With that sort of preface, you know what's happening next.
I'm going to tell you why Nolan's Batman trilogy is, when we get into the details of it all, really stupid.
Director: Christopher Nolan
Growl: Christian Bale
Whine: Michael Caine
Yawn: Gary Oldman
Meow: Anne Hathaway
Smooth Jazz: Tom Hardy
French: Marion Cotillard
Sarcasm: Morgan Freeman
Tweet: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
What It's Good For:
-listening to Bane
-Hines Ward fans
-Anne Hathaway being attractive
-turning the line "Oh you think the darkness is your ally?" to a joke by inserting anything in for "darkness", "Oh you think that third irish car bomb is your ally?"
-some high tech shit
-lots of plot holes and logic gaps
-the cheesy reveal of JGL's character's real name
-the cheesy final scene
These are the Nolan movies I have seen: Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, and The Dark Knight Rises.
That's everything except Following and Insomnia.
I want you to note, all of the Nolan movies I have seen rely on subterfuge, either in the plot itself or in the structure of the film.
Memento: fucks with the sequence of events so the beginning is the end. The actions at the beginning, revealed at the end, explain the end which is the beginning. Take note: Memento is Nolan's first American feature film, his second film ever, and its main character is someone who has memory issues. In other words: Leonard's entire life is plot hole and logic gaps.
Batman Begins: Batman is trained as a ninja by the League of Shadows. Batman becomes a master of deception, misdirection, and confusion.
The Prestige: It's about magicians. You know, magicians, the people who trick and deceive crowds for a living (in a good way). Not only that, the film is about two magicians trying to out-trick each other!
The Dark Knight: We return to the caped crusader. His enemy this time: The Joker. And The Joker does all sorts of fucked up shit to trick people. He disguises himself several times. The opening sequence is a bank robbery where the bank robbers enact a step-by-step plan and the robber who finishes his job is betrayed by and killed by another robber--The Joker is the only one left; he's outsmarted everyone. And that's how the movie progresses. The Joker says one thing, does something else. Remember, the story about his scars is never the same. He says he's an agent of chaos, and this is true--his actions cause those around him to become chaotic--but The Joker himself is organized and on-point.
Inception: THE MOVIE IS ABOUT GOING INTO SOMEONE'S HEAD AND PLANTING THE SEED OF A THOUGHT SO THE PERSON TAKES AN ACTION HE MAY NOT HAVE TAKEN. It also involves a sub-conscious manifestation of an ex-wife who is, like The Joker, an agent of chaos, undermining Cobb time and again.
The Dark Knight Rises: Catwoman's employer betrays her. She betrays Batman. Talia is actually a villain. Bane betrays his employer. Bane, like The Joker, disguises himself in the first scene, is, like Batman was, a member of the League of Shadows. There's the BATMAN-WENT-BOOM-BOOM fake out.
An easier way to describe Nolan's movies: neo-noir. The noir genre is rife with subterfuge. So it makes sense that Nolan's movies, while existing outside of regular noir-ish elements of "detective", "trench coats", "rain" and in an updated climate, are not straightforward.
I say all this to make a point: If you think Nolan is a great filmmaker, you have been duped by someone who is a master at writing movies about subterfuge.
Nolan is a good filmmaker. I like every movie I listed. But the same thing happens every time I watch a Nolan movie.
First viewing: THAT WAS AWESOME!!! [picks up phone, starts texting everyone that they HAVE to see this movie]
Second viewing: wait...that...doesn't...make...sense...
For example. Inception spends a lot of time explaining how the whole dream scheme works. Ellen Page's character exists as a viewer-surrogate. She is, like the viewer, uninitiated into how the system operates. So when DiCaprio explains it to her, he's also explaining everything to us. This happens before the main mission so then as the main mission is going on the viewer can watch with a general idea of what's going on. We've been primed/instructed/initiated. We know now how the levels work. What the architect can do. How time is different in each level. How the external world affects the dreamscape, and how each level affects the sub-level. Yadda, yadda. It's like playing a board game for the first time; you may not fully understand, you may ask some questions, but you get the gist.
We get, then, that when the van is rolling in Level 1 the tumbling motion of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a passenger in the van and the Dreamer of Level 2, causes the hotel setting of Level 2 to shake, rattle, and spin. That's how we get the sweet fight between JGL and Scrub #12. When the van free falls, Level 2 loses gravity. Keep in mind, as the van is tumbling in Level 1, and as the hotel is bucking in Level 2, there's shit going on in Level 3. Remember too, DiCaprio told us each successive level is LESS STABLE (remember how in the opening sequence the Level 2 totally crumbled?). Based on the logic of the movie, if there's a god damn hotel earthquake affecting the Level 3 Dreamer then Level 3 should be affected. And it's not. Level 3 is the most stable of all the levels. Sure, an avalanche occurs. But is that really on par with an entire hotel doing flips and shit?
Does this ruin the entire movie? No. I still really like Inception. But this gap in logic, this defiance of the logic-system the movie explains to us, is a flaw, a wound. It de-legitimizes the entire sequence. Nolan didn't follow the rules he laid out. Sticking with the board game comparison. This is the equivalent of...say...a situation that could come up in Candy Land.
When you play Candy Land, there's a board with a path. The path is broken up into a bunch of spaces. The spaces are made up of a repeating sequence of colors: red, purple, yellow, blue, orange, green. There are, at random spots along the game board, 6 character spaces. Near the very beginning is Plumpy, also close to the beginning is Mr. Mint, about 25% of the way is Jolly, about 50% is Gramma Nut, a little beyond her, nearer the end is Princess Lolly, and closer to the end is (the wonderful) Queen Frostine. You play the game by drawing cards. On each card is a color. So if I get a green card, I move my marker to the closest green spot. The goal is to reach the end of the path: Candy Castle. First there wins. You can be one space from the end and get the Plumpy card and have to go ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE PLUMPY SPOT NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE BOARD! Fuck Plumpy. And Mr. Mint. I hate them both.
Where was I?
Oh. So. What Nolan does with Level 3. It's like if you're playing Candy Land with a little kid and the little kid is almost at Princess Lolly, not quite near the end, but getting there, and he draws the card with that fucking grinning Lorax-looking son of a bitch Plumpy. The kid, for good reason, is upset. You're by Gloppy, within sight of Candy Castle, two or three cards from victory. You take pity on the kid and say, "It's cool, take another card." And the kid draws a double red. The kid is happy now. You smile. You draw your card and you get stupid Mr. Mint. The kid tells you you have to go back to near the beginning. The kid draws double yellow, double blue, double orange, and double purple and wins. You're sitting there smiling but you know all of his cards would have been all of your cards, and he would have gotten Plumpy then Mint and lost. So, yeah, the kid won, but he didn't really win.
That's what happens with Inception, in a general sense. The movie is victorious, but only if you forgive it for cheating.
Nolan's Batman trilogy is the same way.
I won't point out everything. I mean, if you'd like to get into a debate in the comments section, sure, I can point out everything. Or, if you know plot holes and logic gaps I don't mention, by all means, write a comment.
Here's what I will point out.
(keep in mind: "suspension of disbelief" does not mean "You can do whatever you want". Suspension of Disbelief means like...I accept there's a highway patrol team that allowed Rod Farva on board...or that a radioactive spider could give Peter Parker super powers...It doesn't mean that the T-Rex in Jurassic Park can sneak-attack the raptors at the end of the movie. Jurassic Park established the T-Rex makes a ton of fucking noise and shakes the Earth. Then it suddenly doesn't? That's not asking the view to suspend disbelief, that's asking the viewer to be a fucking idiot. You suspend disbelief to buy into a certain logic system: sure, A Knight's Tale exists in a world where "We Will Rock You" is sang in the 14th century. This is far-fetched, but it's not...defying the laws of science. If Heath Ledger flew at the end, the flying defies the realistic yet altered reality the movie had set-up.)
(This is my way of saying, I've taken "Suspension of Disbelief" into account when thinking about Nolan movies. And it's not a valid argument against the points I'm making.)
This is already popular, I think. The plot of the film builds to Liam Neeson vaporizing the water of Gotham. He does this with a machine. And the amount of vaporization is vast...like, all over whatever part of Gotham they're in (the part across the bridge) (Note: in every Nolan-Bat movie there are bridges being closed due to impending disaster). If the Microwave Emitter is causing that much vaporization: how are people not dying? People are made of water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, so, we're never told how the Emitter works. Which means there could be a plausible explanation. But because we don't know how the Emitter works there isn't a definite explanation. Which means this is a plot hole. And one that has no apparent answer. It's not like there's any real evidence in the movie to mount an argument for why people weren't vaporized (is there?). Which means, like with Inception, Batman Begins works, but only if you allow it to cheat and defy the natural laws of you know...Science.
And look, this is probably as good a time as any to let the Devil's Advocate say, "IT'S A BATMAN MOVIE! THE GUY DRESSES UP LIKE A BAT AND FIGHTS CRIME WITH INSANE TECHNOLOGY. IF YOU ACCEPT THAT, YOU NEED TO ACCEPT OTHER THINGS DON'T FOLLOW REALITY EITHER!"
Here's my response to that. Almost every critic lauds the Nol-Bat trilogy for its realism. The movie tries to justify how Batman is so good (he's a fucking ninja). How he has the technology (he owns a terrifyingly rich company that has an military R&D department, and none of the tech is really that outside the realm of possibility (until we get to the second movie and see the turning capabilities of Batman's fucking bat bike)). As far as I can tell, Batman Begins takes itself very seriously. It's trying to make sense. It convinces us Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is feasible. And the things Batman does are, given the reality he's existing in, feasible. I think there's real emotion going on with the characters. Feasibility = Realism. What's not feasible, what's not real: an area-blasting water vaporizer not vaporizing the water of humans who are within the blast area.
I also don't really buy Batman's ability to control a legion of bats, but...whatever.
The Dark Knight
Where do I begin? Most of these aren't plot holes in the sense of the water vaporizer. They are cracks in the frame.
In the scene where Joker is chasing the prison van containing Dent, we begin underground. Joker, at one point, takes out A FUCKING ROCKET LAUNCHER. And he fires at the van. Batman intercepts the blast by leaping the tumbler in front of the rocket. Stuff happens. Eventually, Gordon, driving the van, leaves the tunnels and heads to street level. Joker pursues, and radios to two of his goons. He has goons planted in two buildings on either side of the street. They have rope guns. They fire. What are they doing? The goons are there to take down a helicopter which arrives on the scene (police backup). HOW THE FUCK DID THE JOKER KNOW THERE WOULD BE A HELICOPTER RIGHT THERE? How did he know Gordon would take the tunnel? That Gordon would exit there? Why wouldn't Gordon have exited earlier? Especially with Joker firing guns and rockets at the van. Did Joker have goons planted all over the city, waiting for a helicopter? (Again, this isn't a huge thing, but...it's sort of ridiculous when you begin to analyze it closely).
The climax of this mess is Batman driving his super duper Bat Bike head-on at The Joker. This is the famous scene with Joker muttering "Come on, I want you to do it, I want you to do it. COME ON. Come on. Come on, come on, I want you to do it, I want you to do it. Come on, hit me. Hit me. COME ON, HIT ME. HIT ME!" What's Batman do? He waits until the last second, realizes Joker isn't moving, and swerves and crashes. THAT'S HIS BEST PLAN?!?!?? Why not jump from the bike and tackle Joker? Why not slide the bike and take out Joker's legs? In Batman Begins Batman had no problem breaking legs/crippling people. Why not do that here? BATMAN IS A NINJA MASTER. I get the argument that Joker had thrown Batman totally off his game. But. Fuck. Batman just weaved his bike under a moving semi-truck, then around street lights, all while dragging a rope attached to the semi so that the semi stopped dead in its tracks and flipped on its back. Batman then stopped his bike on a dime and spun it around by putting the front wheel up on a building. He goes from doing that shit to totally panicking when The Joker doesn't jump out of the bike's path? I'm pretty sure nothing anyone tells me will ever justify Batman's behavior here. The only reason for Batman not doing something cool and beating Joker right then and there: the movie can't end yet.
"You're thinking way too much about this shit."
That's the thing though. I believe if the story is truly great problems like this don't happen. There aren't cracks. Motivation is plausible. Not everything has to be explained in one grand-eloquent expository speech. And little unexplained mysteries are okay. Like in Blade Runner we're told Deckard is retired. Cool. We don't need to know when, or how he retired. We don't need to know what Deckard did as a child. Or what he had for dinner, how his past relationships went, whether or not he went to college, etc. We don't have to know what Bruce Wayne did when he was 24. Or why he was in prison early in Batman Begins. We don't need to know what happened to the body of Ra's al Ghul. Or how Gotham cleaned up that train wreck. In Avengers, Bruce Banner shows up to the final fight on a motor bike. Where did he get it from? It's not a serious problem because we can make up plausible stories: there was a motor bike nearby the shed he landed in. The question is: how far away was he from NYC? How did he get to the battle so quickly?
The short response to "thinking too much" is: I'm a writer. And I want to be a good writer. Which means I need to be aware of the mistakes others make. This is true for any profession.
The other response is: I'm a viewer. I want to see the best movies possible. So I write this shit with the hope it has a positive impact. That other viewers read it and go "Oh yeah, good point!" and start demanding more from the films they watch. That filmmakers will read it and say "Oh yeah, good point!" and start delivering better products.
Think about these things too.
Joker had to rig the bombs on both of the boats. How did he do that? Did he do it himself? Did he have one of his chumps do it? How did he sneak on the boat? Sneak off the boat? I guess he had money and bribed people? (This isn't a hole. They're just things Nolan artfully skims over)
Joker recruited a ton of fucked up people. How and when did he do that? I guess he had money and bribed people? (another artful skim).
The final showdown between Batman, Dent, and Gordon. Dent is Two Face at this point. He has the gun to Gordon's son's head. Batman comes to...save the day? No. To talk? Okay. Yeah, he and Dent were friends. Batman doesn't know the rampage Dent is on. So of course he tries talking to Dent rather than, you know, using the element of surprise to de-equip Dent of his gun and free Gordon's child before starting the chit-chat. When Dent flips the coin, he shoots Batman. In the stomach. And only once. Batman goes down. Note the distance between the two. Something like 15 feet? Batman isn't close. So what happens? Batman gets shot. Dent flips to see if he'll shoot himself. Nope. Dent talks more. Then Dent flips the coin to see if he'll kill Gordon's kid, and Batman tackles Dent! Go Batman! But...think about this. Batman gets up? Or rolls out of sight? Without anyone noticing? I get that Gordon is fixated on the gun to his son's head. And the wife wouldn't say anything. Dent doesn't notice the movement? I guess Dent is psychotic at this point. But this means somehow Batman gets up without anyone noticing. And then in the time it takes Dent to flip the coin Batman's charged from 15-ish feet away and tackles Dent? Tackling Dent was the best thing Batman could do? He's a fucking martial arts master? Tackling the guy with the gun and the child he's holding on to off a ledge is, again, the best plan Batman has? Grabbing Dent's gun hand and punching him in the nose isn't better? Batman doesn't carry a taser? I just find it totally impossible no one would notice Batman up and running at Dent. For Batman to tackle Dent the way he did, he'd have had to start running before Dent flipped the coin. I feel like someone would have noticed this, Ninja Master or not?
How and when did Joker rig the hospital to explode? Re-watch the scene and look at all the explosions! That's not just one bomb going off. Did he just go room to room in his crazy nurse costume? (Skim).
My favorite thing is at the end of the opening scene. A robber backs a school bus through the building. When Joker pulls out with the bus, he pulls the bus into a long line of school buses, and as the camera pans back we hear the playful screams and laughter of children. Have you ever been on a school bus? They have radios. Drivers radio with each other all the time. Here's what I want to know: if when Joker pulls the bus out of the bank, there are buses ahead of him, WHY DIDN'T ANY OF THOSE BUSES STOP WHEN THEY SAW A SCHOOL BUS BACKED THROUGH THE WALL OF A BUILDING?!?!!?!? Had no one called the cops? Wouldn't cars have stopped? It's the middle of the fucking day. Sure, the bus isn't there long. But it's the middle of the fucking day in a busy city? I feel like someone would have pulled over? Especially when the bus backed through the building to begin with. But also as the bus was backed into the building. Weren't there other cars on the road? Did the bus just start backing up despite the cars behind it? Wouldn't the driver of one of those cars been like "What the fuck is this guy doing? Hey! I'm right behind you! This guy, fuck this guy. I'm going to--OH SHIT! THE BUS JUST WENT THROUGH THAT BUILDING?! I'M GOING TO CALL 911 AND GET OUT AND SEE IF EVERYONE IS ALRIGHT!" Were there seriously no other cars on the street? Did none of the other bus drivers notice a bus crashed through a building? Did they not care? Was every bus being driven by a Joker henchman? Don't forget, the bus pulls into a convoy of buses. How the hell was there space for The Joker to pull from the building into the street? Did another bus slow down and create space? If the bus had originally been part of the convoy, wouldn't the buses behind it have stopped when it backed into the building? But seriously if you saw a school bus drive into a building, and you assumed this school bus was full of, you know, CHILDREN, wouldn't you get out of your car to see if they're okay? (You could argue that last point with: it's Gotham, there are crazy criminals, people put their head down and don't get involved).
What I'm getting at is this: THE BUS SCENE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. It seems smart, at first. But when you think about it...
The Dark Knight Rises
Okay. Well. Again, this isn't everything. But let's start with the most obvious problem.
Even if you don't agree with any of the other points I make, you have to admit the back injury recovery is insane. A guy punches Bruce Wayne in the back, then puts him in a half-hammock to hang. A doctor says the injury itself is wrong, don't even get started on the treatment method. I get the nod to Knightfall. But at least Knightfall put Bruce Wayne in a wheel chair and had him recover over a logical span of time. Not in a prison without proper nutrition? Or was Bruce getting proper nutrition in the pit? If so, that raises a whole other set of questions about the food quality in what is purported as the worst prison in the world.
How does Bruce Wayne get from the Pit o' Doom in the Middle East/Morocco/India to Gotham? And I don't mean how does he travel from A to B. I'm fine with the fact he stowed away on a plane to somewhere. Then a plane to somewhere else. Then got to America. And eventually got to outside of Gotham. What I mean: how was Bruce Wayne able to get into the city no one else could get into? If he got in so easily. Got to his mansion. Got his suit. And started kicking ass again: why didn't the FBI or SEAL Team Six or Delta Force or Scout Snipers find a way in and subdue Bane? I mean, yeah, there was the one group who got in and got murdered right away. That was the best the US Government could do? I'm not doubting there was a way Bruce Wayne snuck into Gotham, it's a huge fucking place, from what I can tell, and I'm sure Bane's henchman couldn't patrol all of it. But...like...what about the coastline? Were the bridges really the only way in? I just don't buy the whole "5 months has gone by with only one shitty ass special forces team entering and attempting to take Bane down". It seems ridiculous to me that Bane could stave off every possible entrance. And if Bane had, how the fuck did Bruce get back in? Did he really walk on the ice all the way there?
Never mind how Bruce got in: what about the Bat Symbol of Hope he lights from the bridge? HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE TO SET UP? He had to run a fuse from the top of the bridge all the way down to where Gordon was walking on the ice? Or pour gasoline??? How did he know Gordon would be right there? How did he even know people were being executed on the ice? If the US army was guarding the bridge so Gotham citizenry couldn't escape, how did Batman scale the bridge and set up his Flaming Chiroptera? Wouldn't someone have noticed him climbing the bridge? If he used his sci-fi copter thing, wouldn't people have noticed it? You're telling me there was only hours until the bomb went off and Batman was doing arts and crafts atop a bridge?
During the showdown between the cops and Bane's minions, Bane trudges through the cops, beating them with his fists, until he encounters Batman. The cops have guns, right? Not a single one of them thought to shoot Bane? Wouldn't that be the first thing you did?
Batman got the bomb away from Gotham. But. How far did he really get? There would have been SOME problematic effects, right?
If you notice, the bomb goes off and the water doesn't react. I'm pretty sure there would have been some waves or something, a bit of choppiness.
Why would anyone care about Bane reading Gordon's speech about Dent? Bane's credibility is sort of down the shitter. He's holding an entire city hostage. Who would believe him? That's like...near the end of WWII Hitler reading a speech to Europe supposedly written by FDR condemning Winston Churchill. Would you believe anything Hitler said at that point??? Especially since you're at war with him?
We also have to accept the fact that the bad guys did not immediately blow up the bomb. The goal was to eradicate Gotham, per the wishes of Ra's/Liam Neeson, Talia's real dad. Except Bane has some contrived thing where he wants to give the citizens of Gotham hope before squashing them. Bane's not really in charge though. Talia is. So what did she have to say about all this? What was the real reason for not blowing up Gotham right away? Was it really making people have hope? When Batman comes back, wouldn't Talia or Bane have been like, "You know what, we shouldn't risk this, just detonate the bomb."? Were Bane and Talia planning on being there when the bomb exploded? If not, they were cutting it awfully close? How were they planning on escaping? If they weren't planning on escaping, why didn't they just blow the bomb when Batman appeared? Wouldn't that have been the ultimate let down? "LOOK BATMAN IS--" insert big boom.
Look. I still like the trilogy. But the trilogy relies on the viewer being complacent. Nolan is hoping no one questions the logic of his movies. Or that the strengths of his movies outweigh the problem points. I think there are a lot of strengths.
But am I like "ZOMGZ THESE ARE THE END ALL BE ALL OF BATMAN MOVIES NEVER MAKE ANOTHE ONE CHRISTIAN BALE IS THE BEST BATMAN AND NOLAN IS A LEGEND A TRUE LIFE LEGEND" (which comes out sounding like this)?
You can argue "I think the Christopher Nolan Bat Movies are perfect!" That's your opinion, sure.
You cannot argue "The Christopher Nolan Bat Movies are perfect!" It's simply not true.
Yeah, this is the very reason I will deny Citizen Kane the title of "Best picture ever". No one was around to hear Kane say "Rosebud". I think the movie is awesome, mind you. It just...the entire story is based on a logic gap.
And this is the reason I will say Nolan is good but not great. All of Christopher Nolan's movies (we're not counting Following or Insomnia; not because I haven't seen them but because: Following is his first film and the budget was $6,000--it grossed $48,000; and Insomnia is a re-make.) are riddled with illogical moments and actions. And Nolan covers them up well (it takes someone good at deception, misdirection, and conning to be able to write six successful movies about deception, misdirection, and conning).
These logic gaps/plot holes are things that won't bother most people. Which means...
a Christopher Nolan Batman movie is like playing pick-up basketball with someone who can dunk and it's impressive until you find out he has calf implants and mini-trampolines in the soles of his shoes. It doesn't take away from the jump shot, or the dribbling ability, the defending, but you know the dude can't really dunk. So he's still someone you want to ball with, but when you hear someone go "CHRIS IS SUCH A GOOD BASKETBALL PLAYER! HE CAN DUNK AND EVERYTHING!" you're going to be like...
Before you jump down my throat, think about this. In Kick-Ass, Aaron Johnson gets his shit rocked the first time he wears his suit and tries to fight the thugs. He's taken to the hospital. There's a line where Johnson says: "I came round long enough to beg the medic not to tell anybody about the costume." If this line didn't exist, we'd have a logic gap. Wouldn't Johnson's dad have known about the costume? So then when "Kick-Ass" appears all over the internet and news, wouldn't his dad have known? Instead, we get the line. And then we have the dad asking Johnson why Johnson was naked.
Plot holes and logic gaps are that easy to avoid.
I know, I know. You can't explain everything. It starts to feel...fake. But I feel like you can hint at explanations.
Also in Kick-Ass. There's the first "heroic" act where Kick-Ass saves the dude from being beaten up by three other people. We don't know why these guys are hell-bent on beating up the dude. They are. Does it need explained? No. We can make up plausible reasons.
You can't really make up a logical reason for none of the police officers shooting Bane in the Reptile mask.
It cracks the coherence of the film.
Most movies have plot holes. As much praise as I gave to Kick-Ass, there's the whole problem with the rocket fired from the bazooka doesn't explode on impact. Except I'm absolutely fine with this because it's fucking awesome to have Mark Strong fly through the city propelled by a rocket and then exploding.
I love Jurassic Park but it bothers me to no fucking end that the T-Rex steps over the same wall he knocks the jeep over. Except when the jeep is knocked over the wall there's a 50-foot drop. Is Steven Spielberg a worse director because he has plot holes in his movies? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Does he still make better movies than some other directors: sure. So in spite of the flaws, Spielberg is better than other directors with their narrative blunders. If it's impossible not to have plot holes, the best directors are the ones who make the least (or cover them up the best).
Again, there's the argument of: "these are movies, calm down and enjoy them"
Again, there's the counter of: this is what I do for a living. If you want to be the best, you don't accept anything less. I'm not saying I hate movies with plot holes. I'm just saying...the Nol-Bat trilogy isn't perfect, and Nolan can do a better job as a writer.
No movie is perfect. But some are better than others.
Did I Like It:
For the hundredth time, yeah. I'm criticizing DKR, but I liked it. I actually didn't think Batman was so cool in it. I was mostly intrigued by Bane.
I talked shit about the Batman riding his bike at the Joker scene. But DKR makes that scene all the more interesting. Here is Batman, someone who is terrified to die and refuses to acknowledge his fear of death (the main emotional plot of DKR), and there's The Joker: someone who appears to be totally willing to die. In that context, it makes sense for Batman to lose his cool and swerve and crash. The Joker has struck a chord deep within Batman. Except Batman has no such problems later. And the scene only makes sense this way within the context of the third film; there's nothing in the second movie that hints at Bruce Wayne's fear, except maybe his refusal to kill.
Bane reminded me of Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.
I thought it was lame Catwoman killed Bane. The first two Batman movies made such a huge fucking deal about Batman not killing. And here he has his strongest villain yet, and the whole "Will Batman kill Bane or won't Batman kill Bane" confrontation is erased by Catwoman using the Bat Bike, the fucking gimmick of the century, to eradicate Bane.
I disliked Marion's acting.
I really thought the Bat Symbol of Hope was dumb.
OH. The biggest thing I will give Christopher Nolan credit for: fixing his fight scenes. The fight scenes in the first two Batman movies are nigh incoherent. The camera jumps, cuts, and twitches more than a horse being struck by lightning. In this movie: the camera is steady, the shots are lengthy. We are watching a fight, rather than experiencing one (that's the one thing about Nolan's crazy editing in the first two movies, it feels like you're part of the fight). I think I give a lot of credit to Tom Hardy. He's good at fighting. I think having him in fight scenes probably affected things (for the better).
The end is nice. I think it's the easy way out, but, whatever.
I have problems with all three movies. But I think my order goes 2, 1, 3.
% Character / % Actor's personality
JGL: 50/50 (felt very...self-conscious to me?)
Plot holes: site one, one of the funniest articles I've read, and another one
Plothole-less films: A Clockwork Orange; Fight Club; Lost in Translation; Ran