There and Go Back Again: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is Worth Travelling Through Again.

It has been over a decade since Peter Jackson adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was released, followed in the subsequent years by the adaptation of the Two Towers and The Return of the King, respectively.Since then, there had been speculation as to whether or not Jackson would return to Tolkien's world. After many delays, including changes in director (Guillermo Del Toro was slated to direct) and New Zealand union issues, and much anticipation The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has hit the theatres and, while it is a worthy addition to the series of films before it, it unfortunately doesn't rise to the same heights.

 

But then, that should not be a surprise, given that the stakes in The Hobbit are not quite as high as in LOTR. This story, told as an extended flashback taking place just prior to Gandalf the Grey's (Sir Ian McKellen, reprising the role) arrival in Hobbiton in Fellowship, tells the tale of Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm in "present day", Sherlock's Martin Freeman in flashback), a simple Hobbit who lives simply but is thrust into the company of a band of dwarves in exile led by Thorin (Richard Armitage, Captain America: The First Avenger, Strike Back) who are attempting to reclaim their kingdom and gold from the evil dragon Smaug. Throughout, he is beset with danger and excitement, including a fateful meeting with a certain individual that will change not only the course of Bilbo's life, but the fate of Middle Earth as well.

 

This film is the first of three, built not only from the source novel but also from the appendices from "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Silmarillion", thus serving as a prequel series that bridges the gap between this series of films and LOTR. A serious undertaking, to be sure, but not an entirely successful one. To a degree, the events in this film seem to go on longer than they should, working so much as padding and filler to justify the existence of another three film epic. It should be noted that the events of the novel unfolded at an almost lackadaisical pace, given Tolkien's rich language and attention to detail. On the big screen in modern cinema, however, those who are not devotees of the work would find the pacing to be plodding and borderline repetitive.

 

However, whatever complaints of pacing exist, are made up for by the visual realization of Tolkien's world. There is a certain feel of homecoming in the revisiting of locales such as Rivendell and Hobbiton, though shot at different angles to convey a sense of newness to the familiarity. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson's insistence of shooting the film at 48 frames per second, while giving the visuals a more realistic effect, works against the film as much as for it. Some have said that the film speed makes Tolkien's world too visually mundane; a debatable argument as it did not detract from the artistry of the set design.  However, at times the actors movements are unintentionally sped up to almost comical effect. Also, much of the special effects, almost seamless in the original cinematic trilogy, are jarringly out of place. In many places the CGI is glaringly obvious, and in others, undermined (such as the glow stick nature of Bilbo's sword, "Sting", in distance shots). However, in some instances, the effects have clearly evolved since The Return of the King, as there are very few visual sleight-of-hand cheats in the height differentials of the characters.

 

The performances are nothing less than engaging. Receiving top billing is Sir Ian McKellan, who plays Gandalf as more befuddled than when first encountered in Fellowship, yet bringing a childlike innocence and quality to the performance; especially in his eyes (as evidenced in a scene with Galadriel). Stepping in for Ian Holm as the younger Bilbo is Martin Freeman, "Dr. Watson" of Sherlock fame (who is reunited with his Sherlock co-star and Star Trek: Into Darkness villain Benedict Cumberbatch as "The Necromancer" and the voice of Smaug). He subtly mimics Holms' mannerisms (which would only grow more pronounced with age), while infusing his own take on the character. He manages to make the character his own while still giving the impression that he is the Holm Bilbo. This film in part hinges on that believability and Freeman succeeds in the task.

 

The most intense performance belongs to Armitage as Thorin, who carries the weight of his people and heritage on his shoulders. Irascible as any dwarf, but imbued with a nobility that balances his gruffness and antagonism towards Bilbo. One might not care much for him by the film's beginning, but will come to by its end. Also entertaining, though short on screen time, is Sylvester McCoy (Doctor Who, Eureka) as Radagast the Brown, woodland wizard who advises Gandalf of an evil that poisons forests. He is manic, dissheveled, and lovable; somewhat reminiscent of Billy Barty's "Gwildor" in the big screen adaptation of Masters of the Universe. However, unlike Gwildor, Radagast is anything but annoying.

 

Cate Blanchett (The Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman The White) and Elijah Wood (Frodo Baggins), among others, reprise their roles from the original trilogy looking as though a decade had not passed between films (thanks to the magic of CGI pioneered in Disney's Tron: Legacy). The joy is not just seeing these characters again, but seeing them...relaxed, without the weight of the world on their shoulders, the strum and drang of the coming of Sauron's evil. Even Gollum (the wonderful Andy Serkis), while still a craven little bastard, has a bit of fun in what is perhaps this film's most anticipated scene. 

 

Howard Shore, second only to John Williams in sheer acoustical majesty and pageantry, brings a powerful score to this film, peppered with the themes of LOTR  but anchored by the dwarven theme "Song of the Lonely Mountain", a musical piece that invokes myriad of emotions. Shore is as necessary to this series as Williams is to the Star Wars saga. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking; one deserving of an IMAX presentation.

 

All issues of pacing and film speed aside, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an uneven, padded but nevertheless entertaining spectacle and a good launch to the trilogy. Time will tell if the following films will measure up.

HAVING AND EATING CAKE: "Skyfall" is Entertaining Though It Eschews the Legacy It Is Supposed to Emulate

 

“In ancient Roman religion and mythology, Janus (Latin: Ianus) is the god of beginnings and transitions, thence also of gates, doors, doorways, endings and time. He is usually a two-faced god since he looks to the future and the past. The month of January was named in honor of Janus by the Romans.”

 

While it may be odd to invoke Roman mythology in a film review (especially a definition weaned from Wikipedia), it seems aptly appropriate to me given that, after fifty years of film and sixty plus in print, the Bond phenomenon has become a mythology of its own. Skyfall, the 23^rd entry in the James Bond franchise (not counting the David Niven Casino Royale or Sean Connery’s Never Say Never Again), is a curious entry in the series for it carries its own themes of duality both within the story and metatextually; a film of contrasts and oppositions.

 

Admittedly, after 50 years it’s hard not to retread the same material.  Many of the film’s plot points revisit familiar ground as previously seen in entries such as You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger, License to Kill, Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough, especially. Ostensibly the plot finds James Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to prevent a list of operatives who are operating covertly in terrorist organizations worldwide. However, this plot is a MacGuffin as the plot really centers around M (Judi Dench) and an ex-MI-6 operative named Silva (Javier Bardem, who is just as unsettling here as he was in the superlative No Country for Old Men) who, in echoes of The World Is Not Enough, is out for revenge against her and, in further echoes of Goldeneye, is Bond’s ersatz brother-in-arms and his opposite number.

 

The film is replete with themes of duality and obsolescence: New versus old; Desired youth versus grizzled experience. Yet it’s not only within the story but the film as a whole. There are times it embraces and eschews Bond’s legacy all at once, in some cases, nodding to the past while at the same time disparaging it and, in at least one instance, destroying it. This whole sense of duality is epitomized in Craig’s Bond. I must admit from the get-go that I have always found Craig to be more suited as a Bond villain henchman than Bond himself (my tastes run more towards Connery, Brosnan and Dalton) however, his subsequent performances in films like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Cowboys and Aliens have allowed me to give him more leeway to accept Craig as Bond, if not my Bond. In this film, Bond is broken and much is made of the character’s (and actor’s) age. The Brits call Craig the “Grumpy Bond” for a reason (as his interpretation of Bond is among the most intense, matching that of Timothy Dalton). However, Craig’s Bond finally shows some of the lighter, playful touches of the character, reminiscent of Moore’s and Brosnan’s turns, when paired with a fellow MI-6 agent (Naomi Harris,M ission Impossible II, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest/At World’s End); an agent whose identity is, for those who know their Bond history, immediately telegraphed within the first few seconds of their witty, flirtatious banter. For once, it looks like Craig is actually having fun the role of Bond. It is a welcome change.

 

The thing is, I’ve seen this film earlier before. It was called The Dark Knight Rises. The hero is presented as broken and past his prime, one who must rise up against a force greater than he that was shaped by the very organization that shaped him, and both motivated to some degree by a strong female presence in their lives (in this case, “M”). There are many more parallels to be found between the two films but you get the gist. And, as the opening sequence shows, the influence the Bourne series has had on these films since the advent of Casino Royale shows no signs of diminishing. Where Bond as a franchise had once led the way in terms of how to make an action film work, it is now instead following the trends; instead being more of an action piece for product placement (and trust me, there is plenty of that) instead of being innovative.

 

This is not to say that Skyfall is an excellent movie. Of Craig’s three films thus far, Skyfall is second only to Royale (the less said of the mishmash that was Quantum of Solace the better). If the first film was the apex and the second the nadir, Skyfall falls somewhere in the middle. The film never bores, even in its slow spots. It is also a weighty film with the themes it deals with, but also with the characters themselves. Never before have the characters of Bond and M have been as fleshed out as they are here. In fact, this is the closest we’ll get to a real Bond origin story, I imagine. Even in the film’s fantastical circumstances, these characters feel real. Yet, Bond films were always fun , escapist entertainment, a far cry from the novels that spawned many of them (with perhpas the exception of "Moonraker"), the idea of same no less reflected in  main producer Cubby Broccoli almost casting of  Adam West (!) and Burt Reynolds (!!) as Bond (But then, “off-model” is certainly the current trend. Robert Downey, Jr. is anything but the Sherlock Holmes as conceived by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, yet audiences accept such. If the trend continues, it’s possible that the below could be coming to a theatre near you:

 

 

Ah, well…a man may not fly, but perhaps he can dream…but I digress…).

 

The supporting players are nothing to sneeze at.  Ralph Finnes is enigmatic as Gareth Malleroy, an intelligence agent who may or may not have it in for “M”. Young Ben Whishlaw makes for an interesting re-imagination of the armorer, “Q”. With nods to the past and an eye towards the future, this is a “Q” for a new generation of Bond. Bérénice Marlohe plays Bond girl Severine, who is somewhat (intentionally) reminiscent of Xenia Onnatop from Goldeneye and equally captivating to look at for what time she is actually on screen. Albert Finney enjoys what amounts to an extended cameo suspiciously intended for Sean Connery (especially given the setting wherein the character is introduced). Yet for all that this is a Bond film, the main character is almost a guest star in his own film, as the real focus is “M” (Judi Dench) who is front and center in this film and is fleshed out in a way never before shown for in any of its iterations. Dench proves why she’s one of Britain’s superlative actresses, conveying steel drive with a hint of vulnerability. Ironic that such a cold character (since the reboot) proves to be the heart and soul of the film. And as Silva, Bardem is Bond’s “Joker” and “Bane” all in one: as flamboyant as the former, as dangerous as the latter, and makes for a dangerous combination. The last time Bond was given a villain who was his equal or superior was Sean Bean’s “006”, and Bardem outshines that. It’s the mark of a film villain when his presence is felt even when he’s not on screen, and from the point of his introduction, that presence is palpable.

 

They cinematography is nothing but superb. It has been decades, yes decades, since Bond has felt this exotic and, yes, even epic in scope. Before the age of Internet and affordable travel, the Bond films were the best way for movie goers to be immersed in an exotic world. Skyfall is the first film in the franchise in decades to evoke that response. Sam Mendes’ musical partner in crime, Thomas Newman, is a refreshing change from David Arnold’s repetitively indistinguishable stylings (though not completely devoid of them, as some hints of the Casino Royale score are evident here). The score is strongly influenced by the works of the late John Barry, and the film is stronger for it (and an interesting bit of trivia which adds weight to the musical Barry homage…”M”s flat in the film was actually Barry’s home).

 

All in all, Skyfall is an interesting mix of heaviness and lightheartedness. But by the end of film, the “Bond Begins” experiment begun in Casino Royale is completed in Skyfall. At the end, everything old is new again and a truism is reasserted before the credits, and the familiar gun barrel sequence, begins to roll:

 

James Bond will return.

A Heartfelt Message to All Veterans

Thank you.

Knowledge is Power

Despite the fact that my blog is called "American Culture Critic", I rarely post on political topics as I would prefer to keep my own political ideologies to myself. However, in twenty some days, the course of this country will be re-determined for the next four years. Some will vote for who they consider to be the best candidate, while some will vote for the lesser of two (three?) evils.  Some expect more of the same, while some won't expect even that. I say "some" because while many of you will vote, some of you won't.

 

As Americans, it is your right to vote. It is a hard earned right as over two hundred years ago many died to obtain it. However, they also fought for your right and freedom to recuse yourself from voting. Understand, however, that in not voting you are still determining the course of your country...and it may not be in the direction that you prefer.

 

With that said, for those of you who wish to vote but are confused as to the issues and the candidates' true statnces on them, a very good friend of mine provided me with links to the least biased information websites that might help you crystalize your thoughts, opinions and decision as to which candidate(s) to back. They are:

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://votesmart.org/

 

Use them. Refer to them. Then make an informed decision. In the course of two debates, we've experienced bread and circuses. "Big Bird" and "Binders full of women" becoming comedy gold buzz words, thus taking the focus away from the issues. We've seen an incumbant transform from "Clark Kent" to "Superman" in a two week span. We've heard variations of "you're a liar" with no indication of which candidate's talking points are really the truth. The fact of the matter is the importance of the debates are not predicated on the facts but are instead mostly about who has the better presentation; who's the most photogenic; who can get away with the pithy one-liners.  The truth becomes obfuscated in the "glitz" of the show. Hence, debates should be used as a starting point, not as a clincher, in determining your candidate decision. I've met actors who when they're on screen, they invoke a commanding, charismatic presence, only to have that facade evaporate once the cameras have stopped rolling. While I'm not saying that either candidate was posturing and pandering, I'm not saying that they weren't either. The sad truth is that anyone can say anything. It's the actions (in terms of voting and policy) that speak louder than words.

 

Therefore, before Election Day, do your research. Look at the facts. See how each candidate has voted in the past because in all likelihood that's how they will in the future. Arm yourself. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

And for those of you who don't vote...be sure to accept the personal responsibility for your decision.

Ponder This One

Episodes of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" scored higher ratings than the broadcasts of both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Think about that one.

THE BORING LEGACY - "The Bourne Legacy" Fails to Live Up to the Legacy

I almost fell asleep. 

In an action film.

Almost. Fell. Asleep.

Twice.

Not exactly the expectation when one is watching a film that serves as an extrapolation, if not continuaiton, of the "Bourne" series (loosly based on the novels of Robert Ludlam) which starred Matt Damon as amnesiac spy-on-the-run Jason Bourne, and directed by Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass. Those films were action packed and engaging and, despite the premise wearing thin by The Bourne Ultimatum, wholly satisfying films; Legacy, while having some inspired moments, is not.

Legacy centers on events that parallel those from the latter half of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. Aaron Cross (Jeremey Renner, The Avengers, The Hurt Locker) is essentialy Bourne 2.0; a member of a Treadstone offshoot called Operation Outcome, wherein the agents are biochemically enhanced with pills that augment physicality and intelligence. When Jason Bourne's (Matt Damon, seen only in pictures) exploits threaten to expose Treadstone and Blackbriar to the world, Eric Byer (Ed Norton), a ranking CIA operative who oversees the black op activities, orders the project shut down and all "assets" terminated. Running out of his intelligence pills, Cross is in a race against time to maintain his intelligence while avoiding assassination.

Director and screenwriter Tony Gilroy, who initially wrote the screenplays for the initial trilogy, seems so concerned with thematically distancing this film from the original trilogy that he ironically calls more attention to it. The film's pacing is disjointedly uneven. The film is too long on exposition and short on action. Some scenes (especially in the very beginning) take longer than necessary while others that do require the development are painfully cut short. Arguably, however, it is a more relatively realistic portrayal than the adrenaline filled shoot 'em ups of the previous efforts. Yet the quiet moments (and there are many) aren't engaging enough to hold interest.

Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross is aptly named as a) Renner has the unenviable task of following Matt Damon in the series - assuredly a cross to bear; and b) if the film tanks, Renner could easily be crucified. However, as he did in The Avengers, he acquits himself rather well. However, for being a 2.0, his Cross is a tad more unsure than the amnesiac Bourne, though there are story elements that would explain this. He seems confused half the time, but seemingly more from the acting direction than from the actual situation. The normally on mark Rachel Weisz as Dr. Marta Shearing is surprisingly one note in her performance. Her character arc is most especially disjointed to such an extent that by the time it reaches its payoff by film's end, it seems forcibly tacked on.  Ed Norton, perhaps this generation's master at playing smarmy, love to hate villains, is somewhat subdued, as is Stacy Keach as General Mark Turso. Many actors from the previous trilogy cameo in this film, especially at the film's conclusion, and it's a sad thing when David Strathairn (“Noah Vosen” from Ultimatum) subtly evinces more villainy in a few seconds of screen time than the principal antagonists have in the entire film.

Those who go into this film expecting nail-biting action are going to be somewhat disappointed. The climax chase scene is impressive and well done, but by the time its reached and the Bourne connections have kicked in, you just don’t care. I reiterate…I fell asleep twice during this film.  The Fourth Protocol, a Cold War espionage film starring Michael Caine and Pierce Brosnan, was virtually non-existent on action but high on intrigue and suspense and held my interest throughout. This film, with all its modern filmmaking tropes and technology and despite the pedigree of the cast, is woefully deficient.  James Newton Howard’s score borrows much from John Powell’s familar themes but, much like the film itself as a whole, its own deficiencies are highlighted by the those thematic inclusions. While it does help to set the mood, Howard’s score tries to walk the line between maintaining its own voice while seeking similarity with the familiar “Bourne” acoustical style. Regretably, it falls short when it needs to count and never reaches the soaring heights that Powell was able to accomplish. Much like the film itself, it is serviceable without being particularly rousing or memorable.

While it is unfair to compare this film to the previous ones in the franchise, it is inevitable by virtue of “Bourne” being in the title. Renner makes for a decent substitute, but I could not help feel that film implied he was a seat warmer until Damon's return (if Damon were to; he has stated he would not return unless Paul Greengrass was at the helm…either that or his career would be in need of a resurgence). As a method in which to keep the franchise on life support, The Bourne Legacy serviceably works. Unfortunately for the film, the constant references to Jason Bourne, including judicious hints of the character’s theme, only works against it as it reminds the viewer how much better those films were. Legacy is neither good nor bad. It simply...is.  The Bourne Legacy is worth a gander though…on cable.

"THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" ABOVE IT'S ORIGINS (spoilers abound)

"It is always darkest before the dawn;" a quote attributed to Theologan Thomas Fuller, and one that is highly appropriate to Christopher Nolan's final directorial contribution to the Batman legacy, The Dark Knight Rises. This movie is dark from the outset. Eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), is a broken, battered shadow of his former self, living the life of a recluse still in mourning over the death of Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhall, seen only in photographs in the newly constructed, shrine/mausoleum like Wayne Manor). In Batman's absence, however, Gotham City has enjoyed years of peace and prosperity due to The Harvey Dent Act, an act that was spun from a lie about Dent's true nature; a fact that has tortured the soul of Police Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman). However, an encounter with jewel thief Selina Kyle (a/k/a "Catwoman", though never referred as such in the film, played by the alluring and capable Anne Hathaway) leads to the dire warning that a storm is coming...not from Westeros, but in the form of the mercenary known only as "Bane" (Tom Hardy) who wants nothing more than to destroy the capitalist infrastructure...and Batman.

This reads like something out of the typical super-hero comics.  But consider that the super-heroic tales spun out of the pages of DC and Marvel Comics, among other publishers, are our modern mythology as much as Homer's tales ever were. Nolan gets this. From the opening frames of Batman Begins, a respect for the material as opposed to quirky view of Tim Burton or the outright derisive mockery of Joel Schumacher's films. And as such, the mythological nature of the trilogy have been built on archetypes.

Themes of duality are present here as well, most especially encapsulated in the form of Hathaway's Kyle, whose allegiances continually shift with the mercurial nature of the animal she embodies, while Bane, is presented as an intelligent, eloquently methodical brute of a man (with vocal intonations which sound like a mix of Sean Connery and Liam Neeson spoken through Darth Vader's respirator) whose civilized bearing is a precise facade; a thin veneer that seems ready to crack at any moment. In fact, his gentlemanly presentation is a mockery of the notion in the face of all Gothamites who are not in on the joke. Comparing Hardy's "Bane" to Heath Ledger's "Joker" does an "apples and oranges" disservice to both the character and the actor. Bane, as presented here, is the Anti-Batman. He is everything that Batman was at the point of Begins with none of the notions of morality or justice. Only vengeance. However, Christopher Nolan is not interested in giving any character the two dimensional shrift, and surprisingly infuses Bane with a heart. It is in his pain that we see his similarity with Wayne, and the grey area of good and evil blur again wherein the hero sees his reflection in the villain. When Hardy is on screen, his presence is arresting and apprehensive, because one never expects to know what he will do or say next. This villain can believably take Batman down.

Admittedly, I had reservations about Hathaway as the erstwhile Catwoman. I have to say I was wrong. She takes the role to places I did not suspect she could. From the days of Adam West and Julie Newmar, Catwoman has been presented as the woman who could "complete" Batman. In this film, she showcases why that is the case more adroitly than any of her predecesors in the role. Kyle in this film is at turns callous and mercenary, caring and doubtful, competant yet unsure of her figurative footing. Her performance is such that every little movement is infused with feline grace. Her character complex enough that she, unlike Halle Berry's version, could carry her own film.

But mid-way through watching The Dark Knight Rises, it suddenly hit me. Nolan hasn't been giving us films about "Batman", but instead of Bruce Wayne. It is Bruce Wayne who follows Joseph Campbell's template of "The Hero's Journey", a journey with the overarching theme set up in the first film: "Why do we fall"? The answer to that question, for Bruce Wayne, is masterfully realized in this film. Whether intentionally or by happenstance, Christian Bale has evinced this journey with varying degrees of success per film (he was overshadowed by Ledger in the previous outing, but if one pays close attention to the Bruce Wayne scenes, one can pick up on the weariness of being Batman setting in).

The supporting players bring the necessary weight and gravitas to their roles. Oldman's Gordon is a man conflicted, and it shows with every step he takes. Thankfully, Morgan Freeman's "Lucius Fox" is given much more to do. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the newcomer in the universe as officer "John Blake", a cop who is as fresh and idealistic as Bruce was in Begins, and he, like Marion Cotillard, as "Miranda Tate", are more than what they seem and a couple of surprise and welcome cameos complete a well cast ensemble. But the true soul of the film likes in Michael Caine's "Alfred J. Pennyworth", butler and surrogate father. The pseudo father/son relationship between Wayne and Alfred has never been more beautifully presented as it is here. And anyone who is familiar with the steps of "The Hero's Journey" (or have seen Star Wars, Harry Potter, or even read their Bulfinch mythology), knows the hero has to face the demons alone; and the precursor to that event is heartrending. Caine has few scenes, but I dare anyone to remain dry eyed to any one of them.

The cinematography brings an epicness of scope that was missing from the first two films. Gotham City is a sprawling megaopolis (with buildings taken from Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York superimposed). The special effects is phenomenal and, in a couple of instances, breathtaking. The mood is heightened by composer Hans Zimmer, this time bereft of the more romantic stylings of James Newton Howard (though there are a few moments when Newton's "Rachel" theme is in evidence). Though he rehashes the original themes, he does so with orchestrations that fill them with despair and, alternatively, with hope.

The story is a mash-up of Occupy Wall Street meets "A Tale of Two Cities" with a bit of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" thrown in...yet that is simply the backdrop. The story is about falling and rising, especially in the face of overwhelming adversity (which in one scene in particular, the fall is brutal and jarring). This film is more of a direct sequel to Begins in both tone and pacing. The middle seems to stall for the more action oriented, but in truth the middle sequence provides the heart of the film. At a running time of almost three hours, the film seems to breeze through. Even the quiet moments are powerful in their drama.  And Nolan plays fast and lose with audience expectations regarding the comic book lore. With enough twist and turns to shatter presumptions but leaving enough clues to realize the answers have been present throughout the film. The film races to a nail biting, pulse pounding finish. Some moments are cliched, some broadcast before hand, and at least one instance towards the climax where the cheese is inadvertently poured on thick, but the conclusion of the film is a powerful one...followed by an epilogue that is full of hope. There are endings, and there are new beginnings. The film brings all three together full circle in a neat and, dare I say, satisfying manner.

The Dark Knight Rises is one of those trilogies that does what few have done...get better with each successive outing. While some would think that The Dark Knight is superior to this one due to Ledger's performance, I would have to disagree. This film has an organic flow that its predecessor lacks. There is not to say the film doesn't have it's faults, nor that there are one or two loose ends that could have been tied up, but the truth is that those loose ends imply a greater story to be told. The character's lives (those that survive, anyway) continue. The Nolanverse Batman ends with The Dark Knight Rises...but rest assured, Batman will rise yet again.