'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)

  1. Bryan Yentz


    Yeah, man, definitely; the tone of something does becomes swayed during typing and with someone like Julia going on the automatic attack, it does become difficult to sometimes realize who is being honest and who is just picking fights. Again, I never thought you to be instigating, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was trying to be a dick or anything. Glad we're on the same page now, though. And yeah, I do find it one of the better recent theatrical releases, I just felt it weak compared to Nolan's offerings on a technical and narrative level. And while I understand you don't agree with me on certain issues, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Again, sorry for any miscommunication.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  2. moviemouse

    @bryanyentz no i didn't think that at all, though i understand the thing about reading comments online is that you cant rely tell what tone someone is taking with you but my response to your gripes where mealy banter with a little bit of sarcasm because you do have valid points some of which where the first things i mentioned to my friends when i got out but i looked past it because it was one of the best times i had in the theater this year but yeah no offense taken

    3 years agoby @moviemouseFlag


    @bryanyentz Not a problem! I will unleash my claws when I find it necessary... Even being a huge BATFAN! haha Us real moviewebbers have to look out for one another! ;)

    3 years agoby @mcleve02Flag

  4. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, no problem, man! Actually, thanks for the assist! Completely agree with your statement... Just another (as Dan1 put it, "butt-hurt") Batfan furious that their golden calf might have some knicks...

    Again, Joker, thanks.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag


    @bryanyentz wow excuse my french on your page, but what a bitch! @Juliaclaire seriously go. I disagreed with his review as well, but we discussed it as grown ups... This site is not about you coming on here and being rude and nasty just because people do not share the same thoughts as you... You should seriously go delete your profile from here if you are going to be that way!

    3 years agoby @mcleve02Flag

  6. Bryan Yentz


    As were mine. I'm sorry if you interpreted my points as malicious, but I was simply giving reason behind all of the qualms I had; all of thes issues you took with my problems. I didn't think for a second that you were trolling (I only thought that of Julia). And I think a 2.5 is very fair considering the faults the movie had. Not terrible; not great. Just in the middle. Again, sorry if my response seemed antagonistic; it wasn't meant to be. The only person on here that I take issue with right now is that of Julia.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  7. moviemouse

    @bryanyentz look man my comments where semi serious i don't expect them to be taken in by you or make you second guess about what you think of the movie nor did i expect that in depth response from you, im not trolling around i just think u picked the movie apart way to much 2.5?? come on man

    3 years agoby @moviemouseFlag

  8. Dan


    3 years agoby @dan1Flag

  9. Bryan Yentz


    I don't watch movies hoping that I can fill in every gap the director fails to. There's a fine line between viewer interpretation and a filmmaker failing to do his job as a storyteller. If something as imperative as that doesn't matter, than why have three Lord of the Rings films? We all know that the Hobbits will get the ring to Mount Doom, so why fill in the middle with needless story? Why not leave it up to the viewers? It's both lazy storytelling and filmmaking to simply to depend on viewer's to make all of the connections because you were unable to; it defeats the purpose of crafting a narrative. Again, interpretation is ONE thing, like Nolan's last film, INCEPTION, does the medal top fall over? Who knows? THAT's where viewer interpretation comes into play. Why was the body in SILENT HILL crucified against a fence with its entrails hanging out; the victim still breathing through his gasmask? Viewer interpretation. In SAUNA: CLEANSE YOUR SINS; why does the monstrous being at the end state the words, "My beloved"? Before the cut to black? Viewer interpretation. These are things which aren't part integral. They're talking points of possible explanation for, beside-the-point content. This goes for Blake and the sewer; AT THE VERY LEAST, show us connecting scenes of WHY Blake would wind up their; his reasoning. Could he have just jumped down another manhole around that area and pursued Gordon and his captors? What made him backtrack ALL of the way to that one sewer when it's known that there are numerous underground tunnels? If he had a gut feeling of that single one, couldn't/wouldn't he have a gut feeling of any other manhole?

    3. Again, though, WHY would he walk around for eight years without a brace? If you had access to something that allowed you to walk without issue, wouldn't you take it? Obviously--as the film depicts--the brace ONLY hurts for the instant it's attached to the leg. Beyond that moment, Batman is NEVER seen in pain again due to his leg. Thus, again, why go eight years without an instant-leg-strengthening-repair-o-matic?
    7. "He's Batman" isn't a defense. Refer to both my statement to #1 and what I stated to Ric-Cat, while I gather the use of auto-pilot, from the film's depiction, there was absolutely no means of escape. Our last shot is of him heading out WITH the bomb, not dropping it, not leaving it--still with it seconds before it erupted. Thus, I don't chalk it up as, "Oh, he just got away". Even with auto-pilot, where was he going to go when it blew? Swim in the icy depths for miles on end (if he could somehow survive the explosion)? Had the film simply shown the vehicle leave the city with the bomb--NO interior shot of Batman inside the vehicle as it's over the ocean--than I would have been like, "Wait a second, it never showed Batman actually flying over the ocean--only his vehicle--thus, he didn't die.""
    8. Not sure if I would, but I know that looking at a picture of the sole person I loved and then having to remember that she and her death were/are the reasons I'm now in my present state-- well, it might be a bit of a mood killer. Again, the idea isn't bad. The execution is. Had Nolan established chemistry between the two instead of--as I mentioned in the review--other moments between the two, not minute-long conversations of business, I would have believed the tryst. As it was though, it was out of nowhere and too convenient.

    As for Bane's demise, again--As I stated in my review--my off-the-cuff idea of Bane's alter death would still make more sense than what did happen to happen, as well as what happened throughout the entire course of the adventure. I'd find much more faith in a trained, militaristic brute of a tracker finding Batman in the streets of Gotham (as they're blowing sh*t up quite loudly), than say, Batman arriving in Gotham when he had zero access to airports, monies, resources, people, was in another country. . . Not to mention all of the bridges in Gotham blown out; the only one still intact guarded by countless police and military.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  10. Bryan Yentz


    Oh, and really quick. You spelled "write" wrong. You stated, "right". Again, good to know that the person saying I can't write has little to no ability herself.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  11. Bryan Yentz

    7. While I gather the use of auto-pilot, from the film's depiction, there was absolutely no means of escape. Our last shot is of him heading out WITH the bomb, not dropping it, not leaving it--still with it seconds before it erupted. Thus, I don't chalk it up as, "Oh, he just got away". Even with auto-pilot, where was he going to go when it blew? Swim in the icy depths for miles on end (if he could somehow survive the explosion)? Had the film simply shown the vehicle leave the city with the bomb--NO interior shot of Batman inside the vehicle as it's over the ocean--than I would have been like, "Wait a second, it never showed Batman actually flying over the ocean--only his vehicle--thus, he didn't die."
    8. Haha, tusche, good point!

    And thanks for reading, man!

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  12. Bryan Yentz


    Thanks, man! And yeah, I completely agree with you. The Dark Knight was going to be a hard movie to follow, but I wanted this third installment to nonetheless stand on its own, which it could have, if the proper amount of time had been taken with someone stating, "Wait, everyone, this just doesn't makes sense; fans of the trilogy deserve more than half-assed storytelling". I also felt the exact way on A-TEAM. It was fun in parts (and I really dig the director, Joe Carnahan), but it was severely laden with plot holes and inconsistencies. Good rating system too, I think a 1 out of 10 allows more maneuverability in terms of just how you felt a movie was.

    Thanks for reading, man!

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  13. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, thanks, man! And thanks for reading.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  14. Bryan Yentz


    Oh yeah,the NYC feeling was far greater than anything the film could muster for Gotham. Glad someone else agreed with me on that one. And while I liked the Bane/protector aspect, I completely agree on Talia's bad, dry acting. Honestly, I didn't give a sh*t about her, the back story only worked on me because of Bane. I think even without her in the film, I still would have appreciated that little tidbit regarding the masked villain.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  15. Bryan Yentz


    Disagreeing with my review is one thing but being a whiny, instigating brat is another. First off, Calm your childish self down and keep your juvenile remarks to yourself, especially when you have no defense other than, "this is a good movie, leave it at that". I don't know you. You don't me. So you going out of your way (especially when you just joined the site) and attacking me and my writing ability is trivial and pathetic. Though, I must say, that I found some solace observing the only things you've written, which were simple comments consisting of "Eeep" and "omg!".

    There is absolutely nothing damning in my critique of you or any Batman fan, thus, for you to drive headlong into the realm of mean-spirited tactics is gratuitous; it's simply uncalled for. If you have qualms, you can learn a thing or two from the others who have posted with actual reasons as to their disagreements, rather than the unbidden attacks of a coward with nothing to say. You like the movie? That's fine. I thought it was okay--here are the reasons. . .

    I understand someone such as yourself watching a film of this nature and not understanding the concept of "flaws"; I understand that you don't grasp the simplest forms of storytelling. I understand that you don't enjoy placing thought into that which dances in front of your eyes. I get it. It's fine; it's okay. But I do. Be it what I watch, read or listen to. I appreciate being able to pick apart the things I like and dislike to find out why they actually make me feel one way or another. Having said all of that, if you'd like to express your thoughts and opinions beyond that of a trolling Batman fan, please, feel free to.

    And yes, sometimes I do have a lot of time on my hands and when I do, I try and commit it to something like writing, drawing, or any number of other things. I don't spend it searching out people I can disagree with and belittle.

    So maybe, with all of this said, you might actually learn something from your own statement, "Well, someone's got a lot of free time", because if you're taking the time to state inflammatory remarks against people with absolutely no qualm with you; people you've never met/know of beyond a review. . . Well, I think you might have a wee bit more time than I do.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  16. moviemouse


    your gripes

    1. no one knows how Bruce got back decide that on your own the attack on Gotham goes on for a few months plenty of time for bane to get there and back.

    2. Blake didn't know that Gordon was going to be there but it not the first time bodies have been dumped there and with what the kid said about people working in the sewer he had a gut feeling and he went with it.

    3. the leg brace he hasn't left his apartment in years he has a butler! using the cane is fine for walking around the mansion and clearly hurts less.

    4. good point.

    5. nit picky.

    6. who cares.

    7. how does batman do anything? how does he disappear with no sound? he's like a ninja or even a magician he does things that seem impossible but he can do it why? because hes BATMAN that's why.

    8. he's a bachelor hes gone from being a billionaire to being completely broke over night are you saying you wouldn't ?

    9. Blake probably had more to go off of to know that Bruce Wayne is batman he clearly has had an interest in him since he was on orphan.

    10. your opinion fair enough

    11. like a said the movie takes place over a few months and montage things.

    i also didn't like the way bane was killed off but i could look past it since he kicked ass through out the entire movie and that scene you hoped for at the end would have been goofy and even if they had that in the movie you would probably of complained about that to like "how did bane know where they were and run all that way"

    3 years agoby @moviemouseFlag

  17. Ric Cat

    7. Auto pilot. Bomb had a range of 6 miles, just because the last image of him was in the c*ckpit doesn't mean the explosion followed this frame immediately. Also the final explosion seemed much farther away than when last we saw Batman's bat plane flying away.
    5. The audience chuckled when the commissioner jumped out unharmed. Impossible indeed.
    8. .......She's hot & horny? Do we really need more reasons? xD
    11. There's a lot of time lapses that aren't stated outright. From the video feed in the pit you could read for example that 84 days had passed even though this is never explicitly mentioned. I doubt you'd find a "9 hours later, Gotham Wayne Tower" line on the bottom of your screen appealing

    3 years agoby @Ric-CatFlag

  18. Juliaclaire

    One of the most immature reviews I've ever read and its supposed to be official???
    PS: just cuz you right a lot doesn't make you any good at it.

    3 years agoby @JuliaclaireFlag

  19. Juliaclaire

    Well someone's got a lot of free time... It was a good movie, leave it at that.

    3 years agoby @JuliaclaireFlag

  20. Chicagochuck

    I am very much into Nolan's Batman series..The characters and the actors playing them. . So that in itself is good .. We all know the Dark knight was going to be very tough to follow..Now I see how important Harvey dent, Joker and Rachel characters were because they were great performers and of course the other actors that were in Rises...(Alfred,Fox,Bruce,Gordon...etc

    But i have to say I almost agree with your review 100%...I critique movies very thoroughly when I watch them..and like the A-team movie I also really enjoyed the characters the same problem I had with that film , I had with rises...jumpy sketchy and all over the place without time to embrace a scene, like you noted.

    ...I rate my movies 1-10 but I never give a movie a 10 just because no film is perfect lol.. I base my like for a movie by the number of times I can watch it and enjoy it.

    I give Batman begins a 8..The dark knight a 9...Rises a 7
    It was a OK film with alot of potential...but it is following the comic book which I have not read....

    3 years agoby @chicagochuckFlag

  21. the MovieGhost

    @bryanyentz Well you did miss one, but that's my own fault xP I haven't had much time to comment.

    As everyone has already stated, this was a very well-written & worded review. It's refreshing to see something different. While I gave TDKR a pretty good score across the board, I respect and acknowledge your points.

    3 years agoby @the-movieghostFlag

  22. slysnide

    @bryanyentz: Totally agreed on the NYC thing. It didn't really feel like Gotham to me either. Especially with all the wide shots of Manhattan Island. And I liked the protector aspect of Bane as well. I might get over the Talia thing a bit later, but her dialogue was just so dry and bad. "Shoot them. Shoot them all." :P

    3 years agoby @slysnideFlag

  23. Bryan Yentz


    Haha, 3 and counting...

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  24. Dan

    @bryanyentz I love that you made 3 people butthurt so far. Onwards with your crusade! :P

    3 years agoby @dan1Flag

  25. Josh

    Considering how much I loved Prometheus, it makes sense that I loved this too.

    3 years agoby @shuabertFlag

  26. Bryan Yentz


    Yeah, I think my name remained the same... Except without a space in between my first and last. Yeah, I remember when the site was like Myspace and everyone had LOADS of images and music playing on their page... Kind of like the simplicity of it now because it would take forever to load people's pages before,

    Yeah, I can see that as more of a convenience too... Still bothers me though. Just an unexplained, quick means of pushing the story along. And yeah, I guess Batman was still feeling the burn of having his back broken and REALLY just wanted Bane done with.

    You're correct, but I think the film alluded to his death if the mask wasn't repaired. As if he could no longer sustain himself without the mask; could no longer deal with the pain. Especially since Batman tells him the he gives him permission to die once he tells him where the trigger is. Thus, alluding to his demise once the mask is rendered useless. That, or Batman was just going to beat his head in with a batarang. One or the other. Maybe.

    3 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag


    @moviegeek That thing doesn't keep Bane alive... It relieves his pain.. he could have ripped his mask off and Bane could have lived... He was found later when Ra's came and saved him with his face just wrapped and bleeding...

    3 years agoby @mcleve02Flag

  28. moviegeek

    @bryanyentz Well I figure Blake knew that if Gordon was going to be killed, he would end up like the boy he found earlier. I mean, Gordon did go down into the sewer. I don't know that it's a plot hole, just a convenience. And I guess you're right about him killing Bane. Haha, maybe Bane just pissed him off more than anyone.

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag


    @bryanyentz haha nice... Do you still have the same movieweb name? I know I disappeared from this site for a couple of years and a lot of people had completely different names... Mine has always been THE JOKER... I had one hell of a page back when we could customize them and all!

    3 years agoby @mcleve02Flag

  30. thedude-abides

    @bryanyentz Yeah, what the hell is going on? Lol.

    3 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag