'The Dark Knight Rises' Review By Bryan Yentz

... It's too fast when it needs to be slow; too blatant and expository when it needs to be subtle; to disorganized when it desperately needs order...
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals

To think it's been seven years since Ra's Al Ghul first tried to ruin Gotham in BATMAN BEGINS. . . To think it's been four years since Heath Ledger had us gasping and laughing with the same breath. To think it's all led up to this: the conclusion of the Batman trilogy. It truly feels like the end of an era as there aren't any further Batmans to look forward to. This is it. The ultimate envisage of a master filmmaker. Sadly, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn't the piece of diamond-cut perfection many would have hoped for. In actuality, it's a rather questionable effort in a series which has been so well-crafted; from a director who has been so artistically devoted to his art.

Eight long years after the events of the last film, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES follows a crotchety Bruce Wayne as he sulks about his manor in lament. Unable to move beyond the death of his true love, Master Wayne has relegated himself to the elegant corridors of his home; limping from one room to the next in silence. As Bruce Wayne, he's broken, frustrated and alone. As Batman, he's reviled, detested and hated. Both of his worlds have self-destructed beyond measure. Yet, when Gotham faces its darkest hour at the hands of a masked threat known as "Bane", Bruce Wayne will ultimately discover that the world just might need the bat one last time.

It's been a long time coming, but Nolan's visionary trilogy has finally come to a dramatic close. What began as a well-executed foray into superheroism gradually developed into something far more than your typical summer blockbuster. With the advent of THE DARK KNIGHT, Nolan put on wonderful display, the ambitious and cathartic heights a superhero film could reach. Just because a film was about a guy donning a bat suit to beat down baddies didn't mean it had to be vapid, insipid or mindlessly entertaining; it could have emotion, depth and power--villains that made you angry; heroes that made you cheer. With THE DARK KNIGHT, a new level of comic-to-film adaption was attained and plastered into the eyes and minds of each and every viewer. Understandably, it would be difficult for anyone--even Nolan himself--to top such a splendidly performed predecessor. And in all honesty, it can't. But judging RISES on its own merits, it's actually quite disheartening to see how far below the bar it actually falls. While this finale to Nolan's vision isn't without its moments of brilliance, as a whole, it's a massively flawed endeavor; a structurally unsound mess of technicalities and broken storytelling.

While not near the travesty of PROMETHEUS (seriously people, that was an acid-coated middle finger flicked at ALIEN fans by Ridley and co.), I was astounded to witness just how sloppy RISES was as both a film and a final send-off to the vigilante we've watched and applauded since 2005. The film begins on a high note with a clever heist involving two airborne planes, but quickly goes downhill with our introduction to a now reclusive Wayne and a party occurring at his manor. Poorly timed edits rapidly and jarringly cut from one group of characters talking to the next without allowing us--as the viewers--to simply settle into any one single moment. Just as one scene begins, it literally jumps to two others before leaping back to the first scene. The clunky rapidity of such an introduction extends to the entire film. The previous entries in the canon maintained a calm sense of patience about them; scenes were allowed to breathe and progress naturally. However, in RISES, scenes are cut too soon, or begin too late; destroying any prospect of tension-building or proper characterization. Rarely does anything just pacify and allow a single scene to play out as it organically should. Even at nearly three hours, nearly every scene of possible narrative pressure feels forced and actually, dare I say. . . Amateurish? Thankfully, atop the pile of slovenly handled material, Nolan does manage a few moments of genuine emotion. Two examples of this immediately spring to mind: One, regarding a rather heartbreaking instance between Alfred and Bruce as the truth over a certain letter is spilled, and two, a resplendent trice between a tear-streaked Bane and the person he's committed his life to protecting. It's scenes such as these that reaffirm Nolan's ability as a filmmaker and a master of emotion. Sadly, these are beautiful, shining needles in a haystack of error. Ones that make you disheartened at all of the potential; all of the great things that COULD HAVE BEEN.

Extending beyond the shoddy editing and unrepentantly quick pace, the movie utterly falters with plot holes that would make PROMETHEUS blush. ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** In no particular order. . .

1. How on Earth does Bruce Wayne get back to save Gotham when he was literally in another country climbing out of a pit? He has NO money, NO resources, is NOWHERE even remotely near an airport, and yet shows up in Gotham, clean shaven, with hours to save the city from a bomb threat. What happened there?

2. While Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) knows about ONE particular sewer drain in all of Gotham, how the hell did he know that Commissioner Gordon would swim out that ONE PARTICULAR DRAIN? Again, no tension, no connection scenes, just Gordon in a sewer being shot-next scene, new location and BING! Blake is there too! Magic!

3. How does a weird leg brace "crush" Wayne's leg and automatically repair it? Not to mention allow him to kick walls of brick to pieces? And if something that simple and unexplained could do that, why didn't he get that, uh, like EIGHT YEARS ago.

4. When Batman flies "The Bat" at Bane's horde of gun-toting anarchists, why does he ONLY deactivate the tanks and not give support fire for the police? I mean, he could at least use the flares stored in the vehicle as a thick layer of smog over the enemy. Instead, countless officers are mercilessly gunned down by the enemy. Oh yeah, Batman's "morality" shtick--then why was he willing to KILL Bane directly after this scene when he pummeled his mask apart? Not to mention Miranda when he bombards her vehicle with gunfire and forces it off of a bridge. Also not to mention the men he killed by luring their rockets around the city back into them.

5. How the hell did Commissioner Gordon survive the vehicular fall unscathed when the evil temptress dies from it? He was without seatbelt, next to a bomb in the back of a violently shaking compartment-which was also being blasted by "The Bat".

6. What the hell happened to Catwoman's little protégé? She's in the film, then disappears and Catwoman doesn't even care or mention her-even when a bomb is about to detonate?

7. How did Batman survive a nuclear explosion? The last image--directly before the boom--is of him in the c*ckpit staring out at the ocean he's flying over. And then. . . MUSHROOM CLOUD! Even with the possibility of auto-pilot he couldn't escape the blast radius in time.

8. Why the hell did Bruce sleep with Miranda after having talked to her not but two scenes ago for one minute? She pulls out a picture of his dead woman and that makes him hot for her? There were no romantic hints between the two, mere minute-long conversations about business (this was more of a convenient annoyance than a plot hole; just didn't make sense).

9. Blake knew Bruce was Batman because of "his sad/angry/pained face"? Wow. That's a new one.

10. Why was Marion Cotillard's acting so bad? Her death should go down as one of the most poorly portrayed (abruptly closing her eyes and going, "Ughhh..."). Really? Again, not a plot hole just. . . Just stupid.

11. How does every character arrive at their necessary location without any obvious lapses in time? One scene has Bane placing Bruce in the pit-jail. The very next he's back in Gotham taking hostages at Wayne Tower.

The list of trite conveniences and holes go on, but would take too much time to write at the present moment.

Beyond these issues, another pet-peeve was Bane's "death" or lack thereof. He's the sole reason I wanted to see the film. He's an integral villain of high significance and is hit by an off-screen gun and literally thrown into the background as if he were a voiceless grunt?

F*ck. That. Noise.

Since it was such a juvenile moment of "how do we get rid of him right now?" I figured he'd come sprinting back during the final bomb chase, wounded with mask dangling off of his bleeding face as he jumps upon the cable supporting the bomb from Batman's flying vehicle. What would ensue is a mid-air battle as Bane tries to climb the cable and Batman tries to steer him off. That's what I would have hoped to have happen. . . 'Cuz, y'know, that would have made more sense than what actually did. He's a monument to power and brutality. He's lived his entire life in pain; survived under the most extreme circ*mstances and he's "killed" by a blasé, off-screen character with no personal qualm with him? There's no tension to his death; no moment where we see his dying body spasm. No nothing.

Just. Tossed. Into. The. Background.

Another gripe regarding my favorite character was his voice. When the trailer for RISES first hit and I was gifted with the awesomely gritty voice of a vox-sponding Bane, I was overjoyed at the sound; the dynamic, guttural inflections of his verbiage. And then complaints set in, and his voice was re-recorded. The result--while still slightly true to the original--is a sound designer's nightmare. While everyone else on-screen sounds just fine, Bane's voice comes off just as I feared; as though it was dubbed for a GODZILLA movie. Every time his rhetoric took over, it sounded completely disconnected from the environment; far louder as the people speaking to him. It just sounded like a second-rate choice for sound intention. I would have gladly listened to the original voice with subtitles if it meant avoiding the bad choice in additional dialogue recording.

As far as performance go, Christian Bale actually gives it his best go as the Bat; offering a good deal of confidence and emotion that I feel he lacked in the previous installments. Anne Hathaway is completely unremarkable as Catwoman; exactly what you'd expect from the roster of "sexy-but-lethal" femme fatales. Outside of her integrity to the plot, Marion Cotillard puts on an uninspired performance and feels near useless. Tom Hardy comes out as the best (despite the sh*tty re-recorded ADR), as his character is forced to display feeling through his eyes (as that's all we can truly see of his maw-covered face). Several instances during his final bout with Batman in particular had me in especial appreciation, as his gaze subtly shifted from a simple gaze to that of a fierce, cold-hearted glare--a moment of personal weakness depicted solely through his eyes.

As I ponder the film all the more, I'm coming to find that my general distaste derives from the tone. RISES does not fell like the Batman films of yore; it doesn't visually or tonally carry the same atmospheric heft or color-specified aesthetics as the either DARK KNIGHT or BEGINS. The focus on a president, Wall Street and the constant aerial shots of the brightly-lit city made me forget I was watching a fictional story in a fictional realm. I felt as though I was watching a movie about cops in New York City rather than a tried-and-true Batman tale soaked in the residue and visual palette of a crime-fueled city deemed "Gotham". The entire experience felt far too grounded in our own world; not a fictional one.

Taken as a whole, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES feels, for the first time, as though it truly was written by three different people. It's disjointed, rushed, incredibly choppy, conveniently and illogically written and convoluted. In key parts, the film succeeds wonderfully. As a whole, it's a disappointment. While this foray into questionable "equal" territory didn't rile me as much as the travesty that was PROMETHEUS, I nonetheless found RISES to be a very un-Nolan film. It's too fast when it needs to be slow; too blatant and expository when it needs to be subtle; to disorganized when it desperately needs order. It all ends on a satisfyingly uplifting note, but the road getting there is clumsy, broken and dubious. The trilogy may not end on a whimper, but it sure doesn't go out with a bang.

Do you like this review?

Comments (124)


    @bryanyentz Still hating my movie I see! XD

    2 years agoby @mcleve02Flag


    @bryanyentz Still hating my movie I see! XD

    2 years agoby @mcleve02Flag

  3. IlikePie202

    @moviemouse 2.5 is fair.

    3 years agoby @Ilikepie202Flag

  4. skywise

    @bryanyentz Nolan put a lot of heart into his trilogy and it shows. As many critics have poined out the series comes full circle and the Bruce Wayne characterarc is a complete one, unlike those previous films mentioned, I for one have never been a fan of the camp BM and so Nolan's take on the character was a breath of fresh air.

    Another thing with Nolan's films in general is that he take a very subjective approach.

    But I understand your argument for the Rises.

    I have only seen it once and there was a lot of areas where suspension of belief was criticiao to the movie and yet those moments took me out of the film and made me consider his particular directing style.

    Anyway, I have only seen the movie once and so I am not able to critique it as i can the other s films in the franchise but after the Bluray release i will definatly have a better grasp of what Nolan was aiming for and perhaps a better view of your mcomplaints with it.

    3 years agoby @skywiseFlag

  5. Bryan Yentz


    Definitely. RETURNS and FOREVER were just campy garbage. Nolan's vision was that of maturity and actual character and narrative development; it tried to treat its content more realistically. Really, to me, those two Batman films and this trilogy have no relation other than names (i.e.: "Batman", "Gotham", etc....). RISES isn't terrible, but I do find that it fell quite short of the bar Nolan himself set with his other two films, mainly due to the lack of cohesion in story or logic (which wasn't really a factor in the previous two); I think his ambition outweighed reason. But that in and of itself is something great; that even though I found this finale disappointing, I can nonetheless see that Nolan was truly pushing his passion behind it, this wasn't a cash-grab like FOREVER and RETURNS.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  6. skywise

    @bryanyentz while you felt Hathaway was forgetable I thought she stole every scene she was in.

    This Batman movie has been one of the most devisive films in the Bathead's catalogue. Sure Batman Returns and Batman forever were the same but the passion about Nolan's films make this such a debate worthy film.

    3 years agoby @skywiseFlag

  7. Bryan Yentz


    Thanks, man! Always dig your opinions! And sorry for the late reply, I didn't even get a mention for your post.

    But yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from. It was definitely a Bruce Wayne movie; not a Batman movie. And I agree on Caine, he showed a very emotional side of his character that was lacking in previous installments. As for Hathaway, I just felt like she added nothing to the film. She wasn't terrible, but nothing about her felt memorable, and her constant bitchy attitude annoyed me, (like when she tells Batman, "Don't expect an apology" after she set him up, had him beaton and nearly killed). Oh, and definitley! I still talk in a Bane voice, hahaha, but I try and perform the original's gritty gurgle when I do it... Sounds weird... But I'm getting better. And I believe the one thing that unites us all: Haters, lovers and in-betweeners of Batman, is the hilarity we all share with Cotillard's death... UGH...

    Thanks, again, man!

    Oh, yeah, and I COMPLETELY agree on SUNSHINE. LOVED that flick and is Danny Boyle's best next to 28 DAYS LATER... For me that is.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  8. Bryan Yentz


    Thanks, man!

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  9. Rodney Roover

    Nice review

    3 years agoby @Rodney-RooverFlag

  10. skywise

    @bryanyentz I love Sunshine too. It really is an underated movie. One of Danny Boyle's best IMO (and he has so many great ones).

    I actually enjoyed Bane's voice after the re-edit. In fact I find myself repeating lines in that voice quite often. Enough to irritate my friends at any rate.

    As far as the action, it was lacking. I found this to be more of a Bruce Wayne story than a Batman story.

    I enjoyed the movie but as you pointed out it really did ask a lot of my suspension of belief in many scenes and that Colitard final moment made me laugh in the theater and then grunt with annoyance.

    The editing did not bother me like it did you and I found Anne Hathaway really appealing in this role.

    The performances for the most part were very good and Micheal Caine really blew me away with some of his scenes. The man is a great actor even if he will take any movie that comes his way.

    For a movie that is 3 hours long its to bad Batman only shows up 3 times. Like I said, it felt more like a Bruce Wayne story.

    Anyway another fine review sir.

    3 years agoby @skywiseFlag

  11. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, yeah, I LOVED SUNSHINE. And I completely agree that RISES had some moments (namely everything with Bane), but even still, those moments still left me without that "wow" feeling. They were good moments for sure, but that was most likely because--as you said--everything else dragged and the pacing was off, so when a moment of violence or anything un-dramatic occurred, I think it was more of a feeling of, "Finally!"

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  12. Bryan Yentz


    Oooh. . . Yeah, Sandra Bullock. . . Good example of yet another Oscar failure. . . Tusche, my friend, tusche.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  13. ChiRep_1

    @bryanyentz I love that you mentioned the "replay value" because this was the exact critique I gave my friend after watching it. IMO a film needs to have those "wow" scenes that linger in your head after the credits roll and despite TDKR having a few of them (Both fights between Bane and Batman come to mind) the pacing is too slow and there's too much filler in between. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Inception just catch the hallway scene in all its epicness, or The Social Network with the final confrontation between Eduardo and Mark. The payoff is easily worth sitting through the 2 or so hours of buildup hah.

    And btw, props for giving a shout out to Sunshine, fantastic film for the lack of attention its received.

    3 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  14. Nicholaus XX

    @bryanyentz -- Feeling indifferent about a movie is the last thing (seemingly) directors want. So, in that perspective, I can understand why you said that, and agree. I also heavily agree with your Bane statement; that was subtle rage doing it's magic. Well, Sandra Bullock was nominated for 'Best Actress' in "The Blind Side", and won. Keeping that in-mind, Tom Hardy's performance is more than Oscar-worthy.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  15. Bryan Yentz


    Bane's performance is strong in subtlety (the scene when he duals Batman at the end--you can see the fear and anger in his eyes unlike any moment before that). While I'm not sure if it's an Oscar-contending performance (though I loved it), I guarantee that if it were in the running, the nod would simply go to some pretentious mess of a performance that's more notable because of the A-list actor involved; not so much the actual performance. Another reason I'm not a fan of the award. . .

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  16. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, yeah, a good deal has happened here since the last time you checked. As of now, I'm still in a more vituperative state. Like, I still feel as though it wasn't terrible, but it also wasn't great. Like I told Nick below, it's almost worse that way because I didn't feel strongly one way or another. The movie fell in between; into the land of mediocrity. As for a second viewing, I don't have the time or money to invest in it again, nor do I really care to see it again. Outside of Bane, I didn't find RISES to retain any standout sequences or images that would warrant a second viewing. Like, when I saw the brilliant sci-fi film, SUNSHINE, I was on the fence about it. However, while I had a bit of distaste for it, NUMEROUS sequences stood out in my head as they were visually mind-blowing and John Murphy's score was unbelievably mesmerizing. Thus, because of those key scenes that dropped my jaw, I ended up re-watching it and loved not only those parts, but the whole film. It's now one of my favorites. I didn't get anything like that with RISES. There were no moments during the entire experience that made me think, "I need to re-watch this one moment". It all felt just so painfully typical to me.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  17. ChiRep_1

    @bryanyentz Jeez you've been busy haven't you. I'm curious, have you gotten a chance to catch the film again or are you still loathing it? When I saw it the second time I was able to let go of the plot holes and inconsistencies and enjoyed it quite a bit more.

    3 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  18. Nicholaus XX

    @bryanyentz -- Oh, indeed. He gave a better performance than anyone else in the movie, and he had very little to work with. If that doesn't - at bare minimum - qualify for an Oscar nod, I don't know what will.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  19. Bryan Yentz


    I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the interpretation of Bane. I completely agree; he was sympathetic and provided--definitely for me--the film's highlight. Not only was he a brutal beast, but he was one of the only facets that I felt (even with only a one minute long twist) gave the film a bit of characterization and humanity that it was desperately lacking. And yes, his eyes were the biggest conveyance of emotion; more so than the characters without masks; that got to "act" in a normal vein. Looking back on the film, it does feel every ounce a Hollywood film rather than a solid conclusion to a trilogy. It reeks of a rush job; explosions, blase camerawork and Michael Bay-style storytelling. Sadly, I find much of RISES forgettable; it falls right between bad and great. . . And that's almost worse than either. . .

    And yeah, I've got a few people on here, namely that one chick that took this review as slander apparently. I mean, if people akin to her had defense for their reasoning/like or dislike of the film or my review; that's fine. But some just like to personally lash out at others without justified cause. Oh, well, people will be people.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  20. Nicholaus XX

    @bryanyentz -- Based on the predecessors, and his other work, I don't know what went wrong. Regardless, it felt like a Hollywood movie, and the ending was a sucker-punch, and middle finger to all the fans of the then-marvelous trilogy. Yeah, hopefully. Hey, there's no issues on this side, man. I don't know if a couple of people are misinterpreting your liking of the twist or not, but here's my take:

    It seems to me you weren't a complete fan of the twist itself, but Bane's reaction to the revelation. The entire time(excluding a 2-3 second scene), Tom Hardy is using his eyes - and his eyes only - for vital expressions, and that scene is one of the scenes where he shines. It was very hard to feel sympathy for any of the characters, but not only did Bane achieve the impossible, he was worth rooting for. Call me sinister, but Bane was just THAT incredible. And to see his death(we're forced to assume) thrown out of the way like that was just infuriating. The twist was kind of lame, but Bane/Tom Hardy made it something somewhat acceptable.

    But, that's just my interpretation of how you felt about the scene/twist.

    I also find it odd that people are shocked that you're so brutally honest about a film. It seems like people are very personal about films they like, and take it as an insult, and criticism to their tastes when you bash a film that oh-so deserves it. Do they honestly expect you to jump the bandwagon? Meh.

    That's all right, man. Hopefully they don't take the flag seriously(based on my history), but I greatly appreciate the notification.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  21. Bryan Yentz


    As always, man, I always dig your insight and . thank you for the kind words. I'll keep writing as long as I have people like you on my side. And yeah, RISES was a pastiche of problems and I find it a shame that Nolan didn't honestly. . . Try harder at fixing all of the issues that are so blatant. I'm willing to bet there's going to be some "Ultimate Edition" that is more cohesive, but as it is, it still pales in comparison to his other works. And PROMETHEUS, I'm sorry, I just couldn't get behind that flick, and just to remind you (though I'm sure you already know), nothing I say about it is a detriment or attack against you or anyone else; I just strongly disliked it. However, I can concede that it does look and sound marvelous. As always, thanks for reading, man.

    Oh, and also, I meant to click your name, but I accidentally clicked "flag". Complete mistake so disregard any notification you might receive. Sorry, my bad.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  22. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, "its a Nolan thing- he has me by the throat." that's great. I completely, understand.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  23. Bryan Yentz


    Yeah, Michael Shannon is great and I'd also like to see one of his most recent films, TAKE SHELTER. As for Nolan's casting choice. I like it, but at the same time, I don't think he gave some of the actors enough material to truly "show their stuff". . . Marion Cotillard for one.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  24. Nicholaus XX

    @moviegeek -- Regardless of him going underwater, the explosion covered a 5 mile(?) radius. Either way, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  25. Nicholaus XX

    @bryanyentz -- Outstanding review, man. I strongly agree with everything you just said, besides most of the "Prometheus" statements. I, for one, thought "Prometheus" was superior. Sure, the script was atrocious, but everything else was good, and beyond. "The Dark Knight Rises", however, was a mess in several different categories. From the bad acting, to the pointless characters, miscasts, terrible dialogue, face palming execution, cheap humor, and anti-climactic conclusion. Oh, and the overused, but brilliant score. I could go on, and on, and on..

    That's just me, though. Ignore the fanboys, and continue to write these magnificent reviews.

    3 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  26. Zak Lee Ferguson

    @bryanyentz Great greta points- that actually does get me scratching my head- it would have nethused a bit more aura actually- haha - it did consist of many a superb scene- and of course i do agree strongly that is quite messy and unstrategic but i think my concious wont allow me to lower the rating- its a Nolan thing- he has me by the throat. All best.

    3 years agoby @Zak-Lee-FergusonFlag

  27. Sublime92

    @bryanyentz i havent seen that but i will definitely want to check it out now...and if this movie is as good as i hope it is michael shannon will hopefully be much more known and appreciated as a top notch actor...also i gotta say this is just as good of a cast ensemble as nolans batman series

    3 years agoby @sublime92Flag

  28. Bryan Yentz


    Oh, yeah! COMPLETELY AGREE. Michael Shannon is an exceptionally underrated actor and it'd be great to see him in a more villainous role. HIs subdued performance in SHOTGUN STORIES was especially noteworthy.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  29. Sublime92

    @bryanyentz yes same here....and i have to say michael shannon could play a perfect villain even zod most people havent seen him but once i heard his name i thought of the psycho he was in Bug and was just completely ready for a great villain

    3 years agoby @sublime92Flag

  30. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, thanks, man! Even discounting THE DARK KNIGHT though, I still feel RISES was just a profound mess with some truly great parts to it. I do agree however, that while the film has many an issue (in my opinion), I think that it was still better than many a "threequal" when one conciders the pantheon of terrible trilogies that exist. As for Bane's voice, I agree with you again, but I think even with original "monstrous tone" he retained, I think his charisma would have still made him as he is now--a brutal but slightly sympathetic villain. Since his dialogue is very well-thought and spoken, I think the grittiness of the original vox would have actually given him a darker, more interesting appeal, since you have an organized, strategic, proper-dictioned villain that also has a maligned way of speaking combined with the body of a tank. Thanks for reading!

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag