short was because it showed how hopeless batman is at the time. The pit was Bane's way of torturing Bruce. By destroying the Gotham and leaving Bruce in the pit is his way of painful torturing. Also it comes back to the theme of "Why do we fall? SO we can pick ourselves up again". Also the pit is very similar to the well that Bruce fell into when he was young.

    4. It's most likely for stealth and mobility.

    5. I don't really know much about the Robin. BUt I thought Blake's character was good.

    In conclusion i feel that the author is one who cannot appreciate good movies. The reasons he gave for disliking the movie are pretty stupid.

    Im a bats fan and have been a fan of the comics for years before Nolans Movies came out, and i can say that Begins was no doubt good to me as a fan, but TDK and TDKR just dont do it for me. I know that they are easyer to like to non fans cos well... they are good movies, but they just dont have the characters, style and art direction that i crave from Batman. That being said... TDK might not havebeen my perfect bats movie but it still had a well writen plot.... i just find that TDKRs plotseems to be alittle too unrefined, all over the place and even slightly cheep in writing.

    I don't really think some of these reasons justify a 'the movie sucks' reaction. Padding the movie out I can understand, but then you have a whinge about Catwoman and that just seems nitpicky more than anything else.

      Honestly I think if these are the problems they had with the movie then it should be more like "the movie was pretty awesome, but I thought these things weren't that great."

      They're some pretty damn nitpicky reasons.

    Love the KNIGHTFALL image caption. Loved the film. Yes, the Robin name was very corny - I incorrectly guessed his real name would be revealed as Dick Grayson. Hated Catwoman, Anne Hathaway sucks. Talia's death was pretty cheesy. However overall, quips aside, it is a great ending to a great trilogy and very entertaining.

      Oh and Bane's death sucked. Nolan has a habit of making big villains vanish in a mediocre way. Think back to The Dark Knight and Joker - he didn't actually die.

        That's because Batman doesn't kill his enemies...

          True. To an extent. Batman 'killed' Harvey Dent / Two-Face.

            I'd give you that one. Extreme situation, having been shot, a child in danger, only option to tackle him, I still don't think it was on purpose he killed him but an accident more so.

      Catwoman and Anne Hathaway did not suck. Now, I know as much about acting as the next guy but to me, her performance was spot on. If she sucks as an actress in this movie, please explain how?

        Just my personal opinion of course, her story was boring and the film could have shortened itself by removing her from it. Then Bane would still be alive, just apprehended.

        Sorry - you wanted an explanation. The Bane character needed to be bettered after Batman and Robin. Same with Tommy-Lee Jones' Two-Face character. Tom Hardy and Aaron Eckhart succeeded immensely. However Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was already purrfect. Hathaway's did not improve on it.

          Though Pfeiffer was hot, she was far from the modern take on'cat woman'. She channeled the old Lee Meriweather and Eartha Kitt cat woman's well but Hathaway had the 90s and modern cat woman down pat.

    Cat woman wore the leather suit because that is what Cat woman wears in everything else, it is pretty much her trademark suit.

    I agree on the Pit scenes, made an already 2 hour movie another 20 minutes or more longer. Was like >.> if batman doesn't get out of a cave then this is a great movie.

    I got 3 more reasons

    1. The whole idea of driving Bruce Wayne drove his company bust by deliberately driving his share prices broke, even though this clearly happened whilst the stock exchange was under siege and no trading could have been done at the time. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that Bruce didn't make that trade.

    2. Bane's ultimate plan seems really short term when in contrast with Miranda's, why was he holding the city at ransom for if he was just going to blow up the city anyways? What does keeping the citizens isolated from the rest of the world for 3 month and killing off the rich accomplish if those who witness it are all going to die anyways?

    3. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE OF ALL, How the hell did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham, let alone America with A) No Passport, B) No Money after losing his fortune C) no security from the prison or by that of Bane's thugs D) the Military held the city in lockdown

      Note to self, proof read your posts.

      *1. the whole idea of Bruce Wayne driving his company bust

        And how did the 7(?) year old Miranda Tate get from the back end of Durkadurkastan to Tibet to find Liam Neeson (or wherever else he might have been) to tell him about the nasty guys in the pit prison?

        Mind you - still liked the movie though. As I did Prometheus - they're movies, nothing more, nothing less...


        1. This was acknowledged in the film by Fox claiming that in time they could prove the fraud. Before it was proved though, the city was cutoff by Bane. And the trades could still happen because it's a world wide stock exchange, not just Gotham City.

        2. Bane's ultimate plan was Miranda's ultimate plan - with the addition of wanting to break The Bat. And many more witnessed it - it was being broadcast on international news channels. Motive? I don't really know enough about the League Of Shadows to speculate on that, but I assume they were sending a message to the elite and corrupt of the rest of the world.

        3. HE'S BATMAN! You think Bruce Wayne, even without his gadgets, wouldn't be able to sneak past or talk his way though some airport security? Maybe he stowed away on a plane back to Gotham? Then he collects his spare batsuit from Wayne manor which I assume is somewhere outside of the city centre that was cut off and it's a simple glide under the cover of darkness back into the city.

      1) The movie says that Wayne could fight the trades, but it'd take months; this is a fair point against the film in that it doesn't really work.

      2) Bane's goal is Miranda's - destroy Gotham, and destroy then kill Batman. The idea is to make Gotham fall apart in front of Bruce's eyes, and then destroy it and him.

      3) He's Batman. The movie could have shown more of this, certainly, but he travelled the world alone for some number of years, and now he's had time to figure out Gotham - he could certainly make it back inside through the sewers or something.

      1, Lucius Fox does mention that they're claiming it under stock fraud but it'll take too long and Wayne will be kicked out anyway.

      2, Bane makes a spiel about how people can't truly suffer without hope. The 5 month isolation was his plan to make the citizens hopeful that help would eventually arrive. And then he nukes them.

      3, He's the goddamn Batman?

      1. They used his Fingerprints for the seige IIRC (catwoman stole them at the start).

      2. Can't remember the exact reason (although I do remember Bane saying it), it was something about wanting to instil hope in the people before they die.

      3. He's the goddamn Batman. I'm sure he can find a way lol.

      Through the ice. He learnt how to carefully walk on ice in Batman Begins.

    Who was the dude from Torchwood - did I blink and miss that?

      Owen from Torchwood (can't remember the actor's name) was the businessmen that Catwoman worked for near the start.

        Wasn't that Ben Mendelson... the Australian actor?

          Ben Mendelsohn was the boss, Daggett; Burn Gorman (Owen of Torchwood) is his underling - the one Selina meets in the bar.

          Not the guy trying to take over Wayne corp.

          The guy catwoman meets with in the bar and the one that scarecrow sentences in court later on

          Burn Gorman was his name

    Aside from the second, these are all terrible reasons to dislike the film, and this was a terribly written article. I dig that you didn't enjoy it and there may be good reasons for that, but this sounds it was written by a 12 year old on the IMDB discussion boards.

    I felt that while I over all enjoyed the movie, and the ending, I still felt there were some things left unfinished. IMO I would of liked to see a more fitting end for Bane, not just as soon as Talia reveals herself, he turns into a pussy and then is forgotten about for the rest of the movie. Also it would have been good to see some reference to joker, be it a cgi version or a double with a behind view, particularly in the prison break-out scene/when Gotham was under Bane / criminal rule. Other than that, I was happy. Kinda interested to see what they do with the Blake character now, because I doubt Warner Brothers will leave the franchise where it's at. I know its the end of a trilogy, but trilogy of what (christian bale as batman or Nolan as director)
    My opinion anyways.

      I think the issue is, would the Joker even like what Bane has done to the city. The Joker prefers chaos over control. Bane wants to destroy Gotham and is controlling it in the film, not something the Joker likes. Bane also wants to kill Batman, another thing the Joker doesn't want to happen.

      Would have been interesting indeed, maybe even the possibility of a team up to fight Bane?

        I'm glad ledger died if only to prevent a team up, horrible idea.

    Why the hell has no one mentioned the stupid scene where the cops with practically no guns go charging at a group of heavily armed men and tanks like there were at the battle from the American civil war??

      Well some of the cops with guns are shooting, they charge to close the distance so Bane's mooks can't use their guns without hitting their own allies.

    1.I guess your point here is that the foreshadowing is too blatant, fair enough I suppose, just keep in mind there's nothing inherently wrong in showing what your ending will be as long as it's done properly, today's culture's obsession with spoilers is bizzare, knowing how the greatest piece of literature in history ends doesn't somehow lessen its greatness, stories are about the journey not the destination. Nolan's batman is hardly Murder She Wrote, where the mystery is what the narrative rests on. Personally I thought the whole Talia arc was a far more obvious and far more important giveaway

    I assume your last paragraph is a joke, you can't really think Bruce Wayne waited there every day, he's a freaking genius, I straight up assumed he got the time and date Alfred would be there , and frankly I wasn't even convinced we were meant to think he'd found a woman so easily, it's not hard for Christian bale to get a lunch date in order to bring his oldest friend some solace. That's certainly more than you can determine from the scene, but then so is determining that he's living happily ever after, especially when you're talking about Nolan.

    2. Generally Agree

    3. Generally Agree

    4. It's Catwoman.. not sure why this is such a big deal.

    5. Agree, but on your last note, you need not assume Bruce would never return to Gotham/being Batman, he's given up being batman before in the comics.

    Honestly these seem like nitpicks to me, I had one major problem with the film, what in god's name was Talia's motivation for destroying Gotham. She wasn't her fathers mindless sycophant, and even more importantly, Ra's al ghul's entire reason for destroying Gotham (in Nolan's trilogy) is that it is beyond saving, that things were only going to devolve further and further. The entire second movie and everything up to the third was about showing how he was wrong, hell a good half of The Dark Knight Rises is specifically setting up how much better Gotham is doing, how it's back on its feet, how Bruce Wayne feels lost when the city isn't going to shit, just so the impact is greater when Bane comes along and messes everything up... but that makes no sense, if the city is in that state Bane and Talia should never have come along to mess everything up... It was a still a good movie, but yeah, the central plot point is, as far as I can see, flawed hard.

      Just want to touch on the Talia thing. She is following her fathers legacy regardless of what has been shown to us the audience she believes the city must still burn as she said gotham is beyond saving. both talia and bane see the hypocrisy that the city lives under in dent act and the fact that while the rich are thriving there hasent been any real improvement for the common people this is shown through catwomans and blakes character development especially with the boys home and catwomans robin hood mentality. if talia and bane are intent on destroying the city as league of shadows members then no improvement by the city would make a difference the second film if anything shows how bad the city can be for characters like the joker to come forward the events in the second film even caused bruce wayne to lose some faith in the people look at energy core for example it took a moment of desperation for him to hand the keys over to anyone unfortunately still the wrong decision... One more thing remember in the first film rhas al ghul said the league would be back

    Public Service Announcement - Great Movie. Everyone just STFU. How many have you guys directed or produced?
    jajaja that's right. None.

    Boring movie and I kept asking other around...where is batman exactly? The movie was so far removed from batman trademarks. I could have fallen asleep in this movie and you could edit out over an hour and have the same exact movie still.

    Missed the mark entirely for me. No gadgets, no acrobatics, no tricks by batman at all. All brute force and dialogue...boring.

      1. What the hell is the Bat, the Batpod, his EMP gun, his EMP switch, etc. etc. if not gadgets?
      2. This may come as a shock ot you, but it's physically impossible to do acrobatics while wearing armour and a cape like Batman does in the comics and in the Arkham series.
      3. You must have fallen asleep if you saw no tricks by Batman.

        Plus the idea is he is no longer a young spry Batman, he's past his use by date...

    Posting this without reading ANY of the article or comments, but had to put it out there:

    Fahey, fair warning - if that "KNIGHTFALL" picture you have posted as a preview *before the frigging jump* is a teaser, I will not be reading Kotaku again.

    Seriously. Not bloody cool. Seeing the movie Saturday, and if you've just given away what I think you have, I'll be bloody upset.

      A new Batman film starring Bane is a given. You obviously know what story Knightfall entails and you are assuming the film will not follow that comic's storyline because suddenly the word KNIGHTFALL is a spoiler? This is a spoiler-filled article! Am I missing something here?

        I think the problem is that this is the header image. It's above the fold, so if it counts as a spoiler there's no way to avoid it.

        Except it's not.

        Anyone who knows what Knightfall means would have immediately made that association as soon as they saw the poster with Batman's broken mask.

      That picture is from all the promotional posters and official trailers. Kotaku has no spoiled anything.

      1. The bat was ok but looked very gimmicky. But what about ZIP lines, his cape solidifying for controlled glide descent, smoke bombs, stealth, chase scenes on foot etc...All four you list are really just one gadget rehashed.

      2. All other batmans have more acrobatics and choreographed pieces that exceed that of Rises. Just look at Batman or Batman Returns for what I mean.

      3. I very well may have fallen asleep in this movie, it was too long, slow and dull.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now