Argo

Sometimes film throws something unexpected at you. They can be things like Jim Carrey being an excellent serious actor (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind), Sylvester Stallone making a very good modern Rocky film (Rocky Balboa), or anybody actually paying to see a Kevin James movie (literally any Kevin James movie). But on this occasion, we see the release of a film which was highly expected to crown the restoration of the reputation of Ben Affleck; it's Argo.

When we first really got a glimpse of Ben Affleck, we saw a man of great promise, with pleasing contributions (be it in front or behind the camera) in Good Will Hunting and the Kevin Smith films Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dogma, and we all thought we had something good coming along. Unfortunately, however, roles in movies like Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, Daredevil and Gigli pretty much caused a blitz on his reputation (and pretty fairly so, if we're being honest about most of those films). But then we saw a glimmer of hope in him once more when Gone Baby Gone and The Town arrived; the key difference of course, being that Affleck was also directing, and what do you know it, he's done the same again this time. Seems the more creative influence the man has, the better his films tend to be: therefore we can either assume he just got lazy and has terrible taste in roles, or he simply got sick of terrible roles and wrote stuff for himself. Either way, it worked out great for us.

Argo is a movie 'inspired by' (meaning a lot of it actually happened, but some parts have most likely been sexified) by the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. A short summary...because it's kinda also the plot...goes as follows: Iranian protesters raid the U.S. embassy in Tehran in response to the disgraced Shah being granted hospitality in America, where he spent months being treated in hospitals. Over 50 embassy employees (as well as people who happened to be there at the time) where taken hostage, whilst 6 Americans escaped and took shelter in secret at the Canadian embassy. Tony Mendez (Affleck), a CIA man whose speciality was to get endangered Americans out of hostile situations abroad becomes part of the think-tank to rescue the six in hiding. Mendez comes up with the idea of flying to Tehran, posing as a Canadian film maker, rendezvousing with the escapees where he would train the Americans on their back stories; the rest of the film crew. So they have to make a fake movie look realistic so that the Iranians will believe it enough to allow the 'Canadian's to leave on a plane back home.

Now, this is an almost entirely true story, so you'd expect that to spoil the plot slightly...I mean, if you know anything about the event, you know how it ends. However, this couldn't really be further from the truth, as the right application of (and by which I mean a metric juggernaut load of) tension sucks you into the unfolding drama as it goes on, causing you to forget what actually happens, and instead think of what you'd do in that situation...and duly squeal like the baby fish falling off his rocking horse at the start of Finding Nemo.

The performances are all very solid. Particularly key to the success of this film are the roles of the six hostages; these needed to be interesting enough to warrant us actually caring about them, whilst staying realistic enough for us to accept that this actually happened. And that, is short, is exactly what you get. Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall and Scoot McNairy are certainly the most eye-catching of the bunch, and each fulfil a required role in their group; leadership, fear and doubt respectively, which helps the film chug along nicely. Affleck himself is both prominent and understated at the same time; he's given a lot of screen time, but, true to his CIA character, you never really get an in-depth look at what's going on behind the job, although little hints are dropped in with regards to his wife and son, this is, thankfully, just an aside to the main plot. And then you have some truly joyous performances from three of the finest character actors around. First is Bryan Cranston (Malcolm In The Middle and, most spectacularly, Breaking Bad), who plays Jack O'Donnell, a chief at the CIA, but also a friend of Mendez. Second is John Goodman (Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, The Artist...), as John Chambers, an Oscar-winning make-up artist used as a connection to Hollywood by Mendez. Finally, and my personal favourite, is Alan Arkin (Catch-22, Glengarry Glen Ross, Little Miss Sunshine and at least 17 bazillion others) as Lester Siegel, a Hollywood producer roped in by Chambers to help Mendez create the perfect fake movie. Again, without these three, the film wouldn't work, Cranston provides a stable professional/friendship grounding for Mendez, whilst the others not only have key roles in what needs to be accomplished in the success of the rescue mission, but also bring a dose of comedy relief done in the best possible taste.

This film will win awards, and hopefully not just because it happens to be based on a real-life act of insane heroism, but because it is genuinely very, very good. Despite there not being too much fast-paced action, or constant gags, the film really pulls you in, and that is simply because it doesn't do those things. It'll be one of those films that makes you feel all dandy for watching, understanding and enjoying it, because it's simultaneously simple yet smart; probably because what exactly happened is freakishly clever whilst also being totally stupid, as well as the film itself being produced in a straight-to-the-point manner.

5/5 - If you like to get submerged in the moment of real-life drama, you'll love it. You forget you're watching something that actually happened, which makes it all the more impressive when you remember that it's actually a film. Not only because of the daring of the real-life heroes, but also because you'll have just seen Ben Affleck produce something rare: a 'based on a true story' movie that isn't wallowing in pretence.

Stitches

Once every so often something so completely absurd and brilliant comes shambling out of cinemaland that it simply has to be seen to make it seem real. Whether that's Nicolas Cage appearing as flamed-headed superhero, or Ben Affleck turning out to be a really good director, some things are just so weird to imagine as a sensible idea that we just can't help but watch. Note: I'm definitely not saying that Ghost Rider was a good thing, not even a little bit. On this occasion, however, something so utterly stupid just happens to become a perfect recipe for cult fantastitude that you'll probably think I'm making it up. Ladies and gents, I present to you... Stitches.

A quick sum up of what this insane film is comprised of: it cost a meagre 600 000 Euros, is both a tribute and send-up of 80s slasher flicks, the main character/antagonist is a sleazy children's entertainer who comes back from the dead in his clown form to take his revenge...and he's played by Geordie comedian Ross Noble. If done in the wrong manner, this film sounds like it could be absolutely terrible, but, if done right, it could be fantastic.

So, as hinted, the plot goes... Richard 'Stitches' Grindle is a terrible clown who works birthday parties, and one party in particular sees him having to cope with a group of especially evil children. The kids end up accidentally causing the death of the clown, tripping him head first onto a kitchen knife in the dish washer. Jump to a few years down the line, and all the kids are now teenagers, and Tom, the birthday boy on that day, still troubled by the memory of it. He hosts a house party on the weekend of his birthday, which inadvertently reunites the original gathering. Stitches returns from his grave to get his revenge at the party, and clowny brilliance ensues.

It's simple, straightforward slasher stuff in terms of story, when you think about it. Traumatic event > Years later > 'Unexpected' return > Bloody havoc. However, this is about a clown. A clown who takes his revenge  in ways which are specifically appropriate to those who wronged him in life. And the whole film is done with a blatant sense of humour...it knows it's a clown, it knows it's lead is a stand-up comedian, and it knows just how stupid it is. As such, there aren't any scares to speak of, because that's not the point. There is, however, a loving bucketload of 80s style gore. We're talking a victim getting there head inflated with a balloon pump gore here, and quite a lot of it done without the use of CGI. Basically read that as: done the way horror films were done when they were fun. You'll definitely squirm at some of it, but a lot of the time you won't know if you want to wriggle uncomfortably at the thought, or wet yourself at how that gore was unleashed. This is not gore for gore sake: see the Hostel films for that sort of malarkey. This is gore done for hilarity...plus...it's a ruddy CLOWN bringing it forward.

In terms of performances, the whole supporting cast brings exactly what is expected of them. They're a group of typical film teenagers: the clown, the fat one, the artsy girl, the bully, the slutty girl, the weird boy, the uncool main boy with issues. These are token stereotypes of the slasher film, and are used simply to fill the role. But these characters have a little more flesh on the bones, and are actually quite funny to watch, or, more importantly, enjoyable to watch be set upon by a rampaging undead clown (definitely a sentence which should be said more frequently). But of course, the undoubted star of the whole thing is Ross Noble, whose performance is only funnier if you've seen his stand up, because you know you've seen elements of his insanity before. Everything from the daft gruff voice, to the clown-like ways he moves, every little thing Noble does is comedy gold. Clowns are naturally really, really, ridiculously super creepy, so Noble bringing his natural daftness turns it around a little into the ludicrous, but in a very good way. Arguably my favourite scene of the lot coming in the form of the high speed...bicycle chase, wherein a knife-wielding Stitches pursues two would-be victims on a tiny tricycle; pure absurdity, but performed in a way that makes it hilarious.

There's very much a feel of The League of Gentlemen and Psychoville to this film, and that is definitely a good thing. The humour is cheesey, but in a totally right way...not to mention a little sick. It gets just about everything right. The only complaint I would possibly have is that it's arguably a little too short and makes you wish you had a bit more fun...so I guess that's sort of a good thing too. Mind you, it really is a solid and brilliant tribute to the slasher, right down to the standard formula of those who have debauchery-related fun times are the first to get it. But of course...this is with an intentionally stupid clown as the main piece.

4/5 - Now I'm not saying it's Oscar-worthy, or that it's the same quality overall as a critic's darling sort of movie, but for what it is, this film is amazing. It's a low budget horror/comedy, which is a genre with standards set by Shaun of the Dead. Whilst this is certainly not at that level, it is extremely entertaining, and, most importantly, very funny. It features some of the best death scenes you're ever likely to see, and they're all done in great humour. Do yourself a favour, see it if you get the chance, it's certain to become a strong cult classic.

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.