Life of Pi

Academy Award Nominations: 11

·         Best Picture

·         Best Director (Ang Lee)

·         Best Adapted Screenplay (David Magee)

·         Best Cinematography (Claudio Miranda)

·         Best Film Editing (Tim Squyres)

·         Best Original Score (Mychael Danna)

·         Best Original Song (Pi’s Lullaby)

·         Best Production Design

·         Best Sound Editing

·         Best Sound Mixing

·         Best Visual Effects

Piscine Molitor Patel, Pi for short, is a man who has led an extraordinary life and has a story to tell “that will make you believe in God”. As a young man, he keeps an open mind regarding faith and belief, subscribing to a number of different beliefs in order to love God as strongly as he can. When revolution begins to emerge in India, Pi’s father decides to move the family to Canada and sell their zoo’s animals to American zoos. However, when they all begin their journey on a Japanese freighter, Mother Nature has different plans for Pi, as the atrocious weather sinks the ship, and Pi is left to fight for survival in a lifeboat containing an orangutan, a zebra, a hyena, and a ferocious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker…

For many years, Life of Pi was considered unfilmable. The book was phenomenally popular, a worldwide success, yet making a motion picture seemed to be impossible. The entire concept of the book makes it an unappealing prospect for any potential writer or director. Step up, Ang Lee. A renowned director with a few blemishes on his record; you can talk of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain and Sense and Sensibility all you like, but no-one will ever let him forget his ‘unique’ take on comic book films with Hulk. However, fantastic visuals are Lee’s signature, and if anyone could possibly step up to the challenge of creating a film based around a single location and animals, it would be him. His solution? Create the world’s largest wave pool, and create the single best looking CGI tiger the world’s ever seen. Did he pull it off? Amazingly, yes, but not with a few shortcomings.

I won’t beat around the bush. Life of Pi is visually stunning. I've said it quite a few times now, but I've yet to see anything like this. The CGI is incredible, the film is beautifully shot and the visual set-pieces are incredible. It also has the best, and dare I say most appropriate, use of 3D I've seen since the technology’s relaunch. It’s clear the film has a vast network of visual artists to thank for its successes, but you have to think that Ang Lee was the man behind the madness and deserves huge plaudits for having the imagination and fortitude to be able to bring something like this to the screen and to do so on such a grandiose scale is incredible. It’s a 2 hour film in which, in all honesty, not a whole lot happens, but it doesn't feel that way while you’re watching. While you’re sat looking at the screen, it feels like there’s always some kind of stimulus, whether it’s plot advancement or epic visuals. Part of that is owed to who you see on screen.

Suraj Sharma is amazing as 16 year old Pi, stuck on a lifeboat with a tiger. He carries the burden of his character’s emotional weight with aplomb and performs spectacularly given he was acting alone with only the faintest idea of a Bengal tiger in front of his eyes, and only descriptions of flying fish and whales to act his reactions to. He’s engaging, and delivers a powerful, emotive performance. Aside from that, it’s hard to say who else put in a stellar performance because of the lack of screen time anyone other than Pi and the animated tiger. I guess you could say the tiger performed well, but… Maybe not.

When you take away the stunning visuals and performances, however, you’re left with a basic story of survival, both on a grander scale as Pi finds himself cast adrift after a shipwreck and on a smaller scale as he copes with living in a confined space with a wild animal. Essentially, it’s the same problem 127 Hours faced, but I'm of the opinion that Life of Pi doesn't do it as well. Because 127 Hours took place over a shorter space of time, and because of how realistic certain scenes were, it felt like a document that was surprisingly relatable. Life of Pi gives you the feeling of being stranded at sea, with the added bit of tiger, which pulls you away from becoming truly involved with the story. You can find better, more dedicated survival stories in worse films. I understand, though, that the film is more about the relationship between the boy and his tiger, but that’s drawn out and is repeated until it suddenly turns, there doesn't seem to be an in-between stage in their relationship like there would be between two humans. There’s a good 90 minute film in this 2 hours. This book was considered unfilmable for a reason, and Ang Lee barely gets away with it, but it’s slim. That and a minor quibble about differentiating aspect ratios in certain scenes and the spoon-fed ending are what ultimately let the film down somewhat.

However, that’s what worries me. I see Life of Pi as being like the Avatar of this year’s Best Picture nominees: All style, little substance. This film does hold up better than Avatar though. The plot is thicker and more emotionally involving, even if very little really happens in the 2 hours. The plus side of it being too long is that you have more time to become attached to Pi and Richard Parker, which can only benefit the film. That, added with extraordinary visuals (in particular, one scene where the water is as clear as air) makes this a surprisingly entertaining watch, as it carries the pretence of action despite nothing happening, something you don’t realise until you think about it later on as I'm doing now. If I had written this straight after I saw it, it maybe would have scored higher, but that wouldn't have been fair. On reflection, despite nothing happening, plenty happened. The unfilmable is made filmable, but it’s fighting a wave of extremely strong contenders this year.

Rating: ****

Life of Pi was released on 20th December 2012 and is still being shown in cinemas.

Lincoln

Academy Award Nominations: 12

·         Best Picture

·         Best Director (Steven Spielberg)

·         Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis)

·         Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones)

·         Best Supporting Actress (Sally Field)

·         Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner)

·         Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski)

·         Best Costume Design (Joanna Johnston)

·         Best Film Editing (Michael Kahn)

·         Best Original Score (John Williams)

·         Best Production Design

·         Best Sound Mixing

1865. President Abraham Lincoln has just been re-elected for his second term with America deep in the throws of the American Civil War. Having signed the Emancipation Proclamation temporarily freeing the slaves for the war effort, he is determined to push through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution as soon as possible, abolishing slavery once and for all. However, with his belief that war will end within the month, he's determined to push the amendment through Congress as soon as possible, before all the southern states return and defeat his motion. Even if he can convince his entire party to vote yea on the amendment, he will still need the support of a worrying large number of Democratic congressmen in order to gain the two thirds majority needed. Thus, Lincoln must go out and meet his enemies and convince them to go against their party's line and free the slaves...

Steven Spielberg has spent a long time trying to entertain the masses and bring joy to families worldwide, along with mixing in the occasional adult-orientated historical film. However, in the last decade or so, the shift from family entertainment has seen his role shift more toward producer rather than director. Instead, he's saving his eye for an increasing amount of adult dramas. Films like Munich, Catch Me If You Can and more recently War Horse have shown Spielberg's eye for an adaptation and an obsession with accurately recreating history, whether in a fictional or non-fictional context. Now, with Lincoln, Spielberg's passion project which he's been waiting years to be able to do, he reproduces another literary adaptation in another historical context, going into uncharted territories this time by visiting the American Civil War rather than a World War, and bringing Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, to the screen. So who better to bring such a character to life than the man who lives his roles: Daniel Day-Lewis.

Daniel Day-Lewis's method acting method has brought him immense plaudits previously, and this performance should be no different. By immersing himself with a role, he is able to get inside the mind of his characters and essentially becomes them for the duration of the production. The results of which are seen on screen, and Day-Lewis has now proven that this is no one-off, producing stellar performance after stellar performance, and Lincoln is now different. The voice, the mannerisms, the speech, it's all down to a tee, so much so that it often feels like a documentary when combined with the highly-detailed sets and extraordinary dialogue from a well-written script. It's performances like this which explains how he's able to pick and choose roles as he pleases, and explains why Spielberg was so adamant that this production lived or died on whether he accepted the role. He's ably supported by a top notch supporting cast and a director with an eye for a dramatic moment, but above all else, it's Day Lewis' performance that'll be the talking point of the 2012-13 film year.

Speaking of the supporting cast, Sally Field is surprisingly good, evoking a range of emotions in a short space of time as Mary Todd, however at time it feels as though she's neglected to a background actress rather than a supporting actress. If anything, the wife of the main character is often overshadowed by an excellent performance by Tommy Lee Jones, playing Thaddeus Stevens, a staunch supporter of slavery abolition. He's genuine, given some great dialogue to deliver and plays a pivotal role in the film. He provides the comic relief in the film, and pulls off a heart warming, heart felt, silent victory when the amendment passes (spoiler alert). It's a moment of real emotion played out on screen and one of the great moments in the film. Other than that, the rest of the supporting cast was outstanding, with stand outs David Costabile of Breaking Bad fame as James Ashley and Michael Stuhlbarg of Boardwalk Empire fame as George Yeaman, alongside a surprisingly empty performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robert Todd Lincoln.

The film itself looks and feels authentic, but that's to be expected now from a Spielberg production. There may not be Kubrick-levels of research and dedication involved, but Spielberg's demands for authenticity are now legendary, albeit with a handful of inaccuracies in order to make the story at hand more cohesive. It was one of the limited amount of good things about War Horse, and one of the many good things about Lincoln. The mise-en-scene in general; the costumes, the props, the scenery, it all seems genuine and authentic and painstakingly gathered together. The dialogue, as well, is fantastic, it's a greatly written film with fantastic dialogue, especially when Lincoln uses a parable to inspire the people around him. There's no fat on the script either, because of how important a multitude of factors were into getting the amendment passed and building up the strength of the character of Lincoln, every scene is as important as the last, which makes the two and a half hour run time fly past.

Overall, Lincoln is truly engaging, the most engaging historical biopic I've seen in a long, long time. By focusing on a particular period of Lincoln's life which brought out the best in the man, whether or not he did anything else, this is what he'll be remembered for.It was a bold move, also, by not focusing on his assassination, but instead solely focusing on his efforts to pass the constitution and it works. The acting is superb, the writing is magnificent and the film looks incredible. I want to be able to fault it, especially after Spielberg made me watch War Horse last year, but I just can't. But therein lies the problem. Even though I can't fault it, it's not a particularly stand-out film for me. It's not sticking with me as great films tend to. This is an interesting watch, and it deserves some plaudits, but it's not the unforgettable cinematic experience I had hoped for.

Rating: ****1/2

Lincoln will be released in cinemas on the 25th January 2013.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Bilbo Baggins had his own adventure to be played out across 3 films, long before Frodo had his day. The mountain city of Erebor, home to the most powerful dwarf kingdom led by Thror, is invaded and overtaken the Smaug the dragon, who revels in the riches amassed by the dwarves. Later, Gandalf the Grey coerces a young Bilbo into hosting a party for Thorin, Thror's grandson, and his band of dwarves, as they attempt to recruit Bilbo as their burglar in their party in their quest to reclaim Erebor's treasure. The quest takes them through various perils and dangers, encountering numerous foes, but Bilbo alone meets someone with a preoccupation for his "precious"...

It hardly seems like 11 years ago that The Lord of the Rings trilogy began with The Fellowship of the Ring, and ended 9 years ago with The Return of the King. 9 years between now and then, 9 years in which fond memories or hated thoughts have developed of the next generation's trilogy, 9 years in which fans have speculated about how The Hobbit would be brought to life on the big screen. Finally, we reach the second trilogy, however accidental and troublesome it may have been. Guillermo del Toro came and went, Peter Jackson came on board as producer, then writer, then finally director. As if he could ever bare to let his universe rest in the hands of others. Bare in mind, the LOTR trilogy is probably the highest rated trilogy of all time, winning more awards, making more box office dollar, and gaining a more consistent reaction from viewers than any other trilogy ever. Now we return to the same universe, with a different story and different characters... Or do we?

It's hard to tell, because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey seems an awful lot like a glad-handing, self-aware LOTR reunion instead of a true recreation of The Hobbit as readers worldwide know and love. Now that's not to say that the film doesn't follow the book and introduce these characters as and when Tolkien did, but this film seems to take glee in bringing back all of the original actors in their roles, almost as if it's nudging you, point and giggling, saying "See what we did there? It's him! He's back! It's just like the first trilogy... Remember that? You liked that. You ought to like this to. Like it. Please. We bought them back for you!!!" OK, the film probably isn't trying that hard and saying that much, but I found the introductions of returning characters overwhelming, and by the time they were out of the way and we were finally focusing on the story, it seemed like they were rushing toward the conclusion. They've created enough material that the two films they'd planned became three, I don't understand why so much had to be crammed into part 1.

My point can be explained thusly: The scene with Bilbo and Gollum. It's critical, the chapter everyone remembers, the scene everyone wanted to see, and it felt distinctly rushed. It could have been a fantastic cinematic moment if they had only spent some more time building tension and drama and making it the moment that it had the potential to be. It's a shame, but two films became three late in the game, and in hindsight, maybe some things could have pushed into part 2 so that the conclusion of part 1 could have come sooner with more time given to and scenes added into the existing material. Alas, it is what it is. All of that being said, there's not much else wrong with The Hobbit 1, it stands up well as its own film with a self-contained story whilst leaving other storylines open for 2 and 3, as well it should. The film also looks beautiful... in 2D. I didn't see this in 3D, so I was able to get the full effect of the 48fps in terms of colour saturation and sharpness. There were one or two scenes which went against the grand cinematic feel of the rest of the film and felt more like an indie production which felt quite jarring, but those aside, the film looked fantastic and Jackson can give himself a pat on the back for his bold decision. I will say, a few of the blue screen effects looked exactly like blue screen effects. They did the whole "hobbits and dwarves are smaller than people" thing much better in the original trilogy and we've had boundless technological advances since then, so I don't know why it looked worse than it did 11 years ago. The CGI characters looked fantastic, Gollum was fantastic again, and the New Zealand natural scenery looked amazing... but it's stuff we were first amazed by 11 years ago. Sorry to be a buzzkill, but it's lost its wow factor now.

The acting is superb, especially Richard Armitage as Thorin, an excellent cinematic presence and grabs the attention of the viewer in every scene, even more so than Martin Freeman as Bilbo. It's lovely to see such a strong British presence in the cast, with Ken Stott, James Nesbitt, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Graham McTavish, Sylvester McCoy, and Christopher Lee all making appearances, recurring or not. As much as I previously moaned about the glad-handing returns, it is nice to see all the original actors return as their characters, especially seeing Christopher Lee return as Saruman, even though he's all but retired from film making, and Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown, it's a nerdist dream to see a LOTR/Doctor Who crossover like that, so that was a great call.

Overall, though, as unfair as it is to compare this film to the LOTR trilogy given how well received the first three were and that this is an entirely new story which should be seperate from the first three, the fact is it will be and should be, and this, in my opinion doesn't stand up to the first three visits to Middle Earth. It's a three hour long film, and instead of spending that time available to them telling a full story, they spend far too long reintroducing characters from the original trilogy and not enough time on the story they ought to be telling. I liked the film, but I didn't love it, didn't think it was anything special. I wasn't let down, but I wasn't blown away by it. I'm hoping parts 2 and 3 pick up now the intros are out the way, but this was... Fine. That is the only way to describe this. Fine. Fine is what this film was.

Rating: ***

Skyfall

Bond is back. When a mission to retrieve a hard drive goes awry and Bond is shot, he's presumed dead. He, meanwhile, enjoys life as a ghost, until news emerges of a terrorist attack at MI6, an attack aimed directly towards M. Bond comes back from the dead to help M find and kill the man who possesses the hard drive and is seemingly posited towards making M's life a living hell until she is dead at his hands. However, upon finding Raoul Silva, he finds a cerebral man who is cleverer than he appears. And just who, what, or where is Skyfall, and why can't 007 face up to that word...

50 years ago, Dr. No was released with a Scotsman playing an English spy on a foreign mission to watch a woman in a white bikini emerge from the sea with a machete. Or something like that. 50 years and 22 films later, Daniel Craig is stepping out in his third appearance as the sixth Bond in Skyfall, directed by Academy award winner Sam Mendes and written by writers of the last five Bond movies (and Johnny English) Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, as well as three-time Academy award nominee John Logan. The elements are all there, the history speaks for itself, and the plot of a James Bond film writes itself. This could easily have been another "going through the motions with modern updates" Bond film like I found Quantum of Solace to be. Which is why I found Skyfall to be refreshingly different and yet the same, which makes Skyfall brilliant.

What I like about Skyfall is that it's an almost completely new approach to Bond whilst still looking over its shoulder at its history and making more than one less than obvious nod towards its past. James Bond has a mid-life crisis, and for a character that's been on screen for 50 years and played by 6 different actors, it's about time. But that's not the only difference here. There's twists abound and expectations that are played with and flipped constantly. Bond is not almighty. For once, Bond is vulnerable and is fighting a losing battle more so than ever before. Admittedly, he weakened in Casino Royale over Vesper Lynd, but this isn't an emotional, optional weakening in Skyfall, this is a man whose body is finally letting him down, whose mind is spent after years of ruthless killing. whose soul is finally carrying the weight of his actions. It makes for an interesting view, and gives Daniel Craig a fantastic storyline for the 2nd time out of his 3 Bond films, and as Meatloaf once said, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

That's all fine and well, but it's the nods to Bond history which really grabbed me and got me going in Skyfall. To escape Raoul Silva, Bond and M use an Aston Martin DB5. The original Bond car, and the most recognisable. The silver paint job, the ejector seat button in the gear stick, even the original license plates; they're all here, and there's no subtlety to the nod towards Bonds of days gone by. Skyfall is an odd mix, however, of looking back and looking forwards. By the end of Skyfall, almost all of the traits of Bond films previous, even Daniel Craig's previous Bond films, have been erased and replaced with something or someone new, acting like a franchise relaunch whilst under the same actor, something which is unheard of within the Bond franchise. It seems they're either growing bored with what they had already, or they were unsure of what seemed to be a winning formula. Either way, Bond 24 promises to be a very different affair once again. A constantly evolving franchise seems to be evolving at a quicker pace now more than ever, and whether fans will keep on buying into it remains to be seen. And I still don't like the gun barrel shot being placed at the end of the film instead of at the start.

For all that can be said of how well Skyfall's written and how well it acts as a piece of Bond celebration, it still needs top quality actors to pull off the task at hand. Although Daniel Craig's performance as an unsteady Bond is good, it still doesn't seem as if he leaves second gear with it. There's a line between cool, cocky arrogance and unconvincing boredom and Craig contiually crosses that line with his dialogue delivery. As much as the moment where he jumps into a train as the rear is torn off and adjusts his cuff is undeniably cool, it's all pretty standard. There's nothing overly spectacular about the stunts or fight sequences, it is all now standard Bond, there's not much more you can do without making Bond a parkour expert... Oh wait, did Quantum of Solace touch on that? Forget that then, just enjoy for what he is and what he stands for, British triumph in the face of the rest of the world. Yay Britain! If Daniel Craig stays in second gear throughout this film, then Javier Bardem drives the perfect race, starting slow before shifting up into fifth, and then sixth gear by the conclusion. He excels in his role as the villain, with Heath Ledger's Joker coming to mind as having the same kind of on-screen presence and mentality. Clever and calculating yet absolutely batshit crazy. Perfect in my eyes. And what about Judi Dench? Incredible, as always. What's to say about Dame Judi that hasn't already been said?

Overall, Skyfall was hugely entertaining. It's a long film, sometimes unnecessarily so, and it drags from time to time, but it's most definitely a worthwhile watch. It definitely seemed as if they had one eye on what Casino Royale did right in order to recreate it and make Skyfall as enjoyable as it is, which makes Skyfall feel like it could have been the first in a new series of films, or at least the last in an old series which this almost certainly is given the amount of change that takes place in Skyfall, setting up Bond for an entirely new set of adventures in time to come. Even the song captures the right mood, Adele was the perfect choice, given she's the most popular artist on the planet right now (sorry, Psy) and can deliver that Bassey-esque Bond theme that is a signature of the series and something that's been severely lacking for years now. Skyfall isn't my favourite Bond film, but it's better than most, and a huge step beyond Quantum of Solace, which is what it needed to be first and foremost. The most impressive thing about Skyfall though? It doesn't only make, but keeps, Bond relevant. Bond is back in a big way, and it looks like he's here to stay for a while yet.

Rating: ****1/2

Dredd

In the future, the United States is an irradiated waste land. Lying on the east coast is Mega City One, an enclosed metropolis housing 800 million people. With 17,000 crimes reported daily, the law is enforced by Judges, who act as judge, jury, and often executioner as well. Veteran Judge Dredd is tasked with evaluating the rookie Judge Anderson, a psychic who's failed her judge tests. As they investigate the death of three men who were drugged, skinned alive and thrown from the top of a 200-storey slum tower, they encounter the Ma-Ma clan, who run the building and are creating and pushing a new drug, Slo-Mo, which slows the users perception of time to 1% of normal. They arrest a man responsible for the murders, but before they can leave Peach Trees tower, Ma-Ma herself seizes control of the tower security system and shits the blast doors, sealing everyone inside, and tasking her clan to kill the judges...

Judge Dredd is one of those tricky franchises where fans get very particular about how their hero gets interpreted. Not to say that every other comic/graphic novel adaptations doesn't have the same kind of fans, but Dredd fans get extremely vocal about their disdain for aspects of story lines and interpretations if they don't like it or they don't think it fits the canon. The first Judge Dredd adaptation (1995) was met poorly by critics and fans alike (he took his helmet off!) and news of another film version was initially met with scepticism. However, released images and test footage proved popular, and the promise of Dredd keeping his helmet on was more than enough to keep fans satisfied until they saw the final product... If I were a Judge Dredd fan, I know I'd be happy with this. In fact, I'd be delighted.

I've read enough comic books and graphic novels to know what I'm talking about with most things, but I've never read a single issue of 2000 AD, never read a single Dredd strip or book, never even seen the 1995 version, so I came into this with an open mind, only hearing good things about the character and quiet early buzz about how good this film was. Upon seeing it, I can safely say I enjoyed it greatly. The plot was simple and easily introduced non-fans into the Dredd universe, established the character of Judge Dredd quickly and efficiently, the pace was consistent and the film looked great as well. When I say it looked great, there were times where you could see the film was slightly lower budget than a mainstream blockbuster, but that didn't stop the sets looking fantastic and the visual effects looking stunning. In particular, the parts of the film showing users under the influence of Slo-Mo were beautiful, thank god for high-definition, high frame-rate cameras.

The acting was a bit hammy at times, but I think 70% of that can be put down to the (at times) terrible dialogue. Other than that, Karl Urban's chin did a fantastic job of staying in a fixed clench/snarl throughout the film and still gave more reactions than Kristen Stewart on a good day. Olivia Thirlby seemed a bit overwhelmed by her role at times and couldn't deliver a consistent performance which was a shame. However, major props need to go to Lena Headey as Ma-Ma, she is a total bad ass in this! Scars on her face, missing teeth, bad hair... The film takes away Headey's natural good looks and forces her to deliver a convincing performance as the ruthless gang leader and she more than does so, I dare say she's probably the best thing about this film, especially when she's been surrounded by a gang who deliver god-awful performances with over-acting and poor line delivery across the board. Woof. That's probably half the reason Headey stands out as being so good, she's a life raft amidst a sea of atrocious performances.

The violence in the film was impressively graphic too. I liked how they didn't shy away from showing someone being obliterated from a 200-storey fall or having half their face torn off by a Dredd special. It all looked great, and fit the aesthetic of the film perfectly. That said, it's kind of a shame that the film's in 3D (again, ruiner of all good things) because 95% of the film takes place in a sealed tower block with no natural light, which means everything's going to be dark, which means it gets darker still behind the 3D glasses. The Slo-Mo scenes looked epic in 3D, but that's because the colour in those scenes is super-saturated and is designed to look great despite the two black lenses covering the viewers eyes. Other than a couple of other select scenes (don't worry, no spoilers, at least no MORE spoilers), the 3D seems like a waste of time, just like it does in every other film I've ever seen in 3D.

Overall, this is an entertaining film that never gets complicated and never outstays its welcome, getting you out of the cinema after an entertaining hour and a half. It comes with a laundry list of faults, but Dredd is what it is, simply a good old fashioned violent action film with a good guy and a bad guy (or girl). It's not "so bad it's good", but it's not a phenomenal film either; it sits nicely in the middle, not promising anything and delivering nothing special but enough to warrant a viewing. The acting's all over the place, but Urban and Headey have enough to carry it through. The best thing about this film are the special effects though. If you're not seeing this in the cinema, please don't watch some crappy download copy. Wait until it's released on Bluray and watch it in HD on a big TV screen. Hear me now, thank me later.

Rating: ***1/2

The Dark Knight Rises

8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, Batman is but a distant memory and Bruce Wayne has become a recluse, injured by his years of fighting crime and cleaning up Gotham. The Dent Act has kept Gotham a law-abiding city, but all that may be about to change with the sudden arrival of Bane, a mysterious mask-wearing hulk who seems determined to see Gotham City, and Bruce Wayne, fall. However, it's not Bane who catches Bruce Wayne's attention, it's the sudden introduction of a cat burglar by the name of Selina Kyle who intrigues Bruce, as she ends up setting off a chain of events that draws the Dark Knight out of retirement to save Gotham one last time...

I am a self-confessed Bat-freak. My undergraduate dissertation was 10,000 words about the evolution of The Joker in the 3 Batman films in which he appears, and it's likely my 15,000 word masters dissertation will relate somehow to one or many of Gotham's most famous residents. The Dark Knight is one of, if not my all time, favourite films and Batman Begins was incredible as well. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy has the potential to be one of the greatest trilogies in cinematic history as long as TDKR delivers, and if the trailers and posters and endless promotional material is anything to be believed, it will. The Godfather, Star Wars and Spider Man all weakened with its third installment. The Lord of the Rings and back to the Future trilogies were the benchmark, and with The Dark Knight Rises... This trilogy goes to the top of the list.

It wasn't just that Christopher Nolan made Batman cool again (which he did), he made the character relevant, placing him in a realistic universe and making his struggles and the struggles of Gotham relatable. I may at some point write a blog about the trilogy (and just gush endlessly over how much I love it) so for now, I will remain focused on TDKR. It's clear what Nolan was aiming for with this - Finality. Closure. A definite final chapter. After the cliffhanger The Dark Knight closed on, it was going to take a plot line of epic proportions to bring back the Bat and then send him off, all in a convincing manner, all in under 3 hours. Call me a fan boy or whatever, but in my opinion, he does it, and does it with panache. There isn't a single wasted minute in the two and a half hour run time, every minute you're watching Bruce or Batman or Selina or Alfred or Bane or Miranda Tate or John Blake or Commissioner Gordon and it's all important, it all moves the plot forward, it never slacks and the only time it ever drops pace is when Nolan is being deliberate and methodical and wants the pace slowed. It's the sign of a great director who can maintain control the pace of a film with so much going on as there is in TDKR.

It's also the sign of a great director that he's clearly done his homework, with this film pulling its inspirations from the Knightfall storyline which featured the debut of the Bane character and the Dark Knight Rises series which saw an ageing Batman come out of retirement. With the framework in place and story built around it, all that's left is the acting to pull it off and bring this to life. Christian Bale's Batman voice has always annoyed me, but it is what it is, a disguise, and it's part of the ethos now, so we just need to deal with it, because otherwise we'd focus on that and not Bale's great execution of a more troubled, more fragile Bruce Wayne. I say Wayne, not Batman, because for the majority of the film, the caped crusader is absent in favour of the supporting cast or Bruce Wayne rather than his alter-ego. Anne Hathaway is good as the mysterious Selina Kyle too, which was surprising, as I was unsure of her as an actress prior to this, but she seems to have been a good fit for the character. As for Bane, Tom Hardy is awesome. He bulked up for this more than he did for roles in Bronson and Warrior, and it shows, as he looks physically intimidating and steals focus in every scene he's in. The voice, as well, is intriguing, as he gives Bane the voice of an English gent, not what you expect from this behemoth, but in a weird way it works, because it makes the character more of an unsettling screen presence, more so than the lack of facial expressions we're offered by the face mask. The best performance though, by a mile, is that of Michael Caine as Alfred. In previous films, Alfred was no more than Bruce Wayne's servant and a support character, but in TDKR, Alfred is given more screen time and becomes integral to the story, even delivering a monologue which is heartbreaking. It's a phenomenal performance that deserves recognition if nothing else.

Saying that, there are more things that deserve recognition. I won't say this should be the next Best Picture winner, because this just isn't the kind of film the academy will ever go for. But the cinematography is beautiful once again, another product of the hard work of Wally Pfister and more than half the film being shot on IMAX cameras. Also, Hans Zimmer's score is dark and brooding, becoming triumphant and uplifiting at just the right moments and is just as great as his Dark Knight score. Back onto the film itself, and considering how many plot points are given away in all the trailers and TV spots and adverts and features, the film was still able to offer a host of surprises and geek-out moment, drawing from the rich history of the Bat franchise to bring in things like the Batwing, the Nolan version of Catwoman, seeing Bane break Batman's back over his knee as he does in Knightfall, the reappearance of Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow, the shocking arrival of Talia al Ghul, the subtle use of "Robin"... Yet it's all done so nicely that it all fits together and doesn't feel like any of the elements are being forced in.

Overall, the word epic is thrown around a lot nowadays when describing films but I believe TDKR is as close as you will get to a modern day epic film. It has drama, suspense, action, comedy, twists, turns, surprises, everything you could want not just from a Batman film, but from the concluding chapter of a superb trilogy. Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and Emma Thomas should stand up and take a bow. The resisted the urge to recycle familiar villains like The Riddler and The Penguin and Poison Ivy, stuck to their vision of this trilogy, and only used the big names like The Joker and Catwoman where they wanted to, not where anyone else said they should. They've created a phenomenal trilogy with an epic final chapter, and after this it's hard to see where they'll go with the inevitable reboot in 20 years time without making it look like another Batman and Robin.

Rating: *****

God Bless America

Frank is an insurance salesman living in New York who hates what America has become: An endless stream of idiocy, selfishness and exploitation of the unfortunate and disabled. But he can cope with that being on his TV, and next door, and at work, until one day he's diagnosed with an inoperable, terminal brain tumour. Franks spirals into depression, and attempts suicide... Until he sees a spoiled brat on TV throwing a tantrum because her parents got her the wrong car for her 16th birthday. He decides that instead of killing himself, he's going to rid the world of this idiot. Unfortunately, he's caught in the act by Roxy, her high school classmate who happens to hate her. The two form an unlikely relationship and soon decide to rid the world of all the 'bad' people in the world, Bonnie and Clyde style...

Bobcat Goldthwait is a strange, strange man. After decades of doing stand-up under a larger than life persona, in recent years, he's become a writer/director of films which satirize the state of American society by visiting the extremes of human behaviour. In Sleeping Dogs Lie (2002), a woman finds her relationships with her fiancée, friends and family damaged when she admits to committing an act of bestiality with her dog in college. In World's Greatest Dad (2009), a man covers up the autoerotic asphyxiation death of his son by making it look like a real suicide and writing a heartfelt suicide note, which turns the dead son from social pariah into posthumous icon and revered writer. And now, in God Bless America, a man facing death decides to kill all the idiots he sees on TV and encounters in real life, along side his teenage accomplice Roxy. All dark, twisted, blackly funny films, and this is no different. Goldthwait has a very distinctive voice, and this has Bobcat written all over it.

Bobcat pulls no punches with God Bless America, he has all manner of annoying targets in his crosshairs, sometimes literally. Screaming babies? Throw them up in the air and blast them with a shotgun like a clay pigeon. Spoiled brats? Lock them in their car and set fire to their petrol tank. Vicious TV talent show judges? Well, I won't spoil the entire film but you get the idea. No-one is off limits here, and some would say rightly so. Given the amount of trash on TV right now, it was only a matter of time before someone wrote a film liked this. It just so happens that Bobcat was the first to do it in such an extreme way. Having said that, there are some semi-formulaic elements about God Bless America. Frank is given a sidekick in Roxy, an endlessly enthusiastic teenage runaway who revels in Frank's actions, someone who you assume is meant to represent the 'sane' members of society who refuse the Super Sweet 16's of the world. Their friendship is unlikely, but it's to be expected in an extraordinary film like this. They become like a modern day Bonnie and Clyde, even though their actions go unnoticed in the media at first. Roxy gets angered by this, but Frank finds a problem in that, becoming angry that Roxy is never happy. Goldthwait's characters are seemingly endlessly flawed, which is the sign of good writing. The rest of the film does not carry such hallmarks.

The plot is simple enough. but the pace is all over the place, though whether that was intentional or whether it was the fault of the editor is unknown. Either way, the pace is all over the place which has the danger of making the viewer more uncomfortable than the subject matter, which is somewhat surprising. The dialogue isn't great either, and there's nothing original either. It's all self-important monologues and constant conflict resolution. Don't be fooled by the way it's dressed up, the story and the dialogue is something we've all heard before. The direction is fine, if unspectacular, but then it's right that the direction isn't taking the headlines in a film like this. The film itself looks surprisingly good, getting the right mix of mainstream blockbuster and independent docu-drama in its visuals, and that stays constant throughout the film, which is pleasant to see. The acting is the main headline in God Bless America though, and rightly so.

Joel Murray is really, really good playing Frank, the depressed insurance salesman who finds a new reason to live despite his impending death. He plays the depressed, fantasy loving, angry loner well, and then as soon as things are ramped up, he clearly takes real delight in being the action hero and wielding various guns all over the place. He is ably assisted by Tara Lynne Barr, who plays the teenage Roxy with endless enthusiasm and is able to drop in the drama and seriousness at just the right times. Her role is written somewhat badly, given she is dealing with subject matter well above her station, and ideally the role would be filled by a 20-something actress/character, but Barr does very well, stepping up and maturing in a role which could have been difficult to fill. Other than those two, there aren't any particularly spectacular performances, people merely fill their roles aptly when needed, but thee focus needs to stay on the modern day Bonnie and Clyde. any other distractions and the film would have become cluttered and unfocused.

Overall, God Bless America is a film which above all else is symptomatic of an angry man at the helm. Bobcat Goldthwait has a lot to say, and though he isn't the most elegant of writers, he certainly gets his point across. It's not the best of films, not by a long way, but the conversation that could potentially be raised by a film like this is always welcomed. It's not often someone has the guts to do such a far-reaching satire, so to see it done here is a welcome sight, even if it does miss its mark at certain points. Also, some of the story feels forced and inevitable; despite the extreme content matter, you can see where the film's going from a long way off. The main shocks come in the first half of the film, and once those have passed, you feel comfortable and expectant of the shocks that do come. It's a shame that this loses its energy near the end, because if it had managed to maintain its focus and surprise element, this could have been a great film. Fact is, God Bless America is simply good, not that that's a bad thing,

Rating: ***