Re: The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the comics? Ra's. But it is unfair as Ra's is one of the best villains of the comics while Bane is rather mediocre there.
In the Nolan films? Bane. Ironically, Nolan's Ra's left a little to be desired. Neeson was dead-on in his performance (if it was a bit Bond-ian at times), and the look was great, but the writing took away too much of what made him unique. He made a good villain for that story, but not an iconic one you remember years later unless you're a hardcore Batman fan (ahem, looks around the forum).
In the opposite direction, Nolan took a silly villain who only hardcore fans thought had any value and made him a household name, as well as one of the most memorable onscreen baddies of the last few years. On top of that, Hardy gave an overall strong performance, because the character felt so entirely fleshed out and developed as a person, despite Hardy having half his face covered the whole time. He conveyed a sense of genuine menace, a rarity in superhero movies these days, and has at least one scene that will go down as one of the all time Batman villain greats on film (taken from his best scene in the comics). He also has one of the most unique and interesting plans of any blockbuster villain ever in Hollywood cinema.
So in short, Bane a country mile.
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."