Skyfall

The name's... Let's not do that, we all know everybody's thought about saying it anyhow. Like you really need an introduction to this one: it's one of the expected biggest grossing films of the year, one of the greatest movie franchises of all time, the 23rd of the lot, time for a look at James Bonds latest mission in the Sam Mendes directed Skyfall.

The reboot of the Bond series has had to up the game in terms of gritty realism which seems to be the mood of preference of cinema goers at the minute, and it's certainly given it a very good go. Casino Royale was an absolutely fantastic film, almost certainly one of the best of the lot, but, whilst I'm not say it was terrible effort, it was a bit forgettable, having lost too much of the charm we expected of Mr. Bond in search of that realism. So really, the challenge set for Skyfall was to bring back some of the Bondian staples of old, somehow, whilst managing the fully keep grip on a realistic, modern background. Tough one.

Here's your tradition round up of the plot without giving away anything you'd be annoyed about...bit. Bond and MI6 in general seem to be heading towards the past, seen more as relics of the cold war than anything necessary and relevant for modern national security. This is due to the loss of a hard drive containing the identities of an enormous amount of agents working globally, falling into the hands of a mysterious and very much elusive terrorist. Bond needs to rebuild himself in order to track down and put an end to the work of his new unknown enemy. All the while, M is being forced into retirement, and MI6 is being overseen by Chairman Mallory during the transition period, as it is her leadership which is particularly being blamed for the state of the British Intelligence agency.

Put fairly simply; this is a very straight-forward story for a Bond film, and the key theme really is resurrection. Bond needs to prove that he is still relevant, and that it key both in the plot and in terms of the audience. But that is one of the many strengths of this film. You're with Bond all the way on this one, because you sort of feel the same way: no matter how much you liked or disliked the previous films, you have to ask how relevant he still is, gone are the days of Soviet and Communist spies, so who exactly does he have to face up against? The answer: it could be anyone, even those who were once like him. We don't know where our enemies are going to come from any more, we can't take any real guesses, and that is exactly why Bond is needed, for who else is better to cope with the unexpected than the man with the licence to kill? Exactly.

This is the film where Daniel Craig truly becomes James Bond. When the unbridled brute force seen in the previous two outings fails him, Bond is forced to become smarter, he has to choose every move with much greater care than he had done, with injuries and psychological scars taking their toll on him. Because of this, we get what ends up as a pleasing cocktail of Connery and Brosnan style Bonds; the embodiment of masculinity mixed with the wry wit we love from our favourite agent. Craig delivers the thankfully limited Bond clichés in a straight-to-the-point manner, instead getting his laughs from quick one-liners; the way it should be. Make no mistake about it, by the time you've watched Craig's performance, you'll be left considering in what order you place your favourite Bonds from now on. When it comes to support, Judi Dench gives you exactly what you knew you were going to get, but with added poignancy, as M seems to be heading for the exit. There's a welcomed return to action for Q as well, with Ben Whishaw providing a performance that is both more believable than John Cleese (sacrilege, for I do love the king of the silly walk) yet mixing in a bit of pure Matt Smith-style Doctor Who geek to the role. Naomie Harris is the first of two Bond girls in this one, and whilst I'll not say who she is (for those who don't already know), she sets up a very pleasing backstory for a character we'll end up loving all over again. Ralph Fiennes (not the second of the Bond girls, thankfully), goes totally against type in that he's not a homicidal killing machine in this film, instead he plays Mallory, the mysterious man overseeing MI6 during M's retirment, and he keeps us guessing as to what his motives are throughout, with traditional Fiennes bluntness throughout. Finally we have our villain, Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez, who is played phenomenally portrayed by Javier Bardem. Silva is a villain the likes of which Bond has rarely experienced. First and foremost, he is an ex-agent, and a very good one at that, and Bardem shows off an extremely creepy mirror-image of Bond, almost how Bond could have been, had he gotten sick of his employers. Futhermore, Silva is a character who is at best sexually ambiguous, and one fantastically written scene shows off just how much of a foreign identity this is to the Bond audience, as Silva pretty much forces himself on 007, but only enough to make him squirm. Now I'm certainly not saying that being gay makes him evil, I'm not from the 17th century, but the fact that he is so opposite to what Bond is, whilst being so similar in many other ways makes him stand out as a villain, as he can hold his own in a fight, without having to rely on henchmen. Genuinely outstanding performance from Bardem.

But most important of all, the gadgets, these are what will really test how Bond is placed in our need for realism. Well, when Q hands over the new equipment for the mission, he says what "they don't really go for that" anymore, and he is of course referencing the famous exploding pen, how encouraging is that for the reboot? The gadgets are limited simply to a gun and a radio, which is also light-heartedly referenced in the film, as "sometimes the old ways are the best" crops up a couple of times, and he's right. To top it all off, the Bond car makes a comeback, that's right, the Aston Martin DB5 comes back for more. I'm not even a man who knows his cars but I got excited. People actually cheered, that's just how important that car is. And it's old, and that's the point, we want old mixed with the new for Bond, and that's just what we're getting.

5/5 - The more I think about how much I enjoyed this film, the more I realise it's because it has absolutely everything you really want from a Bond film. 007 is firmly lodged in the modern way now, but he has all the key elements of the classic films locked up in an updated fashion. For me, Connery set the standard, Brosnan came close, but the Craig era could be set to reach some very exciting heights. Definitely go see it.

Looper

It's become somewhat of a film cliché recently to proclaim that science fiction is dead, and while I would agree that the genre has taken a bit of a beating with a series of unsuccessful, limp offerings (see Lost In Space, the Star Wars prequels, Signs, and the last two Terminator sequels, etc.), those that have actually been worth watching have really been worth watching. Just look at The Matrix, District 9, the Avengers films, Sunshine, Minority Report...the list (much like my heart - sorry) goes on and on. Thankfully, this year saw the release of a sci-fi movie which also fit that bill; Rian Johnson's Looper.

First of all, the key issue of this film: it's about time travel, which as most of you may know, gets a little bit wibbly-wobbly on the best of occasions. So that's the main problem this one has to conquer, which is lucky, as director Johnson declared that his biggest challenge "figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story." So basically, just accept that time travel happens in it, and it's going to get complicated, but that's not really point of the whole thing; it's a story which just revolves around time travel, not a time travel story... With me?

The basic concept is this: the year is 2044, a crime lord has been sent back in time from 2074 (where said time travel has been invented, obviously) and set up a network of assassins known as 'loopers'. These loopers are paid to wait in specific locations for targets to be sent back to their time and eliminate them, thus creating a perfect crime for the gangs of the future. However, at some point the loopers will be given a golden paycheck, meaning they will have to kill their future selves, thus closing the loop 30 years down the line. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a looper saving up for a future abroad, having been pulled up through a childhood of hell and supposedly rescued by crime lord Abe, played by Jeff Daniels. Joe is faced with a dilemma when one of his targets turns out to be himself (played by Bruce Willis), but is immediately outsmarted by future-Joe, who goes on the run. Joe needs to find future-Joe before Abe's gang take down both, whilst future-Joe tries to track down one of three children who would grow up to be the man sentencing all loopers to their fate. Got it? Good, because it's a fairly simple story in the middle of a complicated background, but it's very well written, and certainly never lets the ARGH MY BRAIN HURTS of time travel get in the way.

In terms of casting, we all know exactly what to expect these days when we see Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a film: it'll be really, really, ridiculously cool. And this is no different, as he essentially plays a blend of his Inception and Dark Knight Rises characters - relaxed and cool whilst extremely well trained and dangerous, with that touch of charm which makes indie-girls go all wobbly. Even more pleasing and impressive, however, is his imitation of Bruce Willis; throughout, Gordon-Levitt maintains an accent eerily close to Willis, and, more impressively, his facial expressions are nailed on John McClane, and whilst I am fully aware of the use of prosthetics and CGI in aiding this, below it all is the foundation level, and that's all Levitt Gordon-Joseph. Then you look at Willis, who turns in a performance we've come accustomed to; he's cooler than cool (possibly even ice cold), hard hitting and just has that edge about him that only Willis seems to bring (see Sin City for the best example). You're always left a little surprised by Willis when you see him taking on a more emotionally rich role, and even though his character packs a huge amount of action, his performance is a deeper, more personal one, and it's very much captivating. Wonder when we'll stop being surprised by Mr Bruce, because he definitely deserves a little more acclaim for his efforts. Emily Blunt fills the boots of the main female presence of the movie, Sara, the farm-running single mother of troubled child Cid. Her character is a little more predictable than Joe, and does run a little close to the hard on the outside-damsel in distress on the inside stereotype, but that's definitely not Blunt's fault, and her performance is just as pleasing as any, arguably saving the role from cheesiness. Good support comes in the form of Daniels as Abe, as a gentle faced, harsh ruling mobster, and Paul Dano as Kid Blue, a detestable yet comic relief young gang member, determined to oust Joe as the favourite of his boss.

In terms of CGI usage, you'd expect there to be a great deal of it, after all, this is a science fiction film. And indeed there is, just to add that tastey futurey goodness to the movie, but it's never really obtrusive. The most impressive is arguably the aforementioned wizardry regarding Gordon-Levitt's face being morphed to look like Bruce Willis, and although you can tell it looks slightly odd, you could be easily forgiven for not realising it was altered. The most impressive scene regarding effects, for me, is one involving another looper's future self escaping, only to be slowly transformed by what the gang are doing to his present self in order to stop him. I'm not going to spoil anything for you, but it's mind-bending, disgusting and fantastic all in one.

All in all, this is an extremely pleasing film, with a meaty story for us to sink our almost certainly slightly confused teeth into. Plus, there's a good deal of action which is needed meet the quota of a good sci-fi film, without ever being too stupid. It's the sort of film you can (and I certainly did) discuss at great detail and pleasure, because there's a lot of ins and outs you can interpret for yourself from the one of the many head scratchers posed by Johnson; but again without going too far.

4/5 - I very much enjoyed this film, and found myself thinking "what is actually wrong with it?". It's a pleasingly original piece with good plot, cast, performances and the lot all round. The only criticism that I can offer which really hold it back is that it is guilty of being a bit slow in places, and you might find yourself zoning out because of it, however, it recovers very well from these slips and provides you with a film you'll want to talk about. Go see!

The Amazing Spider-Man

Seems like almost every review I'm writing at the minute is about superheroes, doesn't it? I mean, I'm not going to pretend I'm unhappy about it, because deep down the vast amount of comic book films coming out is slowly leading me to believe that deep down, I may only be one unfortunate accident involving radiation and a random animal (I'll go with griffin, because they're totally not fictional) away from becoming a superhero too. And that's...that's just awesome. But yes, time to look at the next offering from the Marvel cinematic world: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Let's admit it now and get it out of the way, shall we? This summer is all about one superhero, and that is our pointy-headed chum in the Dark Knight series. If not him, then the attention has been all over (and rightly so) The Avengers earlier in the year. Furthermore, the Spider-Man 3 was a great big, steamy pile of Spider-Plop. It crucified an iconic Spidey villain, and decided that the best way to keep people entertained was to make the already slightly irritating Tobey Maguire make faces like this:

Or even worse, we were supposed to feel sympathy for Spider-Man, whilst he pulled faces like this:

So it would be fair to say that the masses had sort of given up on Spider-Man. After all, we now have a fully functional Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk, Captain America and friends to turn to, do we really need to go back to the story we saw unfold just ten years ago? But think about it, the conclusion of Sam Raimi's trilogy killed the franchise, it needed an injection of a little more tongue-in-cheek realism with the wise cracking Spidey we all wanted. Plus, lots and lots of cool "hey look at these amazing new powers" scenes, and less of the "I must be a bit evil now, because I have emo hair". So yes, yes we did need a new Spider-Man, even at the expense of the first two movies, anything to wipe out the memory of the last one will do.

The plot is essentially a re-hashing of the basic Spider-Man origin story, but with a lot more thought put into Peter Parker's parents. Peter is left in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May while his parents mysteriously disappear after the burglary of Richard Parker's study. The Parkers are killed in the plane crash, and neither Peter nor Ben or May know exactly what secret documents they were trying to protect, or who from. All grown up, Peter stumbled upon said documents in a hidden compartment in his father's briefcase and tracks down his dad's former partner, Dr. Curt Connors, who was working on cross-species gene splicing, inspired by the loss of his own right arm. Peter, a brilliant scientific mind, figures out his father's work and offers it to Dr. Connors, but is bitten by one of the gene-spliced spiders bred by Richard: voila, a Spider-Man. The work produces a formula which transforms Connors into the Lizard and rampages follow. It's not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it's a good, solid one.

The most notably impressive performance from the cast is of course Spider-Man himself, Andrew Garfield. He simply nails the slight awkward confidence of Peter Parker, and resembles exactly the sort of superhero that inspired the non-superhero in Kickass; wise-cracking and bad-guy catching. Even in moments where all that is required of him is a geeky grin Garfield excels, simply put, the franchise would be more mad than a sackful of Tom Cruises to replace him in any sequels. Then there's Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Peter's love interest. Her character is one of quiet strength, she doesn't tend to actually say that much in the film, but whenever she does, she's relevant and not "THAT WAS A DEFINITE PLOT MOVING DEVICE", which is always good. Furthermore, the chemistry between Stone and Garfield is brilliant and believable, the whole awkward teen thing down to an art. Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Connors/Lizard, and is basically what you expect from him: energetic, fully committed and just a hint of slightly deranged for the perfect can-you-trust-him sort of good guy/bad guy. Unfortunately, his character is a little more obvious, and a you tend to find yourself thinking he only says things that are there to make sure everyone in the audience fully follows what's going on. And of course, there's a good support from the naturally flawless Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and ever-pleasing Sally Field as Aunt May, just what you'd expect. I know he's been acting for ages now, but I still love seeing Denis Leary turn up on screen, and this time he's Captain George Stacy, head of the police and Gwen's dad, and he does exactly what's needed, and definitely doesn't sing about being an a-hole. Oh, and naturally, Stan Lee has a cameo again, and it hits the mark once more.

All round the effects are very good, if a little guilty of being too inclined towards looking spiffy in 3D. The scenes of Spidey swinging his way through New York are even more impressive than those in the previous films, which, despite the years that have passed, is still an achievement. The Lizard on large is pretty good too, never looking obviously out of place like oh so many CGI monsters in the past, though you can't help but think (as most of the internet now does), that he has an uncanny resemblance to Goomba, from that awful Mario Brothers film...

There is one moment involving Freddie the three-legged lab mouse that unfortunately nearly ruins the credibility of the entire movie, thanks to a mixture of SFX and the actual idea itself. The mouse becomes a tiny version of Dr Connor's new form, and well...it's just ridiculous. Yes it less Peter Parker know what's going on...but I mean...seriously? Okay so maybe I thought about it too much, but it really is a little stupid.

But all in all, that's the only massive complaint I had about the entire film, which is nice, given that I'd already admitted I was prepared for the worst going into it. It's not on the same plane of existence as the recent Batman films, but then again, it's not supposed to be, it's a light-hearted superhero movie with the occasional moments of brooding emotion, not the other way around. And what's much more, it makes you actually struggle to remember that in a previous film Spider-Man fought with becoming Venom by dancing down the street like a pimp...

3.5/5  - I don't really like giving decimal ratings, it's a bit of a cop out, I know. But I'm still torn a little. It's definitely a good film, and it's very much better than probably two of the previous trilogy. Yet there were just a couple of things that grated on me and left it lacking. The aforementioned wobbles with the Connors/Lizard character, and the ridiculous lab mouse scene were negative points, and there seemed to be moments where the flow of the film was disrupted by oddly timed cuts of scenes. However, this is a Spider-Man movie more in the spirit of the comic, and whilst it may not be 100% brilliant, it is a little bit amazing (sorry) in places. Very enjoyable.

P.S.

Stick around after credits! Yours truly forgot it was a Marvel film and didn't observe the rule of "sit till something mysterious has happened".

The Dark Knight Rises

After around eight years in the making, the countless army of Batman fans have the moment they've been waiting for: a culmination to two of the greatest superhero films of all time. Yes, chaps, chappettes and all in between, it's time for The Dark Knight Rises.

Let's not waste any time clarting around here, we all know that Batman Begins was a film of near flawless quality, only surpassed by it's sequel, The Dark Knight. Director and writer Christopher Nolan re-established the dark, brooding feel of the Batman icon we all loved from either the comics, the animated series or Tim Burton's two movies. There is a sense of bizarre plausibility in these films; yes we know the idea of the villains is a little ridiculous, but they aren't beyond the realms of possibility, and it is this closeness to reality which makes the films what they are. They are the perfect mix of reality and faithfulness to the comics without succumbing to the campiness of Joel Schumacher's efforts in the mid-nineties. So we already know that Nolan's third instalment is going to be more of the same, he simply wouldn't have done it if it wouldn't be.

Right, the story - it's pretty damn good. Basically, Bruce Wayne has been living the life of a recluse in Wayne  Manor since allowing Batman to take the flack of the deaths of Harvey Dent and his victims in The Dark Knight. Dent's death allowed the Dent Act to be passed, meaning that Commissioner Gordon was able to keep all the criminals of the city imprisoned in Blackgate with no chance of early release; Gotham has since passed through eight years of relative peace. However, when Gordon is kidnapped and taken to a secret underground city, he discovers that supervillain Bane, a former member of the League of Shadows like Bruce Wayne, is seemingly leading an army to rise against Gotham. Gordon's escape alerts Wayne, who reluctantly makes a return as Batman to confront Bane. And then there's a MASSIVE amount of spoilers, which I may very well discuss in a separate post, as the film is just that interesting; but I stand by not spoiling it for anyone here, as that'd make me want to falcon punch a kitten if the roles were reversed.

I will say it now, just to get it out of the way; there are some plot holes in the story. A notable one being the recovery time of a certain Mr. Wayne at the mid-point of the film. It's nothing short of miraculous, and that's before you even consider the time it then takes him to get back to business in Gotham. However, fortunately, the plot holes that are present in the story are the kind of "mistakes" that you can happily ignore, but the film ultimately runs smoothly despite them, and is still very much enjoyable. And let's be honest, are there really that many stories out there that don't have a "hmmm, that didn't make too much sense, did it?" moment or two?

When it comes to the cast, there is a series of familiar faces that we already know the majority of the character background for. However, pretty much each of these characters have a certain something ectra about them now that eight years passed in storytime. Christian Bale bring an older, wiser Bruce Wayne, although one that can also be a little reckless, due to the pain he still feels for the death of Rachel Dawes. His performance is exactly what you wanted; just him being Batman, because he really is just the man we'll think of as the Caped Crusade for many years to come (you know, unless you really like nipples on your Batsuit). Gary Oldman adds a certain soldier-eager-to-jump-over-the-line quality to Commissioner Gordon, which appropriate represents his uneasiness at the peace running through Gotham. Michael Caine's limited screen time is still a masterclass for anyone wanting to learn the trade, in what must be under 10 minutes of actual face time, Caine displays not only the dry humour we've come to associate with his Alfred character, but also a full on display of sheer sorrow and loss at varying points throughout the film, notably when he is trying to persuade Wayne to keep Batman in retirement. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman again as the Lucius Lox character, and provides much the same as in the previous instalments, which is again pleasing all round. There's even a brilliant cameo for Cillian Murphy as Dr Jonathan "Scarecrow" Crane, quite possibly the best cameo since Bill Murray got reflective in Zombieland.

But of course, we have a couple of new faces to look at this time. The most notable of which is definitely Tom Hardy as Bane. Hardy beefed up an extra 30lbs of pure muscle for the role, he's basically as huge and terrifying as he was in Bronson. Now consider the character of Bane from the comics and cartoon, he is both physically enormous and mentally brilliant; he is definitely not the giant brute of a henchman the hero is used to coming up against. And Hardy conveys this magnificently in his performance. He has to speak through a face mask which gives echoes of Darth Vader sinisterness, but at the same time, he speaks very well and very gently, the physical threat is always imposed by extremely intimidating yet subtle body-language. In short, Hardy is fantastic, and what Nolan did to the character is genius, a slightly altered backstory allows him to fit in perfectly with Nolan's Gotham universe. Then we have Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, who is thankfully never referred to as Catwoman (methinks that would be a tad too cheesey), who as some critic rightly said, comes dangerously close to stealing the show for herself. Hathaway seems to have studied the Kyle character relentlessly, as she talks, walks and fights exactly how we imagine her to, she is the epitome of the reluctant hero, concerned more with stealing for herself than the big picture for others...or is she? It's this hot-cold theme we're so used to with the Catwoman character that runs through Hathaway's performance, and she too is fantastic. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a new character in the series, a plucky cop named John Blake who resembles the young Jim Gordon, and his performance as such does the job needed, perfectly fits into the plot and never gets irritating, despite a large amount of screentime. And, completing the Inception-connection, Marion Cotillard plays Miranda Tate, a powerful business woman who is extremely interested in helping Bruce Wayne's clean energy project and on-off love interest. Again, she does exactly what you'd expect...and then a lot more, she's probably one of the hidden stars of the whole film.

I almost feel I don't need to look into cinematography or effects, as frankly, as we've all seen in the previous two movies, they are faultless. Everything is shot beautifully, and every time any kind of CGI is needed, it is done so well that you sort of forget that a computer will have been used at all. It is this which I believe adds a great strength to the film, as it merges a feeling of comic book style in the gadgets and disasters used, but avoids making them seem ridiculous or out of place. The whole thing runs smoothly.

All-in-all, the film takes you on such a journey that it by climax, you are close to letting out an embarrassing cheer. You're taken through so many emotional points for a great deal of the characters, and you end up sympathising with a surprisingly large amount of them too. And there is definitely a couple of unexpected twists and turns along the way, most of which yours truly genuinely did not see coming right up until they happened. What's more, there are a geek-pleasing amount of nods to the Batman universe, with mentions of Killer Croc being one and SPOILER being another...but less of that for now.

5/5 - There was not a single thing about this film that I did not enjoy. To me, it was everything I expected, and in parts, it even delivered more. Admittedly, I did enjoy The Dark Knight a little more, but honestly, that film would be worthy of a 6/5. As a member of the not at all insane Reddit community described it, I fully expect Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy to enjoy a place in culture that Star Wars has enjoyed. First film: Classic, nothing we've seen before. Second film: Definition of great film making, better than the predecessor. Third film: Amazing conclusion, if a little flawed. This trilogy is arguably the best since Star Wars, and The Dark Knight Rises may well have it's flaws, but it is simply phenomenal.

Potential For Evil - Dark Knight Forgotten Villains

Well, as I am currently tearing my own eyelids off in anticipation of finally getting to see The Dark Knight Rises on Tuesday, I thought I'd have a bit of a musing on the villains Christopher Nolan chose not to utilise in his Dark Knight trilogy. Basically, this is a nerdy "wouldn't it be cool if" kind of affair, so yeah...bail out while you don't think you can stomach such indulgence.

Nolan's take on the Dark Knight universe thrives on the basis that despite how fantastical the villains and eponymous hero may be, they are at least a little feasible. However, some come with a bit of a twist - Harvey Dent would most likely not come down with a sense of injustice and near psychotic levels of a breakdown if he'd been blown half to hell, more than he would instead be left with a serious case of deadness. So, here is where we apply the "superhero" rule; say one outrageous facet of each character becomes accepted as normal, and KAPOW! you've got a Nolan take on a Batman villain.

So who else would have worked? Why would they have worked? Why would they have been a total disaster? Who would we have liked to play them? Allow me to splurge about it for a while.

The Penguin

Why: Imagine, if you will, a faithful to the comics crime lord, holding reign over a syndicate of bookies, clubs and factories in our favourite fallen city. Basically, the Vito Corleone of Gotham; but instead of hmi being of the thuggish Marone ilk, he's all sinister and nearly cartoonishly disfigured with a hunch, hooked nose, is under 5ft tall and has an exceptionally creepy voice. Yep, it'd be pretty awesome.
Why Not: I genuinely though that the Penguin in Tim Burton's Batman Returns was superb. That character, if you toned down the campyness a level, would fit fairly easily into Nolan's version. Therefore, we've already seen it, and there's not much point in doing pretty much the same thing again.
Played By: I'd just stick with DeVito really, the character really was just that good.

Harley Quinn

Why: She could have slotted in right after the capture of The Joker. Cue a rampage of misguided revenge from the unhinged number one fan of Mr. J, possibly leading to a collaboration of the two characters in their quest to crush the Bat.
Why Not: Well there are a couple of problems here. First, on face value of that plot, it was already done in The Dark Knight, there wouldn't really be that much of a point of having Batman face off against the same villain but with a new accomplice. The second problem is obvious, the death of Heath Ledger means that no collaboration is possible, and I would question if the character is strong enough to really hold her own as a lead villain.
Played By: Ellen Page? Forgetting the Nolan connection, she's young enough to play the character, has a good amount of comedy timing and is seemingly open to quirky roles. So just throw in an extra bucketload of crazy and voila, you'd have Harley Quinn. Also, remembering the Nolan connection, almost every actor in Inception has been in at least one of Nolan's Batman films, so there's that.

The Riddler

Why: As enjoyable as I found the film, the Jim Carrey version of the Riddler in Batman Forever was so camp and ridiculous that he wouldn't have worked if the film wasn't as mad as he was. However, I think there'd be a good way of using him as a way of getting the caped crusader to frantically comb the city, looking for the answers to the Riddler's questions before some poor bystanders are blown to bits. And if anyone could come up with something complicated and confusing, it would be Nolan.
Why Not: The boat hostage situation in The Dark Knight means that we've already seen what it'd be like if Batman was faced with a conundrum by one of the supervillains. Also, it'd be in serious danger of running very similar to the plot of Die Hard With A Vengeance, and I'd probably end up waiting for Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson to turn up and put him to rights.
Played By: Now here there are loads of options. Personally, I loved the rumours of Robin Williams for the role when we were speculating on the villains for The Dark Knight Rises, as he can certainly do crazy-creepy very well. There had also been rumours (or, people making stuff up and hoping) of Johnny Depp, Jude Law, David Tennant, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and more being lined up for the role. However, and it once again goes back to a Nolan connection, my personal choice would have to be Guy Pearce. He's flat out spectacular in most things, and has does the off-kilter take on reality before in Memento, would have been a goodun.

Victor Zsasz

Why: Well, as we saw him being released with all the other inmates in Batman Begins (being played by the lead singer of the band James, no less), many of us thought we might see a little more of Mr. Zsasz either later in the movie or later in the franchise, but it never happened. Nolan's Gotham is exceptionally dark and overflowing with a sinister breed of criminals, and not all of them need a super-power type gimic. Zsasz is a serial killer of repulsive proportions, cutting a notch on his body for each of his victims, what could Batman find less useful than a straight forward nutjob murderer tearing through the streets when he's trying to take down the more circusy villains?
Why Not: Things would quite probably run a little too close to a Silence Of The Lambs meets Se7en sort of plot. Also, like Harley Quinn we have to consider if Zsasz would be a strong enough villain to warrant a starring role, or if he'd even keep Batman busy for long enough.
Played By: Jackie Earle Haley would have it nailed on for me. He already has that whole "I don't mean it, but I look a smidge like a serial killer" thing about him, and has shown he can do it with his version of Freddy Krueger in the reboot of A Nightmare On Elm Street.

Honorable Mentions: If they were a little less fantasy, it'd be nice to have seen the likes of Poison Ivy, Clayface or Killer Croc in film as good as the current trilogy. Furthermore, had his story not been so brilliant in Arkham City, Hugo Strange would have been a good watch too. And of course, it would have been amazing if Nolan had given us a way to reclaim Mr. Freeze, blocking out all images of this:

I'm sorry...I'm so, so sorry.

On that horrifying note, I'm off to put on my utility belt and sit perched on top of my bannister, watching over the rotting, crime ridden corners of...my living room.

Until the review of The Dark Knight Rises, thanks for reading.

Snow White and the Huntsman

It's fairly commonly accepted that when someone makes a re-imagining of a fairy tale, what you tend to get is a bit of a beige nothing of a movie which is destined to spent eternity trapped on ITV Saturday afternoon tv slots. Then on the other hand, you have what happens if you try to go too far into a re-imagining...trying too hard to go all Tim Burton or deep and dark, until what you're left with is drivel far too akin to the Twilight mess. So keeping in mind that the title role of this movie is a certain Kristen Stewart and you might understandably have low hopes for this one, the newly imagined, definitely darker Snow White and the Huntsman.

It's a classic story, and anyone who doesn't know it is either too young to be able to watch a DVD without pooping themselves, or too old to remember if they've pooped themselves. But of course, there's a new perspective on this one: the evil Queen Ravenna tricks the recently widowed King Magnus (father of Snow White) into marriage, only to murder him in the marriage bed and assume control of his kingdom. Our Princess is then locked in the highest tower for fifteen years, whilst the youth obsessed Queen literally drains the life out of all young attractive women she can get her hands on. When the famed Magic Mirror reveals that the newly adult Snow White is fairer than the Queen, she sends her brother to kill Snow White, only for the Princess to escape to the Dark Forest. Cue the hiring of Eric the Huntsman to find her, only to have a charge of heart about whether to hand her over or not, and he helps her on her quest to overthrow the evil Queen. Simple? Yeah it's pretty standard stuff, but that's basically all the story needs.

If you're expecting ground breaking performances, you're probably in the wrong place though. Stewart's Snow White a strong-willed but gentle and innocent character, and while you certainly get that impression from the actress, I (and several other punters who left the cinema) simply cannot get over the fact that she barely ever changes her facial expression; so much so that when she does smile, I found it slightly disturbing in unfamiliarity. Not to mention a ridiculously over-the-top English accent to boot. She's not that bad, but she is basically just Kristen Stewart wearing armour and speaking with a daft accent. Chris Hemsworth channels his best Thor accent mixed with a bit of a Braveheart feel as the Huntsman, and he's a character you do feel a little sympathy for, but his history is rushed hastily into the plot, and while you like him, you get the impression it's only because of Hemsworth, and not for what the character has experienced. Charlize Theron is quite probably the most impressive of the cast, as she's simply too many flew over the cuckoo nest as Queen Ravenna; utterly mental but in an intimidating manner, pretty much all that is asked of the role. Kudos too must go to Sam Spruell as Finn, the maniacal, completely detestable brother of the Queen.

Of course, what would a Snow White movie be without the dwarves? Indeed they do show up, and are fairly Lord Of The Rings-y (but we'll be coming back to that) in appearance. Unfortunately, whilst the dwarves add a sense of mischief and are an easy source of comedy for the film, they sway the darkness of the picture almost too much out of focus. Similarly to the Huntsmen, you feel that their backstory is simply a side-issue to the all-important Princess, not to mention it's a bit of a tired one (things were prosperous, Queen arrived, things aren't prosperous any more). There are genuinely enjoyable moments with the dwarves, but the most fun I got out of them was working out who plays them; amongst them we have Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Johnny Harris, Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, Brian Gleeson and Ray Winstone, who plays Ray Winstone, but this time in dwarf form.

One thing that this film is extremely guilty of, I must say, is that it seems to take a little too much inspiration from fellow fantasy movies. As previously mentioned, there is a lot of Lord Of The Rings in the appearance of the dwarves, not to mention a near carbon copy shot of small people trekking up mountainous terrain as seen from a helicopter. Another that really stood out was a glaringly similar take from The Never Ending Story, involving a horse and a swamp...tissues at the ready.. And there's more than a little bit of a Willow feel to the later interactions between Snow White, the dwarves and mother nature herself, though it's still fun enough if a little cheesy.

The strength of the film is definitely with the special effects. If you have a scene with Queen Ravenna in it, prepare for something spectacular. The movie goes all out to impress with weird and wonderful magic for the Queen, whether that is in the form of her phantom army and soldiers made entirely from shards of glass; whether it's the manner in which she transforms herself to and from a conspiracy of ravens; or if it is simply the way in which her physical age changes back and forth rapidly throughout the movie. It genuinely surprises me that they didn't attempt to release the movie in 3D, as the effects are already impressive, you can only imagine how much more impressive it may have looked with that bonus lovely dimension.

2/5  - It's enjoyable, and the all round feeling we got was "it's alright". It's better than most fairy tale imaginings, yes, and it's probably not going to be an ITV classic. However, the back stories are all rushed, other than Snow White herself, who is simply not interesting enough. Although it is extremely shiny and fun to look at.

Prometheus

As far as highly-anticipated movie releases go, this year has them by the boat-load. We've seen The Avengers storm box offices, The Hunger Games open up a new franchise, The Muppets made a long awaited comeback, not to mention The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man and the first part of The Hobbit all due for release later in the year. But the announcement of the first return to science fiction for Sir Ridley Scott since his 1982 masterpiece Blade Runner. We are, of course, talking about Prometheus.

First, let's dispel the first rumour about this movie: it is not a prequel to Scott's other sci-fi great Alien, in the strictest sense of the word. However, it clearly takes place in the same universe as the Alien franchise, and indeed, many references and nods are made to those films, and indeed, I believe this proves to be an original story for the Xenomorph species, however, that is not the focus of this movie. This movie is about the scientific and spiritual pursuit of the origin of mankind - where we come from, and if there is somewhere we go once we're gone - therefore, it is key that you consider we don't actually have those answers before you get frustrated with this film, because otherwise, you might be left a little underwhelmed.

Let's have a quick round-up of the plot, before I try to get all deep and meaningful. A team of archaeologists discover the same pictogram across Earth, thousands of years in age difference, where no communication could have possibly taken place, of humans worshipping alien beings pointing to a specific star. The team interpret this as an invitation to a planet of creators, or Engineers of the human race, and that's where they travel to. After being woken from hyper-sleep by David the android, the team arrive on their destination moon and begin exploring the seemingly abandoned alien structures in search of proof of their makers.

The title of the picture is imperative also, as it refers to the eponymous Greek God, who stole from Zeus in order to aid mortal men - the creation of life. Scott is presenting to us a fantastical perspective of what could have started our existence. The theme runs thickly throughout the movie, whether through the obvious of the creation of the human race on Earth, the sterility of Dr Elizabeth Shaw, the inevitable ageing of Peter Weyland or the android perspective on existence of David. The philosophical aspect of the plot is sheer brilliance, but it can be considered flawed, as, understandably or not, no questions asked by the film are directly answered. Yet consider this; it is while we have nothing but theories on our existence that things remain calm and controlled in the movie, but the moment Dr Shaw's team begin to unravel the mysteries of their creation that everything descends into chaos - the universe makes perfect sense whilst simultaneously being completely insane - there are no simple answers to a simple question.

The cast is pretty superb, and the lack of A-Listers in the key roles immerses you into the crew of Prometheus without instantly knowing who is going to have a gets-the-girl predictable story. Noomi Rapace stars as Dr Shaw, and although I don't particularly want to do it, it's inevitable that this is the first of many mirrors of Alien, as she is the strong, defiant female presence on the ship, a hell of a lot like a certain Miss Ripley. The supporting members of the crew each fill their role perfectly too, whether that's through Logan Marshall-Green's Dr Charlie Holloway or Sean Harris' Fifield, you become somewhat engaged with each who have prominent speaking roles in such a manner that you truly care for what happens to them. Charlize Theron provides a suitably disliked figure of corporate authority as Meredith Vickers, the apparent face of the Weyland Corporation aboard the ship. He's extremely good for his tiny part on screen, but you'll do well to immediately recognise Guy Pearce as Peter Weyland. But if there was a show stealer amongst the cast, it was definitely the consistently impressive Michael Fassbender as David. Even without the prior knowledge of how untrustworthy spaceship androids can be from the Alien franchise, David is both a bizarrely likeable and yet utterly unsettling and sneaky character, particularly for one who is apparently without emotion. Whether it's his uncanny impersonation of Peter O'Toole in Lawrence Of Arabia or his relentless pushing beyond the chain of command in opening pretty much any door he finds in the alien structure, I for one am now entirely convinced that Fassbender is in fact a robot, possibly the first one purpose built for acting.

Visually, the film is absolutely stunning, and whilst I am usually sceptical of the need for 3D cinema releases, Prometheus certainly puts it to amazingly good use. The appearance of the ship (inside and out), the alien buildings, the futuristic technology and even the landscapes are kept extremely simple, but with what I can only call a bit of a space-y feel to them, nothing too ridiculously over the top. And yes, again, the workings of the Prometheus do indeed have more of than a bit of a look of the Nostromo to them. Basically, this is science fiction imagery done correctly.

If I had to pick fault with the film, it is simply that, despite realising that we cannot possibly hope to find out each and every one of the mysteries of our own existence through a film (and that is sort of the point), very few questions really are answered. Not only this, but the frustrating confrontation between the team and the surviving Engineer is a little underwhelming, largely due to the fact that we don't know why he is so determined to wipe out the Earth. However, the ending pretty much screams a sequel, and there is apparently already word that Scott is working on the preliminary procedures for a second film, so you never know. Having said that, and as I stated before, it might be infuriating that you don't get the answers you wanted, but surely that's the point of the film, unless Sir Scott does actually know that we were put here by a race of alien versions of ourselves, of course.

4/5 - Very much enjoyable, deeply unsettling in places and visually spectacular. It might drive you insane, but it's a great ride whilst doing so. The movie stands strongly by itself, but features a great deal of references to the Alien franchise, which fans will love. Disappointing only in that it left me wanting to see more, which I suppose is also sort of a good thing. Go see it!

P.S.

You barely have to wait for it, but stick around after the final fade to black...