The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

"Eight years on, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham's finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy."

After running out of time last weekend because I'd completely underestimated the length of the last two "Batman" films, it took me another four days before I got chance to see the final part of the trilogy. Although it was unfortunate that I couldn't watch them all back to back as I'd intended, at least the break allowed me some time to reflect on what I'd seen, what I'd hated, and what I hoped would improve in "The Dark Knight Rises".

I'm the first to admit that I know nothing about Bane. I think he was a minor character in one of the Joel Schumacher "Batman" movies, but I have no idea which one (although it's likely to be the one I didn't review, "Batman & Robin"). All the fanboys were going wild over this character, but I wasn't all that impressed by some fat Scottish bloke in a mask. Wasn't he supposed to be a Mexican in the comic books who had some superpowers from a potion injected into him?

I also wasn't impressed by the amount of lag in "The Dark Knight Rises". The story really dragged, pacing was ludicrous, and, when something important happened, it was rushed. This is a bit spoilery, but, seriously, can a broken spine be cured by punching the vertebrae back in and hanging from a rope for a couple of minutes? Wasn't there enough time to do it properly in a film nearly three hours long?

Of course, I only wanted to see "The Dark Knight Rises" for the new Catwoman as played by Anne Hathaway. The Sunmaid Raisins girl was definitely pretty enough for the role, but she didn't exactly light up the screen with her presence. Selina Kyle wasn't even referred to as "Catwoman" and, more disappointingly, she had no cats either. Oh, but she was a "cat burglar" to make up for it. Big hairy deal.

I did like the few moments that Bruce Wayne shared with Selina, but there wasn't any chemistry there or the sexiness of Michelle Pfeiffer's equivalent even when she was at her most nerdy. This "catwoman" was just a little bit too cynical and misanthropic for her own good.

The guy who played Tosh in "Torchwood" (and was in one episode of "Eastenders" with Phil Daniels) was in this too but I barely recognised him. I didn't recognise Tom Conti at all as the prisoner who helped Bruce Wayne until I looked up the cast list. I suppose that's to their credit as both were cast slightly against type.

The casting has always sucked in Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies though. For some reason, he loves Cillian Murphy almost as much as aerial photography and making Batman stand on the edge of really tall buildings for no reason. Why was Cillian Murphy even in this? Was it just so he could rework that 50 year old joke about "death by ungabunga" into what should have been a more serious moment? Pretty lame stuff.

With both Commissioner Gordon and Batman out of the main spectacles of SWAT teams and more police running around than were entirely necessary, this was all about the previously mentioned Bane and his antics. What was he meant to be? A hybrid of Darth Vader, the "Predator" alien and a Teletubby? I've seen fake wrestlers on Saturday afternoon TV in better shape.

A really ridiculous moment (which stood out even more than Alfred's 180 degree turn into character inconsistency) was when Batman and Bane were fighting and they were knocking lumps of concrete out of buildings with their punches. All it needed was some onscreen "Kapow!" and "Biff!" balloons.

I won't spoil the ending for you too much, but be prepared for it to come at you completely out of left field just like "Kill Bill" with an unhealthy dollop of "Armageddon" thrown in. There's a third film which the ending borrows even more from, but I won't name it.

Well, that's my review of "The Dark Knight Rises" over just like the franchise. I honestly wanted this to be the best "Batman" movie ever to make up for the other two and prove to me that Christopher Nolan wasn't just a hack, but it was very disappointing.

I don't particularly like superhero movies or reviewing anything outside of the horror genre, but I started doing this because everyone else was. No, I wouldn't jump off a bridge if they did, but I thought they had found some treasure which I hadn't. I was misled.

My genre of choice will always be horror, that's what I know most about, and that's what still interests me. As long as Christopher Nolan keeps away from my favourite genre, everything will be fine.

The Dark Knight (2008)

"When Batman, Gordon and Harvey Dent launch an assault on the mob, they let the clown out of the box, the Joker, bent on turning Gotham on itself and bringing any heroes down to his level."

I've heard a lot of people say that "The Dark Knight" is one of the must-have Blu-rays should you ever upgrade to the format. I haven't got a Blu-ray player, probably won't buy one either, and my copy of "The Dark Knight" is the 2-disc "Special Edition" which I bought from the pawn shop along with "Batman Begins". Obviously, someone else upgraded or they didn't think much of these movies either.

Yes, you've guessed it, I didn't like "The Dark Knight". In fact, I didn't even like "The Dark Knight" as much as "Batman Begins". Out of the two of them, I'd say that "Batman Begins" was a lot better and, mercifully, it was also 12 minutes shorter.

Turning a comic book into live action with a more realistic setting is Christopher Nolan's thing, but it just doesn't work for me. "The Dark Knight" felt like yet another contrived cops and robbers drama but with Batman in it.

I know everybody raved about Heath Ledger as The Joker, and, while I can admit that he was the most entertaining part of "The Dark Knight", he wasn't as good as Jack Nicholson or even Cesar Romero. He just came across as a nutter who kept licking his lips. I didn't get any sense of menace from him, and, basically, if it came to a fight, I could take him.

The other big thing in "The Dark Knight" was the entire career of Harvey Dent. I didn't like the character, the prosthetic/CGI half of his face looked too fake and was completely unrealistic as far as the facial movements were concerned, and, well, that whole part of the story sucked. The last time I tried to watch "The Dark Knight", I didn't make it to the end so I had no idea what happened to Two-Face or Batman.

All the usual Christopher Nolan excesses were in this again. There were way too many shots of high-rise buildings which made me feel giddy, there was some pretty awful acting here and there especially from Maggie Gyllenhaal and Gary Oldman, and, the music was only slightly less annoying. I suppose Michael Caine was okay, but he was Cockneying-up his part too unintelligibly. I'm British and I almost had to turn the subtitles on!

One thing which really infuriated me was when Batman didn't kill The Joker. Is this a thing in the Batman universe which I'm supposed to know about? In "Batman" (1989), Michael Keaton's Batman couldn't kill him from 100 feet away with a load of rockets but destroyed the Batplane in the process. In "The Dark Knight", Batman couldn't run the same character over with the Batbike, but managed to destroy that and injure himself too.

I'll definitely never watch "The Dark Knight" again.

Batman Begins (2005)

"Bruce Wayne loses his philanthropic parents to a senseless crime, and years later becomes the Batman to save the crime-ridden Gotham City on the verge of destruction by an ancient order."

Last week, in preparation for "The Dark Knight Rises", I watched a marathon of "Batman" movies. Unfortunately, I ran out of time to review them all during my "Batweekend". I might have made my deadline if it hadn't been for the length of Christopher Nolan's versions of the Dark Knight.

There are two things I cannot abide. The first is any movie which is over two hours in length. Some of us need the toilet quite regularly and having to hold it in at a movie theatre doesn't make for a very enjoyable experience. The second is any movie starring Cillian Murphy.

So can you possibly guess how thrilled I was to watch a two-hours and ten minutes long movie starring, among others, Cillian Murphy? This was torture! At least it was on DVD and I could pause it and go to the toilet whenever I wanted.

Of course, I'm not going to spend much time reviewing "Batman Begins". I'm not a huge Batman fan, I've never read any of the comics, and my "Batman" (if I had to choose one) was Adam West not Christian Bale.

It's easy for me to find things which I hated about 'Batman Begins". I hated having every single detail of how Batman came to be explained, I hated the vertigo-inducing helicopter shots of New York, I hated the music being cued inappropriately, and I hated the way the movie looked.

Finding things I did like is even easier because there weren't that many of them. I liked the way the story was quite self-contained and tied-up things from the beginning at the end. In particular, I'd forgotten all about Ra's al Ghul and the vapour from the blue flower which caused hallucinations. I also liked the clever way that Bruce Wayne turned the tables on Earle (Rutger Hauer).

As far as the acting went, it was good. The effects and action scenes were okay. The background music was horrible. The cinematography might have been great on a big screen or on Blu-ray with a massive HDTV, but, for me, with the DVD and a 42" LCD TV, I thought it was too dark, colourless and kind of grainy in that horrible CSI-style which was so popular at the time. Maybe it's just my setup though.

I've got the 2-disc "Deluxe Edition" on DVD and have no interest in any of the special features so that's all I have to say about "Batman Begins". I highly doubt that I'll never watch it again.