REVIEW: Anna Karenina

Joe Wright was considered something of a British wunderkind after his brilliant adaptation of Atonement. The film had all the ingredients of an instant British classic: well cast actors, beautiful settings, immaculate script, sweeping scenery, magnificent camerawork, dramatic score.... It was no wonder it was such a critical success, and is still one of my favourite literary adaptations to date. He had the film industry in his hands and could've done pretty much what he wanted, though strangely enough, after Atonement he made the disappointing The Soloist about a former cello prodigy and then the excellent beat-pumping hit-girl thriller Hanna, so his career was looking anything but consistent. Having thus far peaked with his second movie Atonement and with his fourth, Hanna, following closely behind, Pride & Prejudice and The Soloist both lacked the vision and relevance of the aforementioned and slump somewhat on his CV. In keeping with his inconsistency, Anna Karenina sits somewhere in between.

This latest work is something of a marvel to watch, with most of the action taking place in a Russian theatre which acts as the main stage shifting between all the settings - inside and out. The backstage walkways and ladders act as the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg, and the entire appearance makes for unique viewing, even if at times you might struggle to know where exactly they are supposed to be. It's certain that after this bold depiction of Tolstoy's much-loved classic, no-one will doubt Wright's creative genius, although some could argue that it would perhaps be better suited in a theatre - the Old Vic or The Globe perhaps.

Aside from the beautiful vision of the story, Anna Karenina has little else to offer. As someone who hasn't read the book I was granted a fair amount of freedom to watch the film without having pistols at the ready - my wife on the other hand, a huge fan of Tolstoy's supposed masterpiece, didn't even make it into the cinema. The lead casting alone was enough to dismiss the film entirely where my wife was concerned, and from speaking with other literary lovers, she isn't alone there. For me, Keira Knightley is one of the most annoying actors working, and what makes it worse, is that she's in bloody everything. I'm not going to dismiss her entirely, as I've given her due credit for Atonement and Never Let Me Go, both where she plays a vacuous and shallow woman, but I can't see past her drama-student overacting and constantly protruding chin. She is someone who I honestly believe is cast on hype alone, and after seeing her in A Dangerous Method think her the worst of Hollywood's leading ladies. This is perhaps where Wright made his most glaring mistake: casting Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina. She doesn't just suck at the role, but she is completely overshadowed by a very strong support cast - Matthew McFadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Jude Law and Ruth Wilson. These four own the scenes they are in, and luckily for us there's usually one of them on screen at all times, although you'll have to forgive the awful love scenes with Knightly and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (he's not much better than her). McFadyen, Law and Gleeson are the real show-stealers, with Law in particular delivering possibly his finest role as Karenin - convincing us completely of his plight and struggle, whilst McFadyen offers the comic touch as Anna's buffoon brother. Aside from the central lovers, Wright has produced a fine cast, it's just a shame that you can't see past the focal blunder - perfect casting of Anna and Vronksy was essential.

Looking back on the film, the scenes I remember most are all those at Levin's country farm, and it's no doubt that Wright is most brilliant when working outdoors - just think of the wonder with which he delivered Atonement's scenes at the Tallis home or of Robbie in the war - and it's no different here, with field-workers rhythmically swinging their scythes in the golden glow of sun, haystacks littering the land into the horizon. Possibly that is what seems missing here, there is not enough outdoor material, not enough sweeping landscapes and breathtaking views. Anna Karenina has too much scope and grandeur to be delivered through the medium of a theatre set, and it's literary success only adds to it's almost-mythical scale, with claims by many that it is the greatest book ever written. Whether that is the case or not, Wright's delivery and vision felt like it doesn't live up to the novel, let alone the hype that comes with it.

REVIEW: Dredd

I read Alex Garland's script Peach Trees earlier this year after reading a some buzz surrounding the screenplay, but was unaware at the time that it was the new Judge Dredd film. It was a very welcome surprise and the script was as tight as a banjo string. Dredd kept his helmet on, Mega-City One was the foreboding metropolis of the comics, and there was no shortage of bone-crunching action sequences. Oh, and Garland brought perhaps the greatest drug for cinematic pleasure: Slo-Mo. Six months later and I'm at the pictures watching Garland's vision unfold in all its three-dimensional glory.  

Peter Travis has done exactly what he said he would, and brought us a proper Judge Dredd creation that Danny Cannon failed to deliver in 1995. What more, he does very well to deliver Garland's visionary script: Mega-City One is teeming with crime, and in one of the huge Megablocks - a mini-city in a skyscraper - Peach Trees, crime boss Ma-Ma and her band of miscreants are making Slo-Mo, a highly addictive drug allows the user to experience everything in super slow motion. When she kills a group of men and puts them on display as an example, Judge Dredd and rookie Judge Anderson visit Peach Trees for some judgement and punishment. Before long they get locked in, and so starts an 80 minute attempt to escape the huge edifice with thousands of hired goons and chancing residents on their trail. Luckily for Dredd, his new recruit (being tested on her performance) is a psychic, and a damn strong one at that, giving Travis even more chance to show-off with clever time shifts. 

The plot is simple enough, and it certainly allows for an enjoyable watch, but it had the misfortune of being done much better a few months earlier by a small Indonesian film, The Raid. This left a slightly sour taste afterwards, as it seemed like a lesser Hollywood rip on an already perfect action film, and without the superb Silat sequences from the Asian version. The Raid has a group of elite cops get killed off in a tower-block raid, leaving only a couple of the best to fight off the gangs, destroy the drugs lab, and escape in time for tea. However, for what Dredd lacked in realism and martial arts, it made up for in aesthetic - its pure cinematic eye candy (although maybe aimed slightly more at the male teen market).

Dredd's 3D is more than just a fad, (only a few films can argue that - Avatar, Tron: Legacy, Prometheus) and is more of a necessity for the visual aesthetic of the film - the slow-mo sequences on the drug are done with aplomb and for a film which behaves like a shot of red bull to the eye, the 3D platform is perfect for the delivery. It's not quite as good as that in the three films aforementioned, but they act as the bar in terms of what is achievable in the format. 

The cast are great, with particular mention for Rider of Rohan Karl Urban's stiff-lipped incarnation of Judge Dredd, lean like a boxer and with a chin so square you could measure right-angles. Lena Heady (Game of Thrones, 300) is a nice touch as ruthless villain Ma-Ma, and the promo people even sent out a short comic of her backstory prior to the film's release to show us what Dredd is up against. Check it out here before you see the movie, and if you do, try and see it at the cinema as it will make for a much more enjoyable viewing. 

REVIEW: Lawless

John Hillcoat is a Director whose films I anticipate hugely prior to release. Ever since his 2005 ‘Aussie outback western’ The Proposition (penned by Nick Cave) he has moved to the ‘one to watch’ list. His last effort was an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s grim apocalyptic road movie, The Road, and he’s back working with old mucker Cave on his latest film Lawless (originally titled The Wettest County). Based on the book my Matt Bondurant, it tells the story of prohibition bootleggers brewing moonshine in Franklin County, Virginia, and more specifically, the tale of the three Bondurant boys – Jack, Howard and Forrest. Like The Proposition, these three boys are low-down no-gooders with a family hierarchy – Forrest is the head of the family and brains of the operation, Howard is the muscle (perpetually drunk), and Jack, the youngest, is the lackey. Only, one day Jack decides that he’s had enough with being downtrodden and belittled, and manages to cut a lucrative deal with local gangster Floyd Banner, much to the chagrin of his brother Forrest, and this is where things start to get messy for the good ol’ boys. 

 

In a bid to crack down on the illegal importation of alcohol from the south, Chicago PD sends down one of their finest, Charley Rakes, to tackle the moonshine problem and put a stop to the bootleggin’ gangs, lest they pay tax a local fat cat. Guy Pearce gives a career-defining performance here, and his creepy incarnation of Rakes is so squeamish that Hillcoat said his children cried when they saw a picture of him – he looks like a greasy snake in human form. A formidable foe to the Bondurants, even if Hardy and Clarke do out-size him, it’s Pearce’s character that is the movie’s most memorable, and leaves an almost metallic aftertaste in the mouth.

That said, Hardy gives another good turn as the human breeze block Forrest, although his physical appearance was very much a disappointment to Cave, who had written Forrest as a snake-like character – lean, mean and dangerous to know – rather than the luggish brute of Hardy’s portrayal. Forrest is a very slow deliberate character, always pondering before he speaks, and his words linger in the air before they are absorbed. Hardy has the screen presence to carry any shot he’s in, and the fantastic cast around him (Clarke, LaBoeuf, Pearce, Oldman, Chastain) are each worthy of their place in Hillcoat’s modern classic. It’s extremely refreshing to see that Shia LaBouef has pulled away from the usual tripe he does and actually stepped up and delivered a great performance as youngest brother Jack. Unfortunately his awful press recently somewhat taints my opinion of him (revealing he slept with Megan Fox, saying he knocked out Tom Hardy, badmouthing cast etc), but nevertheless, I can’t let that detract from his best performance yet – he finds the perfect balance to portray Jack’s struggle to find his place in this world.

 

Lawless is one of the most refreshing crime movies in ages, and one that takes the viewer to a very new setting – a backdrop reminiscent of Harlan County in TV’s Justified – a new depiction of the Mid-West, a million miles from the gleam of New York or the haze of LA. Having read the script, I do think it would have been better with Hardy as Howard and someone like Adrian Brody, Michael Fassbender or even (curveball!) Benedict Cumberbatch as the lean snake-like Forrest.  We all know Hardy can do brooding and tough, we’ve seen Bronson, Warrior, TDKR etc, but I would love to have seen Cumberbatch’s effort – bet he would have nailed it.

Also, there are quite a few scenes which are scaled down to make an easier shot it seems – a nail-biting climactic car chase in the script is reduced to very little in the film, and does leave you wondering why so many bullets are missing the targets at such short range. Other than minor gripes – including changing the name from The Wettest County – Lawless is, as they would say in Franklin Co., “a damn fine yarn”, and definitely one of the year’s best at that.

REVIEW: Total Recall

When it was announced that the Paul Verhoeven sci-fi classic Total Recall was being remade, a ripple of anger bled across the blogosphere. What made it grow even worse was the fact that Len Wiseman, the man behind the awful Underworld series was at the helm, with his wife Kate Beckinsale up front and centre. The cast that followed included Colin Farrell taking hero duties as Douglas Quaid, very different casting from Arnold's beefed spy (with Beckinsale replacing Sharon Stone as his wife), Jessica Biel as Melina, a foxy Resistance fighter and the object of Quaid's dreams, Bryan Cranston as head honcho baddie Cohaagen, and Bill Nighy as Matthias Lair, leader of the resistance. A very mixed bag, and not filling the nervous fans with much confidence. 

As was expected, Total Recall (2012) isn't as good as the original. What made Verhoeven's original so enjoyable was it's camp charm and outrageous caricatures, whereas Wiseman has dropped these qualities for a more serious and 'believable' approach - they don't even go to Mars in this one.  Instead, Earth has been divided into two settlements, The United Federation of Britain (UFB - the UK and Western Europe) and The Colony (Australia), of which the latter is representative of Mars and its blue-collar workforce. Like the original, baddie Cohaagen is looking to take over The Colony and control Earth's output, only this time he has a synthetic robot army to do the deed and assist with his plans for World domination. In the middle of this power struggle, factory worker Douglas Quaid is having violent dreams about fighting with the Resistance assisted by a mysterious woman. Eager to experience these secret agent fantasies more in depth, he visits Rekall, a shady outfit where people can have fake memories implanted. From here Quaid's story is the same as the original, and he ends up embroiled in a cat-and-mouse chase with his hot wife - an agent for Cohaagen - and fighting to stop the Colony falling into the robot army apocalypse. 

The plot is good enough, and although keeping the story to the confines of Earth is more believable, it's not in keeping with the original story, so not a good decision when push comes to shove (I would always rather they stuck to the source material if remaking a classic film). One of the best additions to the new film however, is the Fall, a subterranean lift which carries workers from the UFB to The Colony and back again via the Earth's core. In a spectacular set piece we see Quaid fighting some robots on the Fall as the gravity shift takes place at the Earth's centre, and it's these moments when Wiseman shines. The special effects are awesome, and date the original a hundred years, as we see some high-octane chase sequences across a suspended city with some chic Minority-Report-esque road networks. 

Perhaps the biggest disappointment from Total Recall is the gross underuse of it's best actors - namely Bryan Cranston. The man now famous from his star-turn in Breaking Bad, not to mention his great performance in Drive, has barely any meat in which to sink his chops. Cohaagen was supposedly a tough field agent and his equal-matched fights with Colin Farrell are laughable in places - here is a guy who just decked a load of robot warriors taking a beating from a fop-haired craggy Bryan Cranston. Don't think so. It would have been far wiser to have given Cranston better lines with which to dally, as his tough physicality just isn't believable. To that effect, it came as a what-the-fu- moment seeing Bill Nighy as leader of the Resistance. An underground army of hard-nuts who are only accessible through a series of checkpoints. He looked ridiculous. Wearing a trench coat and with wispy long slicked back hair Matthias looked more like a teaching assistant at Hogwarts than the leader of a rebel group. If they had him bespectacled with short iron hair and faded prison tattoos, speaking with a slow but aggressive manner then Nighy could have been acceptable, but his casting was awful otherwise. He can't have been so pleased himself with the final edit - his screen time is laughable. Unlike the two older characters, the three leads were far better casting, with Farrell offering a better (if less enjoyable) Douglas Quaid than Arnold. Kate Beckinsale obviously enjoyed herself with some kick-ass fight scenes and a series of great chase sequences, but I couldn't shake that she always seemed to be stepping out of a shampoo advert - her long glossy feathers get flicked every which way but loose. 

Perhaps Wiseman's biggest failure was in sacrificing substance for style. Although it is certainly a very aesthetically-pleasing film - true eye-candy a la Avatar and Prometheus - the tension is lacking (the great scene in the original where Arnold's lady costume malfunctions at security is demoted to a small tip of the hat or homage to the original - no heartfelt filmmaking here).  In all Wiseman hasn't done a terrible job, and he certainly didn't massacre the original or anything to that effect, but his film did lack the uncertainty evoked through the 1990 classic, as we rarely find ourselves asking the question: Is this real or is this Rekall? 

REVIEW: The Bourne Legacy

I'm not going to waste my or your time with a full-blown review on the latest instalment to the 'amnesiac spy' franchise, so I'll start off by saying that it has been by far the most disappointing film this year.
Other than being a redundant addition - think Terminator 3 - the entire plot is so hammy that abundant sighs were echoing through the screening.
Jeremy Renner plays Aaron Cross, one of the agents who make up the iceberg that Bourne was supposedly just the tip of. Like Bourne, Cross is also the best and most adept agent at killing generic agency suits and also adapting to his surroundings - no matter where. So far so average, and if you thought that a high-octane spy thriller was to follow you will be sorely mistaken. What the idiotic producers or writers in Hollywood decided to do was add a focal thread about a new super drug which the agents are taking regularly, enabling overall supremacy - quicker healing, faster running, higher jumping etc. The new breed will be government-engineered super-agents, or if you like, X-Men. However, if the drug is not taken correctly and with the add-ons that come with it, then they will have a breakdown and die. In order for the plot to move forward we see Aaron Cross survive an Agency cull in the snowy mountains and go into hiding. In order for him to avoid the inevitable ga-ga state as a result of not taking his meds, he heads home to find the doctor (Rachael Weisz in neurotic MILF mode) who issued his pills and protect her from the same nefarious CIA morons who are closing the book on the whole sordid 'super-agent' affair. It's as stupid and hammy as it sounds.
The only saving grace here is the fact that Jeremy Renner is pretty damn cool, and is just about convincing enough as a Bourne-like hero with a cheeky streak. Even Edward Norton seems contrived and irritating as the agency guy brought in to handle these off-the-record espionage cock-ups. Other than that the whole thing is a pointless exercise, and a real shame that Tony Gilroy (screenwriter for the previous outings and on Director's duty here) couldn't muster the same excitement or adrenalin that Liman and Greengrass offered. With the likes of Tinker Tailor and Shadow Dancer changing the stakes of modern spy thrillers, it shows that you don't need all the gung-ho effects and sped-up combat sequences to make a decent thriller. You just need a good script, and even more so, a decent story line. This has neither. I won't even touch on the non-ending - the worst of the whole genre, and certainly the crappiest I have seen in the cinema for a long, long time. If you are looking for mindless entertainment (something the Bourne franchise has completely avoided until now, reinventing the intelligent spy action genre with the Damon outings) then you'll find this okay, otherwise, steer clear.

REVIEW: Ted

Seth MacFarlane, the funny man behind Family Guy has brought us comedy gold in the shape of a talking dog, a highly intelligent psychopathic baby, a sex-mad pilot, racist bickering news readers and possibly the world's stupidest man in Peter Griffin. Here, he's at it again with another addition to his comedic repertoire with Ted, a  foul-mouthed, dope-smoking, Flash-loving, witty teddy bear. Ted wasn't always like this though.

Ted starts with John, a young Boston boy who is so excluded from childhood fun, when he tries to join in some snow-cramming bullying, he's even told to get lost by the helpless victim. Tired of his lonely existence, he prays to the stars that his new teddy bear will come to life; his wish is granted. Here we meet a softly spoken childish teddy, and soon the two become inseparable. In keeping within a certain reality, we then have the montage of TV interviews, magazine covers etc, making Ted an international star, yet he always returns to the loving embrace of his friend John.

Where MacFarlane has really raised the bar, is by not really focussing on the childhood magic, but instead cutting 25 years later and having John, now a 35 year old quipping Boston everyman still living with his now grown-up teddy, Ted. They smoke bongs, discuss sex, watch movies, party like it was the eighties, and more focally, continually let down John's long-suffering girl Lori (Mila Kunis). Alongside the spotlight on John and Lori's relationship, we also have a side plot which sees a freaky father and son (Giovanni Ribisi is a scene-stealer) try and obtain the talking Ted by any means necessary. 

Ted is a symbol of that childish element John refuses to let go of, and like many other movies before it, the protagonist must realise that he needs to grow-up, take some responsibility, and marry the girl. It's a basic premise so expertly executed by MacFarlane and team, that it avoid the cliches and goo so prevalent in chick flicks. Ted is most definitely a guy flick, but girls will love it too. Like The Hangover, Bridesmaids and Anchorman, it transcends the sex  boundary and will be loved by men and women alike. 

As per usual with MacFarlane, there are some lines a little close to the bone (even 9/11 gets a mention) but it's so in keeping with Ted's politically incorrect (or should that be politically appalling...) outlook on life, that I was actually stifling laughter at some of the more sensitive jokes, worried that I'd be the only outburst in the cinema (I wasn't) - it just doesn't seem as bad when said by a cartoon or CGI creation!! This outrageousness is flanked by Wahlberg and Kunis, both more grounded individuals, and the three shine when they share scenes together (the 'brewski' banter about beer is great), and fortunately for us, Kunis always manages to just stay this side of annoying even if her character could be otherwise. 

The effects used to create Ted are quite brilliant, and MacFarlane said that the film only came into play after James Cameron had Avatar under his belt and the technology he used became readily available. Quite amazing to think that Ted needed Avatar, but I'm not sure if MacFarlane said that in jest or not - apparently not. 

Funny, outrageous, and with some truly side-splitting moments (Ted's interview and subsequent meetings with his boss are hilarious) including a kick-ass cameo from Flash himself, Sam Jones, and some awesome eighties dancing from Ribisi, Ted has to be the comedy of the year. 

Ten Most Anticipated Unreleased Films of 2012

UPDATE: The Dark Knight Rises has hit $732 million, putting AA ($1.46b) , Hunger Games ($684m) and TDKR at a staggering accumulation of $2.88 billion...finally overtaking James Cameron's behemoth 

The Year of Our Lord 2012 has certainly had some cinema dynamite, and so far we've seen... a black and white silent film sweep Oscar glory, Michael Fassbender go long-shlong-phooey in Manhattan, Katniss become the new Bella, superheroes assembling against some evil intergalactic mofos downtown, R-Patz get fruity in a limo, Ridley Scott return to sci-fi in all his glory, and most recently, Batman rise to face his biggest threat. 

Producers and Studios are certainly laughing all the way to the bank - it's been a helluva year for blockbuster success, with The Hunger Games grossing $682 million, Avengers: Assemble took $1.46 billion, and The Dark Knight Rises (still rising hugely) accumulating  $550 million thus far - a grand total of $2.69 billion, which will likely break the $3 billion mark after TDKR finishes its run and DVDs hit shelves (by comparison, Avatar has made $2.78 billion to date). It's been a good year, and I have to say that my movie of the year so far is Prometheus, with The Dark Knight Rises, Moonrise Kingdom, Avengers, Carnage, Headhunters and The Raid to follow. Despite the three big-hitters having already played their hands, we still have some really exciting films to come - with Skyfall, The Bourne Legacy and The Hobbit being the next three big contenders. Note that some films scheduled for a 2012 release at the start of the year, have now been given a 2013 UK release...such as The Gangster Squad, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty (previously Kill Osama Bin Laden), Welcome to the Punch, World War Z and Parker. 

Here are the ten best to come (Ted is released now)...

REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises

 

Chris Nolan's conclusion to his Batman opus hit UK screens yesterday, and like its main villain, it's a beast to be reckoned with.  The Dark Knight Rises is a mega-blockbuster on every scale, although surprisingly this instalment is more reminiscent of Inception as opposed to its predecessor The Dark Knight. This time round, most of the action is shot in the daylight, yet Nolan's conclusion is the darkest film in the trilogy, with a scary gimp-masked terrorist up front and centre. This is the grand exit audiences were searching for after the most adult and critically successful comic book franchise to be adapted to film. Aside from the huge set pieces (only rivalled by  some of the pop-up folding dreamscapes in Inception) and a stellar ensemble cast, Nolan has decided to focus on huge worldly issues such as the instability of nuclear power, sustainable energy, terrorism, the economic crisis and it's impending insurgency typified by Occupy Wall Street. He has given us an entirely new spin on the comic book movie, and this comic franchise is the most important to come out of Hollywood. As far as comic adaptations go, it's the closest thing we have to adult thrillers or crime dramas, instead here we have masked vigilantes and eccentric villains.  Nolan's Bat-opus is more reminiscent of the works of Michael Mann or the James Bond films than any other comic book films, and that is part of what makes his trilogy so enthralling - it's sheer realism. He has created a world utterly believable and similar to our own, even when we see Gotham raising a dark, monolithic statue of Batman we are compelled into truly believing in this mysterious hero. On top of Nolan's political undercurrents, there have also been some horrific incidents from fans and general psychopaths over the last week, including a shocking massacre of 14 people during a midnight screening in Aurora on Thursday night, as well as critics receiving death threats and personal attacks after revealing too much plot or dissing the film, and website Rotten Tomatoes disabling comments on the film due to fan harassment. Either way, The Dark Knight Rises is in the spotlight right now, just like the themes within. 


To the chagrin of the blogosphere, Nolan decided that Bane was to be the villain up against our hero of the night, and what an inspired choice this was. He wanted someone to match Christian Bale's size and strength, and Bane is as big and mean as they come, played with perfection by British actor Tom Hardy (who recently got to bulk up for some very physical performances in Bronson and Warrior). Although there was some very promising chatter on the blogosphere of Phillip Seymour-Hoffman as the Penguin, or Guy Pearce as the Riddler, Nolan would have perhaps struggled to avoid the anarchists overlapping with the Joker's antics, whereas with Bane we have a different specimen, more terrorist than anarchist, and also trained by the League of Shadows, so a terrifying foe for Batman.  He is the villain to end all villains, and the fights between he and Batman are hugely engaging, sheer behemoths pounding the living daylights out of each other. This aggression between the two leads is the force that drives the film to the end, until the climactic final showdown between the heavyweights. Hardy gives Bane the formidable on-screen presence needed for the role, and he speaks with an educated sneer completely juxtaposing his ferocious appearance, displaying a fearsome intellect to match his size and power. 


Alongside Bane we ask see Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman, but never referred to as so), a cat burglar who crosses paths with Bruce Wayne and Batman.  Her intentions remain ambiguous a lot of the time (and appear mostly selfish), and for fear of exposing anything spoilerific I'll leave the plot details there, but Jonah Nolan (scriptwriter brother of Chris) said that Hathaway was at risk of stealing the film, and he might just be right. She certainly has one of the best written characters, and she gets some of the best lines, although arguably Bane gets some gems as well 'when Gotham is in ashes, you have my permission to die'. Although we find out very little about her past, she was still a hugely satisfying character - a devilishly charming professional thief looking for a thrill - whereas Bane could have done with some more backstory because he is just so damn intriguing. He remains something of an enigma, and although some of his past comes out in a final reveal, and we hear snippets of conversation about him, his story is never really told; although we can be sure its as dark and sinister as they come, as we hear him proclaim that he was born in hell on earth and lived in darkness, never to see the light until an adult. When all the pieces come together at the end, the questions raised in the film are thankfully answered, but it'll be your own questions which'll have you reeling afterwards (I want Bane's full backstory from Nolan!!).
Christian Bale's performance as Wayne/Batman was at its strongest, nailing the psychomachia of Bruce Wayne and getting the gravelly Bat-voice just right (it was verging comical in a couple of the trilogy's previous scenes). This time round he also gets more gadgets from the franchise's Q equivalent, (Morgan Freeman as) Lucius Fox, who unveils the Bat plane known only as the Bat, along with some uber-cool power-cutting weaponry and even a small palm-sized gadget to kill all nearby electronic equipment seen being used on a load of paps trying to snap Bruce Wayne's entry to a charity ball - genius. Alongside Fox, we also have film regulars Michael Caine return as Albert the butler, now even more distressed at Bruce Wayne's impending fate, and Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, as well as newcomers Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate, a board member and backer of Wayne Enterprises' sustainable energy project, and also Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake, a tough young cop with good intentions who gets hand-picked by Gordon to join forces (both the latter two must've impressed Nolan on the set of Inception). The acting chops on show are great, and so interesting to see in the performances of such caricatures from a comic book adaptation, albeit one which takes itself as serious as The Godfather. It must be said that Hathaway and Hardy are the standouts, and they certainly have the most interesting characters to play with. 


Nolan has gone balls-out on his finale, and after the acclaim of the 'Heat of comic book movies' that was The Dark Knight, (the death of its star, an Oscar-winning performance, hitting the $1 billion mark) he had a big shadow to rise out of, and he did it with aplomb. For me, The Dark Knight Rises wasn't as good as The Dark Knight, where I preferred the script and lead villain, but it certainly demands a second viewing as it is such a rich fabric Nolan has weaved. TDKR is on a grander scale than the previous outings, with more explosions, more fights, more villains, bigger set pieces and more plot twists, making it, like it's principal villain, a tour de force to be reckoned with, and a satisfying close to Nolan's epic trilogy.

Japanese Star Wars

Flicking through some great movie poster websites I came across these Japanese renditions of the Star Wars characters by Steve Bialik. I've never seen anything like these and thought they were extremely cool - a mythical Samurai/Ninja take on the famous sci-fi trilogy would be epic. I particularly like the Darth Vader one at the top....like some kind of fierce evil Japanese warlord. In order - Darth Vader, Obi Wan, Han & Chewie, Luke, Jabba, Emperor, Akbar, Leia and Boba Fett.

   

     



   

The Questions of Prometheus....

With the help of 'unexceptional' on the Guardian film blog, below seem to be the big unanswered questions from Ridley Scott's latest sci-fi outing. Some of these are fanboy questions relating to the Alien universe, some are just actual gaps from Prometheus. Either way, please know that these are SPOILERS if you are yet to see Prometheus (hurry up!).

1. If the Engineers used their DNA to create us, how does that explain other life-forms on Earth, including birds, dinosaurs etc?
2. How did Fifield and Millburn get lost in the spaceship/structure when they had just finished mapping out the insides using Fifield's geological mapping tools (red flashing flying baubles)?
3. Why did Filfield and Millburn get scared and run away when they came across an alien corpse, then get scared and move away from the life signal readings, only to move towards, and play with, a sinister looking snake alien?
4. What killed the Engineers 2000 years ago? It wasn't the black substance or foreign aliens killing now, because that came from the pristine vases....? Whatever it was piled up the bodies.....WTF was it?
5. Why did Holloway decay and die when he was exposed to the black substance but Fifield become some kind of mutated double-hard bastard who decides to come and kill everyone? (maybe because Holloway's infection hadn't progressed enough before he was killed)
6. Why did they engineer's head from 2000 years ago explode when running tests? Did that have any relevance?
7. How did David know of the the other engineer ships on the moon, and where were their engineer crews?
8. Why did David poison Holloway? (other than as a redundant plot pusher simply in the hope that he'd then have sex with Shaw and create a beast which would then face-hug an engineer to create the alien design that the engineers had on their wall in the head room? Seems convoluted)
9. Why did the engineers build a big statue of their face?
10. How does the Xenomorph get to planet LV-426 (featured on Alien)?
11. If the installation was an Engineer military base to genetically engineer aggressive species to wipe out life on Earth, why did they leave maps to it on Earth? They didn't need humans there to collect it or stow it back home; they could've just flown back and released it on Earth themselves...
12. If the Engineers intended to wipe us out, why create a new species to do so?

I found this great poster which goes someway to expelling the origins of certain creatures, and answers question 5.

Here is an explanation to the strain of aliens featured....

• Engineer creates black substance which one uses to decompose himself and create mankind on Earth through a biogenetic reaction
• This black substance is said to be a biological weapon of mass destruction created on a massive scale at an Engineer military base on LV-223. It started mankind, and will be used to destroy us
• The black substance, when put into external contact with human mutates them (Fifield)
• The black substance, when nurtured in a womb (after Shaw and Holloway's sexual encounter) is born as a squid like entity with vagina denta teeth - the trilobite
• The trilobite becomes the ultimate face-hugger, or Mother 
• It's egg when nutured in the Engineer begets a prototype xenomorph