Today's News: lots of little news items

Plenty of news this week, but nothing really major. The usual atmosphere in January.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158650/trailer_penny_dreadful_seizoen_2

Bring it on! If Season 2 is anywhere near as creepy and offbeat as Season 1, I'm game. The trailer sure indicates the eerie, Gothic mood of the show remains unchanged. It's just the characters that get mixed up in new plot twists which causes the major change in pace. From the looks of it, Eva Green's Vanessa Ives takes centrestage again. I don't mind, as Green is a very appreciable actress, though I do think a little more attention to some of the other characters would have been and remains most welcome. It would have made the revelation about Josh Hartnett's character a little easier to digest, since it now came mostly out of the blue, though I reckon Season 2 will definitely address matters more on that front. But hey, anything involving supernatural characters in Victorian London very much piques my interest. If the second season proves half as intriguing as the first, I won't complain.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158651/tom_hardy_verlaat_suicide_squad

I predicted this was gonna happen in my previous discussions of casting for this DC movie (look them up via the tags below, if you disbelieve me). Suicide Squad is an ensemble movie filled with colourful characters, and its ranks have been filled with some big A-list actors to portray them. Of course, egos were bound to come into conflict with one another over how much screentime their character featured and what the exact nature of their supervillain of choice ought to be sooner rather than later. And so Hardy is the first one out, as new sources (not mentioned in my article) claim was the result just because of creative differences over his character. I expected it to be Will Smith, so that at least is a little surprising to me. I would also have liked to see Hardy stay on board more than I would Smith, as I consider him to be the more interesting actor (since he's not yet a superstar, unlike Smith). However, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the cast follow Hardy's example soon. I hope they won't, since the majority consists of solid actors who might do very well with the subject matter. But it's hard to deny director David Ayer might have bit off more than he could chew with a cast as loaded with impressive names as this one.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158664/eerste_foto_cast_now_you_see_me_2

The big trick this first movie, about a bunch of rebellious illusionistsbreaking into banks, pulled out of its hat was introducing its franchise ambitions. Its ending sure revealed there was much more going on behind the scenes than at first believed. It proved quite an incredulous close which strongly required wanting to be fooled to accept it. Many audiences didn't, and therefore condemned the film's finale as a ridiculous and illogical cop-out. But the movie performed well enough in a summer of weak blockbusters, which makes the studio hopeful this franchise will spawn a few blockbuster installments of its own. At least they got a decent cast to make it happen. Most of the veterans from the first move are back for more magic shenanigans, while this first cast photo shows Daniel Radcliffe and Lizzy Caplan have been added to the cast. Decent additions for sure and at least one of them knows his way around the world of wand waving magic tricks. Otherwise, I remain skeptical about this project. It seems it's gonna go down the road of Ocean's Eleven, except with illusionists robbing banks rather than with gentlemen con artists pulling off casino heists. Which is fine for many audiences, but not my cup of tea.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158666/fox_wil_meer_x-files_

Not overly fond of this notion. The X-Files was a good show, but its curse was it overstayed its welcome, continuing for two more season than felt obliged. Similarly, one movie was warranted at the peak of its popularity, but the second one was an exercise in redundancy, which barely even felt like connecting to the series proper. Why bother digging up such fossils? Well, money, obviously. As noted, the show was a smash success back in its days. There's still plenty of fans who crave their weekly dose of extraterrestrial and supernatural mystery. However, I think the majority would agree that this is basically just blatantly repeating past glory. Though I'm usually not high on reboots, I think it would be the wiser way to go in this franchise's case. Duchovny and Anderson have moved on, and I doubt they would feel much for anything other than a limited series, as Duchovny already suspected to be the case. Why not have a new duo of talented actors take over for them? If the new take on the show is indeed a limited series, that would be a great opportunity to have the torch be passed from the old cast to the next generation, while also testing the waters and see whether The X-Files premise still connect to modern day audiences who are more used to an ungoing narrative rather than old fashioned episodic storytelling. However, a limited series can't address the mythology of the original show much, since that was basically concluded, nor does it have much opportunity to introduce a mythology of its own if there's only gonna be a handful of episodes. I bet we'll see a miniseries at first, which tells a rounded story but keeps options open for a follow-up regular running series which stars main characters other than Mulder and Scully. No mystery that's probably the safest way to go, and I want to believe Fox feels the same.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158696/nieuwe_promo_the_walking_dead_seizoen_52

I won't discuss this particular preview much here, simply because I can't. I have yet to catch up with The Walking Dead Season 4 and the first half of Season 5. So I have no idea what tragic events preceded this trailer. It's the downside of living in the Golden Age of Television: there's too much good series to go round and not enough time to watch them all. I'm not following TWD as closely and obsessively as some other shows, though I hope to return to the zombie apocalypse soon. But until that time, I try to stay away from any information regarding the show, so as to avoid potential spoilers. Fortunately this 30-second teaser didn't show too much, and what it did reveal, I missed to such an extent that I don't feel spoilered. Thankfully, since this is often an unfortunate side effect of the job of posting news about movies and TV.

Today's News: back on schedule!

Finally managed to catch up with commenting on my own news today, thanks to a drought of news this first half of the week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157621/eerste_poster_tim_burtons_big_eyes

Excellent poster and tagline to match, precisely portraying Big Eyes' narrative issue at hand while indicating a humourous, even whimsical tone. Not as Gothic as we're used to from Burton, which could be a nice reprief, since most of his films in that vein from recent years (Dark Shadows, Alice in Wonderland) failed to capture our imagination. Still, biopics are not new territory to the man, as he already made one of the finest I've ever seen with 1994's Ed Wood. Seems he has a thing for underdogs in the visual arts, though the exact finesse of that term is debatable when it comes to Wood's excessively amateuristic works. However, as that film illustarted and tBig Eyes might underscore yet again, it's all about the love and enthusiasm you put into the act of creation. Talent comes second, or sometimes sinply not at all. Burton also doesn't seem to rely on his usual actors this time, instead opting for new company (but fortunately for us, still delightfully watchable talented actors). Big Eyes in many ways seems like a change of pace for the director, though he's still not entirely leaving his comfort zone given the subject matter. I hope the film will reaffirm Burton is still one of the most unique and worthwhile directors in Hollywood.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157620/tom_hardy_beoogd_voor_x-men_en_suicide_squad

I'm not familiar with Suicide Squad. Sorry, I'm just a Marvel guy, while DC never really did grab my attention (aside from Batman, naturally). Such as it is, I am quite familiar with X-Men baddie Apocalypse. And I think Hardy is a fine choice to portray that ancient genocidal genius. Of course he looks nothing like Apocalypse does in the comics, but that's what computers are for. With Hardy, you may not even need those. After all, the Bane from the comics is as much of a hulking behemoth as Apocalypse, but Hardy's portrayal in The Dark Knight Rises, both physical and intellectual, made us forget all about the source material. Hardy definitely possesses the necessary gravitas and determination to make Apocalypse work on screen, as he did Bane. Though not in the same vein as Ian McKellen's Magneto (no, no no sir! That's the very top level of acting!), Hardy's Apocalypse could surely be a tour-de-force in supervillain acting, if he does opt for Marvel of course. Maybe his prior experience working for DC, though unrelated in terms of the DC Cinematic Universe which does not inculde Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, will entice him to choose Suicide Squad after all. Marvel's loss would definitely be DC's gain. And I'm sure he would make for a formidable foe to whatever poor DC superhero crosses his path in that film (if any), but it would be a great loss for X-Men: Apocalypse. And that movie already has a few things going against it, what with Channing Tatum performing Gambit... Hardy would be a fine choice to balance the acting scales in that regard.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157667/james_wan_terug_voor_conjuring_2

I'm generally not fond of the concept of horror sequels, particularly to movies that made a valuable contribution to the genre. But if you gotta cash in by repeating a concept, you damn well better get the man behind the concept itself. Especially if that man could be held responsible for revitalizing the horror genre - at least in terms of popularity and audience attendance - over the last decade. James Wan sure can be said to have done so with Saw and Insidious, though particularly in the case of the former franchise, all the money spent on its many redundant sequels could have been put to better, more creative use. Now history is sort of repeating itself with The Conjuring, except that its success had already spawned a spin-off - Annabelle, currently in theaters and reportedly not all that bad - prior to a direct successor. Wan understands horror in its various incarnations, and if any genre director is capable of making this blatant cash grab work for audiences as well as for money hungry studio suits, it's him. Is his heart in it? It just might, since time has proven that he keeps returning to his horror roots despite the occasional break in that routine. Such a break is currently in progress as he's finishing Fast & Furious 7, so after all the tedious car chrashes and chase sequences, he'll probably be up for a few more oldfashioned scare tactics. And if he does finally miss the horror mark this time around, there's always the possibility of an Annabelle 2.

Today's many little bits of news

Someone has been a busy little bee posting movie news these past few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156058/nieuwe_poster_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is a poster I'm going ape over. So that's not a very original pun in this context, I know. Nevertheless, it fits the bill. The more I see of this sequel to the already surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the more I feel it's gonna be very much worth our while. Top notch, groundbreaking visual effects notwithstanding, there's a definite heart and soul to the story of man's (and ape's) incapability of coexisting alongside beings that on many levels should be considered equal (read: other humans with different points of view). Such intolerance can only lead to our own demise in violent revolt, for which we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Of course, apes make the same mistake as humans (ape shall not kill ape; yeah right!), showing that they're truly not so different. This poster hearkens back to the climatic events of the previous installment very nicely, even though the bridge portrayed on the one-sheet doesn't seem to be the same as in that final showdown. Apes on horesback wielding firearms are new to the (rebooted) franchise though, and just shows how far primate progression has come since. Or more aptly, just how much they resemble us now, considering their eagerness to carry weapons to purposefully harm others and subject animals to do their heavy work. Since mankind has been largely wiped out in this flick due to the pandemic set up in the credits of the previous film, both sides are now on equal footing in terms of strength. Will this incarnation of Planet of the Apes devolve into mutual annihilation as did its Seventies' predecessor? Or will a more hopeful outcome prevail instead to demonstrate such violent times have passed? Considering a third movie is already in the pipeline, don't expect an answer too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156034/marvel_will_derrickson_voor_doctor_strange

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156075/marvel_overweegt_hardy_of_cumberbatch_voor_doctor_strange

While Ant-Man is still stuck without a director (at least five candidates have passed the job over the last few weeks), Marvel is quickly moving forward with Doctor Strange regardless. In fact, at this rate it feels like the latter will beat the former to theaters, which might work too if the Marvel scribes shuffle their various set-up pieces for the larger Cinematic Universe around to accomodate these production problems. Strange has landed a director - Scott Derrickson, with the lousy Day the Earth Stood Still remake on his resumé, but also a recent tendency to deliver decent horror flicks - and consequently the studio is now focusing hard on finding a lead actor. The most promising name once attached to the project, Viggo Mortensen, is not on Marvels mind anymore, sadly. Instead, they choose to opt for 'hotter' names and at the moment that list has been narowed down to two: Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Both solid actors with a diverse enough background for me to realize they could adequately play this supernatural character. Both careers flawed by their involvement with much lamented Star Trek projects, as Hardy portrayed Picard's angry clone Shinzon in the feeble Star Trek: Nemesis, while Cumberbatch wasted his time and talent boringly repeating an unrepeatable Khan in the even worse Star Trek Into Darkness. I'll forgive those sins, as they have proven they are still very capable actors since. If it indeed has to come down to either one of these two, Cumberbatch would be my pick. The characters he has played usually prefer mind over matter, his unsurpassed take on Sherlock Holmes being the prime example. By comparison, Hardy's roles have tended towards men who let their muscles do the talking: not mindless necessarily (e.g. Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who is both very strong and extremely intelligent), but still more driven by their physical attributes. The Sorcerer Supreme is very much a being of the mind. Sure, there is a physical aspect to him, with all his silly gesturing when uttering spells and whatnot, but otherwise his intellect takes precedence, his mind literally leaving his body when voyaging on the astral plane to keep humanity safe from supernatural harm. I'd feel more comfortable seeing the lean and elegant Cumberbatch in that capacity than the bulky built Hardy, as there's enough overly muscled Marvel heroes prancing around on the silver screen already. But still, I would have preferred Mortensen entirely.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156042/wachowskis_jupiter_ascending_uitgesteld

An unexpected move, but an understandable one for such an FX heavy film. At least the film was already announced to be in 3D, so unlike G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which witnessed an eeriely similar dramatic push in release date, this movie is not being postponed because the studio wants to pressure a 3D release on us. Nevertheless, Jupiter Ascending has all the hallmarks of a big summer blockbuster (popular stars for both male and female demographics, a recognizable pair of directors, epic effects, fairly typical plot), so to reduce it to a February release seems an odd move. It's likely the studio wants to ensure it has little competition at the box office, as it previously had to compete with equally big movies like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Hercules, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the not so dissimilar Guardians of the Galaxy. Currently, the only film slated for February remotely in its league is the fantasy spectacle Seventh Son (which features less stellar names, a rather unknown director and also underwent its fair share of production problems and release postponements, as it was shelved for a year or two). Even though the late winter season isn't most noteworthy in terms of financial success, if there's few other big movies to contend with, the higher your attendance numbers will be. Or so the studio hopes. Time will tell whether they're right. I kinda hope so, since this movie looks rather promising. Even though both Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis far from get me stoked, I'm always in for another space opera as too few of those are produced to my liking.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156059/watts_en_kim_gecast_in_insurgent

Divergent is another one of those franchises that tries to narrowly avoid blockbuster season by appearing in theaters just before the storm of big movies hits. Understandable, as the first film wasn't quite a big film itself, though considering its success its sequel, Insurgent, seems better endowed in that respect. Jupiter Ascending now steers clear of that one too, appearing some six weeks beforehand. The Divergent movies so far have still to rely on their popularity with the young adult female demographic for the most part, which worked so well for the books aimed at the same target audience. The first film was ambitious, but had a reasonably low budget and only one big name (Kate Winslet) to speak of. Now that the ice has been broken and an audience for its successors seems guaranteed, the studio is expanding its scope. The series seems to follow the Hunger Games blueprint in that regard: for good reasons, as its audience and its thematic contents are largely identical. However, the second Hunger Games film (and the upcoming sequels) dared to enter the winter blockbuster season to establish a clear breakthrough to the top (to great effect), something Insurgent still avoids. A bigger budget is a given though, and names to match are swiftly added to the project. Octavia Spencer was already on board, while Winslet remained too. These two Oscar winners are now joined by a third, Naomi Watts. A lot of strong, talented actresses apparently. Good thing too. Hopefully the young women that form the core audience will take hints from them instead of the rather bland teen leads whose adventures they follow.

Batman's bane: pain and hope

The Dark Knight Rises: ****/*****, or 8/10

Say what you will about the shocking event of a lunatic dressing up like The Dark Knight's Joker and shooting dozens of people in a movie theater in the USA, at least it indicates that character as played by Heath Ledger (1979-2008) has become iconic in only a short space of time. Of course, that does cause a problem for the next installment in the franchise, since it has a lot to live up too. Not surprisingly, expectations for The Dark Knight Rises have risen to extreme heights in the last few months, every rumour involving the project mindlessly taken for actual truth, every tidbit of news meticulously examined by legions of overexcited fanboys, every newly released still picture undergoing major scrutiny and investigation as to how it might fit in the movie and its overall plot. With such hyperactive hype, it seems unlikely the film will hold any surprises for the die-hard fans that have looked at all the available evidence and undoubtedly know the movie by heart before they've even seen it as a whole. And now the final product has finally arrived in theaters everywhere, so everyone can go and watch it and we can at last put the hype behind us and look at the motion picture objectively. Simply said, Nolan struck gold again, though not as amazingly rich as before.

Warning! Spoilers! Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, its successor first sees Bruce Wayne (still played by the overly serious Christian Bale) in the midst of a deep depression, still mourning the loss of his childhood friend and the love of his life Rachel Dawes, who fell prey to one of the Joker's diabolical shenanigans. Living alone as a hermit at Wayne Manor, only in the company of his faithful butler Alfred (again played impeccably by the ever reliable Sir Michael Caine), he has hardly set a foot outside since his alter ego Batman took the fall for the faults of the maniacal Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent, after which the Caped Crusader himself also left the scene indefinitely (and still nobody can't figure out the identity of the masked vigilante). However, when a mysterious cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway playing the ever infamous Catwoman, though never referred to as such) steals a family heirloom from right under his very nose, he's intrigued enough to pursue the matter personally, not so much for the stolen goods as for the identity of this intriguing female thief. However, he soon finds she's just the tip of the iceberg in a much larger, lethal scheme that once again puts his beloved city of Gotham at the hands of a mad terrorist plot, instigated by the excessively intimidating mercenary leader Bane (Tom Hardy fully muscled up and wearing a slightly silly mask). And so, the Batman is forced to come out of retirement to battle the forces of evil once more over the fate of his city, despite having been out of it for quite a while, but still equipped with all the right martial arts moves, clever detective skills and above all, fabulously cool gadgets ranging from bat shaped throwing stars to his own private stealth jet. Problem is, against Bane, it turns out it's just not enough...

As he did before to great critical and fanboy acclaim, Christopher Nolan fully manages to apply a full range of motivations and pathos to all his major characters, at times making the movie feel more like a Shakespeare play than a superhero blockbuster, but he's ovbiously fully aware this is his final Batman movie (to many audience members' chagrin, including mine) and he should close things off accordingly, deliveringly one last action extravaganza to completely blow his loyal spectators' minds in every respect. Resulting in a 164 minute film, he's definitely gone all out, but at times it feels he's just gone overboard a little too much, considering the excessively epic setpieces, including a city wide occupation that lasts for five months, armies of thugs and police officers duking it out on the streets and a nuclear explosion to neatly tie all ends up. It all feels a little too large scale for a Batman film, considering he's usually restricted to smaller, more personal vendettas. Fortunately, the movie acknowledges this aspect too by giving Batman plenty of personal issues to deal with, from a double love affair – with Selina on the one hand and philanthropist-with-a-secret Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) on the other – ending in betrayal and near death, to the admiration of rookie cop and wanna-be pupil Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and most importantly, Bane's ties to mentor-nemesis Ra's Al Ghul, thought killed in action in Batman Begins, which makes The Dark Knight Rises refer to the first movie with the proper respect, even having Liam Neeson return for a small bit part as the sinister Ducard who tutored Bruce in the ways of a shadow warrior. With so much on Batman's plate, this film has plenty of fascinating material to cover already. Just consider the epic action scenes a nice little bonus, aiding an already grand finale to this trilogy by giving it some additional visual flair that neither helps nor hurts the already satisfying experience that forms the whole.

With so many characters, many of them new additions to the cast and thus terra incognita, it's a wonder the many plot lines involving them don't get in each other's way, though it must be said, both Michael Caine and Gary Oldman (playing Batman's long time ally Police Commisioner Gordon again) are out of the picture for longer than we would like. The new characters all get a decent set-up and the necessary background information is supplied (though some retain a fair amount of mystery), but the main villain Bane and the delightful rogue Catwoman get the lion's share of attention. The former opens the movie with an instant classic action scene, where he is bound and held on a plane by the CIA, only to quickly have things revealed to be totally under Bane's control as he turns the tables on his supposed captors, demolishes their plane spectacularly and forcefully takes what he was after. Bane is in essence a one-man army, much like Batman himself, with all the right training, fights skills and gadgets, except more prone to violence. Hardy, exceptionally beefed up to make him larger than life, plays him with believable bravoure, lack of subtlety and genuine scariness to make you believe that if anyone can break Batman, mentally and physically, this is the guy who would, and he does just that, snapping the Dark Knight's back upon their first encounter, taking all his assets, overrunning his town and reducing it to total anarchy and banishing his enemy to a creepy prison pit that nobody but Bane himself is said to have escaped. With regard to the latter, this literal hell hole feels a bit out of place in Nolan's vision of the Batman legend, surrounded by mysticism and located in a desert environment, but with such a contradicting feel to the dark streets of Gotham it serves adequately as a place where the defeated Dark Knight can rise, surviving his ordeal and returning to his home town with a vengeance to have another go at his new archnemesis.

You might ask, 'why so serious?', and the answer would be that Bane just doesn't joke around. He's no Joker out for general chaos, he's Gotham's reckoning, out to finish what Ra's Al Ghul started in Batman Begins, razing the city to the ground, reducing its citizens to utter desperation and destroying their dark protector in every way possible. However, he's also no Joker in the way he just doesn't have the same impact as a villainous character, despite the havoc he wreaks on poor Batman. It's likely due to his somewhat grotesque appearance, wearing a goofy breathing mask that distorts his voice but still leaves room for a funny accent. Of course the Bane from the comic books looked worse, but in hindsight Nolan would still have been allowed to change the character's look to make him less comic-y and more realistically a bad guy.

Fortunately the much needed levity is found in the character of Catwoman. Hathaway portrays her as the typical sultry “feline fatale” we've come to love in all her incarnations (with maybe one blatant exception; eh. Halle Berry?). She's obviously more interested in her prize than the men she deceives to get what she wants and she features catchy dry wit and major seductive talents, though there's also a certain level of fragility mixed in: her origins remain to be revealed but it's clear she didn't grow up in a happy place, making her only care for herself and her blonde (girl)friend Jen, seeking to escape the world and aiming for a clean slate. She may look cheerful in her devil-may-care attitude but there's an undeniable level of fright and trauma present. Plus, she's extremely spiteful of rich people, making the chemistry between the nonchalant billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne – who's really loosing up from his personal demons when meeting her – and Selina a surprise to herself and a blast to watch for the audience, surpassed only by the even more charming and wittier chemistry between both their masked alter egos.You root for the pair of them, though Selina's bad history makes it seemingly impossible for them to ever affectionately exchange anything other than wisecracking dialogue as they fight Bane's henchmen together. While Bane is the movie's major antagonist, it's clearly Catwoman who steals the show.

Nolan completes his masterpiece trilogy by addressing yet another major theme that forms an integral part of the Batman persona. Whereas Batman Begins revolved around fear and The Dark Knight was all about chaos, The Dark Knight Rises' focal point is hope, though in every character's event it's born out of pain. Selina hopes for a chance at a new life to escape her gloomy old one, whereas Bane, suffering from terrible pains only controlled by his mask, hopes to exact revenge for Ra's Al Ghul by breaking his mentor's wayward pupil. Bruce Wayne has lived in pain for nearly a decade and finally learns to let go of it in getting involved with Catwoman and Miranda, but their betrayal leads to even more pain, as he is exiled to an abyss and forced to watch as Bane cuts of his city from the rest of the world and threatens to destroy it in a nuclear explosion, making Gotham's citizens hope for a champion to end this reign of terror. The good guys eventually rise above their pain and face their tormentors to liberate Gotham from its ordeal. As with all of his movies, Nolan injects his story and the characters inhabiting it with a great amount of psychological issues, delivering an action film that doesn't just go for high adrenaline spectacle and sensational sights (though it does feature plenty of both) but also contains thematic values and insights that make it rise far above the average summer blockbuster, yet still consists of many excellent moments making it a successful popcorn movie too, especially when Batman goes all out on fighting crime with his array of awesome vehicles. When the Caped Crusader finally hits the screen in full regalia on his Batpod in the middle of a wild chase scene between cop cars and thugs on motorcycles, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's memorable booming orchestral score, the audience can do nothing but cheer and fully immerse itself in the gripping action.

It might as well be called a fact Ledger's untimely death gave The Dark Knight and his own performance as the Joker a mystique that could never be duplicated, and Nolan doesn't bother to try, going so far as to never even mention the Joker in The Dark Knight Rises. While the regrettable Aurora incident will certainly give this film a macabre place in film history all its own, and it will undoubtedly break a number of box office records as any film this highly anticipated would, Nolan's Batman-movie-to-end-all-Batman-movies cannot surpass the superior The Dark Knight, despite Nolan's best efforts. Like the Bane character, it's simply larger than life a little too much and it could be called too epic for its own good. However, it's doubtful anybody ever expected it to top its predecessor, no matter how much people looked forward to it. As a conclusion to Nolan's superhero trilogy as a whole, it succeeds in its purpose, resulting in a grand finale for the much beloved and acclaimed franchise ending on a bittersweet note that still allows hope for more to come (which Nolan states is not gonna happen: maybe for the best). Were it not for the studio already in the process of revamping the character and rebooting the franchise yet again (after all, there's simply too much opportunity to make more money here), Batman could finally retire for real this time. In any event, Nolan's Batman will always be fondly remembered as the ultimate take on the Dark Knight.

And watch the trailer here

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknightrises/