The trailer can be watched here. Little happens in the trailer; half of it comprises of scenes from the previous two Batman films; but what it promises, what it's teasing, all I can say is:
OMG I FREAKING CAN'T FREAKING BLOODY WAIT 1 YEAR FOR THIS MOVIE THAT I ALREADY KNOW WILL BE FREAKING BLOODY AMAZING.
This movie will be to me what the last installment of Harry Potter is to Harry Potter fans (albeit not the hardcore ones; I'm not that hardcore about the films). In the first place, I can't freaking believe that this will be the last Nolan/Bale Batman collaboration. I've only liked some of the previous Batman movies vaguely; Batman Begins was the first Batman film to really blow me away because at the heart of all the action, the amazing Christopher Nolan tells a very human tale about the humanity and inner struggles of Bruce Wayne/Batman. The Dark Knight, understandably not as introspective as its predecessor, took the action to a whole new level and became an intense, no-holds-barred discourse on morality and good versus evil.
I've watched many superhero movies over the years. None of those movies have enthralled and excited and engaged me as much as Christopher Nolan's Batman films have. They are intelligent, they are incredibly well-acted, they are intelligent. I don't mind a fluffy flick like Thor once in a while, but fluffy flicks like Thor are not the films that I remember years after I've watched them. And, somehow, it's films like this - where an unreal reality is so meticulous realised and brought to life, where the central character is a hero but as flawed as the rest of us, where the villains are over-the-top and yet eerily familiar - that truly enable me to sink myself into it and remind me of why I love movies so much.
I will be so sad when I leave the theatre next year, at the conclusion of the last film in Christopher Nolan's Batman series.
In contrast, the last scene of the last Harry Potter movie ever, as in ever, let me stress EVER again if you didn't get that the first time, felt more campy and badly-done than anything. I don't know, their efforts at aging the actors were quite laughable, and I wasn't the only one in the audience who thought so.
I've never been a fan of the Harry Potter series; never cared about the books, only watched the movies because after watching the first 3, it didn't make sense not to watch #4, and after watching #4, I might as well watch #5, etc. I was lost at the start of the movie because I couldn't remember what happened in the last one, and I was distracted in some parts because I had to give some of my attention to my food (Wei Chuen and I watched it in Cathay's Platinum Suites, which is absolutely AMAZING. The food is also of pretty good quality).
It wasn't a bad movie; it was probably even well-made. But, as most HP movies, it felt like a series of events sewn together to form a plot. To be fair, there's probably too much material in the book for the movie-makers to work with; but no one ever said that everything from the book has to go into the film adaptation. The only two HP movies that I enjoyed were Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. I don't remember the former too well as that was quite some time back; but the latter I enjoyed because, unlike most HP movies, it told a coherent story and didn't feel like the director was piecing together scenes from the book for the purpose of putting together scenes from the book.
The action was definitely done well in the last movie. Unfortunately, there was hardly any emotional resonance, be it in the audience or from the characters themselves. The characters felt like cardboard cut-outs placed on screen simply to act out scenes from the book. Things happen to important characters and we don't know about them only until after the fact, when the important has already taken place - off-screen.
But my biggest problem with Harry Potter has always been with Harry Potter himself. At first it was due to Daniel Radcliffe's wooden acting; now it's still due in some parts to that, but at the conclusion of the series, I'm still wondering: why is this damn kid so special and well-liked that virtually EVERYONE in the school was willing to sacrifice themselves or risk death just to protect him? Harry Potter comes across as a male Mary Sue. His character, at least in the movies, has always struck me as weak and lacking in decisiveness; even in the last movie, he wins his battles not because of anything that he does himself, but because someone else helped him out. How do I root for this guy? I was hoping he'd die at the end so that he would've actually accomplished something.
The only thing that I really, really enjoyed about this movie was Alan Rickman and his portrayal of Severus Snape, who has always been my favourite character. Therefore, I was damn pissed and sad when he died in his second scene. I mean, what? And for once, two veteran and accomplished British actors shared the same screen in Snape's death scene - AND IT WAS SO SHORT.
I'm really quite irritated that Harry Potter seemed to have had absolutely no feelings of ambivalence towards Dumbledore after he'd viewed Snape's memories. The King's Cross scene perhaps wasn't really real per se; but even if it was all in Harry's head, it would have been nice to see him struggling a bit with what he saw. I mean, this guy pretended to be your friend for so many years, and you found out that he was just preparing you for slaughter, and when you see him, albeit after fake-dying, you're all chummy with him and not ambivalent towards him at all? THIS is what I mean by an absolute lack of emotional resonance in the movie. Everything just HAPPENS; it's all plot plot plot, no depth to the characters at all (except for Snape and, to a lesser extent, Voldermort, but this could just be due to Ralph Fiennes' acting). Harry finds out Dumbledore didn't keep his promise to protect his mother and he doesn't care? He has absolutely no problem with the fact that he has been a mere pawn in Dumbledore's grand plans to save the greater good in all the years that he's known him? I just can't get over this.
And honestly, he should have died. Otherwise, I don't understand why Dumbledore kept saying that "the boy has to die when the time is right". I suppose you can say he DID die but wow, he can magically choose to come back to life? I don't even know, really; the lack of logic or internal consistency, they boggle the mind.