Et Tu, Brucey? Rian Johnson's SciFi Smash Hit "Looper" Reviewed.

The fly on his ceiling was really pissing him off

It's reached that time of year when your bones start to get cold. I'm back at Uni. Back in a house where having the central heating on is about as likely as a Green Hornet sequel. Student Finance still haven't pulled their finger out so funds remain alarmingly low. Fortunately Orange Wednesday tickets at the Savoy are a meager £1.75. Pow. 

On the specials board this week was Rian Johnson's Sci-Fi/Thriller combo "Looper" starring what appeared to be Joseph Gordon-Levitt (with two boiled eggs in his mouth) opposite the indefatigable Bruce Willis. The premise sounded oh-so fresh. Gangsters, guns and time travel; well that's not something you come across everyday is it? I was in the mood to be impressed. Question is- did it deliver?

Let’s reflect...  

One of the things the film does beautifully is set the scene. There is a mega-fine blend of technological advance and urban decay on show which paints a wholly convincing picture of the not too distant future. The film maintains a Noir-ish aesthetic whilst effortlessly slipping in little futuristic contraptions that go a long way to sexing it up. It's like finding a boutique charity shop that's sells big shiny guns and hover-bikes. This fusion of old and new is where Johnson's brain power is most evident; mixing dilapidated clubs and futuristic drugs, having the characters commit modern crimes with a Goodfellas-esque swagger; using iconic guns (the shotgun and magnum) as the future criminal’s weapon of choice- the list goes on and on. The film very cleverly evokes the past within the future. It’s a beautiful technique. 

Street warfare, Looper does Mafioso 

Whilst Looper's vision of 2042 is bang on the money other aspects of the film fall a bit flat. So, uncharacteristically, I'm going to start on a slightly negative note. Let’s just get these out the way.

Are you still here?

The persistent but ultimately useless "Kid Blue" (played by Noah Segan) is an annoying screen presence whose ill fated attempts to capture Joe quickly go from comical to tiresome. For me his character feels poorly constructed and after the first 10 minutes I became confused as to why he was playing such a big role. His credibility as a cunning adversary is destroyed from the get-go, rendering his pursuit of Joe(s) into a bit of a circus act. Admittedly, it does provide some decent comedy moments (the diner shoot out) but after a while it's a bit of a "are you still here" jobby. And here is an interesting question, why does he go back for Joe after the whole mob has been disposed of? Surely it would have been to his benefit to high tail it? I took great satisfaction when the weasel met the wrong end of a shotgun.

Paul Dano is criminally underused

The diverse actor plays ill fated looper "Seth" whose inability to "close his loop" (kill his older self) results in his early demise and, subsequently, acts as a pre-cursor for Joe’s woes. It is a brilliant piece of casting because Dano's bean-pole physique and goofy mannerisms show that the loopers aren't necessarily your stereotypical gangsters; it's quite literally an anymans job in 2044. Well, anyone who is willing to commit future-cide. His tense and fidgety presence is sorely missed in the rest of the film as other, less deserving characters run amok. If only they’d gave us 10 minutes more.

Right, moving out to some of the shit hot stuff...

Et tu, Brucey?

The chemistry between Gordon-Levitt and Willis is ace. They are dynamic, funny and (I believe) whole-heartedly convincing as the same person. The diner sequence is the pick of the bunch (a very Heat-esque moment) where they humorously attempt to clarify the films puzzling plot.  

I thought you were paying...?

Gordon-Levitt is allowed to act outside of himself and takes to the role of action hero with consummate ease. He nails some Brucey-esque mannerisms and brings a certain amount of swagger to our under-explored protagonist. His wide range of acting skills aren’t really put to the test but this could be a career defining role for GL that sees him feature in a lot more beefy Blockbusters. The Brucester’s role is a different kettle of fish.

In Looper we get what has come to be expected from Willis; tough talking, a beady eyed stare, a few quippy one liners and a large death toll. The shoot out in the final third could almost be in homage to the bigman himself. At times he does exude more subtle qualities- a sense of inner rage, a man lost by loss- but for the most part he is an out and out action man. His child slaying mission provides his character with an unconventional slant and puts cleverly places us against a man we are used to championing.

Does the end live up to the start? 

The first half of the film is mesmerising. It introduces us to a morbidly fascinating world that is plagued by extreme violence and inequality, yet it doesn't feel that alien to us. The hover bikes and telekinetics offer a healthy serving of futuristic cliché but nothing actually seems that far-fetched. It's when we leave this Blade Runner inspired environment that the pace takes a nose dive. The leap from hard-boiled urban streets to in-the-middle-of-nowhere farmhouse is hugely ambitious (and it nearly pays off) but it ultimately leaves the film feeling slightly disjointed. That is not to say that these scenes are executed with any less style or verve it's just that they have a completely different feel. Emily Blunt plays "Sara" brilliantly, emanating a mixture of toughness and vulnerability that makes her character diverse and interesting. Her chemistry with the young Pierce Gagnon, who plays "Cid", is also worth a special mention and their whole mother-son relationship is engineered beautifully.

Johnson’s clever SciFi flick falls a little short of the Wachowski’s Matrix but it’s still an absolute corker. The plot is flawed but like Bruce Willis’ character says, “don’t think about time travel, it’ll fry your brain like a fucking egg”. A film that has this sort of scope is always going to have plot flaws, so I am reluctant to chastise it on that front. In an industry where films are becoming increasingly predictable Johnson and Co. have shown that originality can still fly on a Blockbuster level. Thank you kind sirs.

4 Stars.

Pusher: Danish Cult Film Gets English Remake by Spaniard

Frank drank way too much Vimto

Frank (Richard Coyle) is making a comfortable living selling class A’s on the London club scene. However, he soon grows weary of the small-time and begins to engineer deals that could see his stock rise significantly. He is determined to become more than a pawn in the drug pushers cut throat game of chess but will have to overcome a few dangerous obstacles first. The path to hefty financial gain is littered with pitfalls and if Frank doesn’t play it right his meteoric rise will be very short lived...

No Rest for the Wicked

“Pusher” is a direct remake of Nicolas Winding Refn’s 1996 cult classic of the same name; only this time it gets the East-End treatment. Cue the stereotypes. First time director Luis Prieto brings plenty of panache to the production only to see it fall painfully short in other more important areas. Stylistically the film is sound. Preito uses vivid shades of purple and yellow to give it a fashionable aesthetic and Orbital’s hypnotic score, quite clearly inspired by Refn’s Drive, provides a nice recurrent beat to head-bob to. The camera work also gets the nod as it finds a nice balance between style and simplicity. It is flat yet not entirely dull and the pacing grabs at us, ensuring we retain some sort of focus for the whole production. However, for a film to keep its head above the water in this overcooked genre it needs to have guts, and this is where “Pusher” proves to be lacking the goods.

From the get-go the film offers a cliché riddled portray of East- End gangsterism where obscenity and stereotypes are used as lazy substitutes for tight scripts and originality. Frank’s right hand man Tony (Bronson Webb) embodies this particular notion and he ensures the opening 10 minutes are littered with a plethora of “F**ks”, “W**kers” and even the occasional “C**t”. Of course, foul mouth-ery and films of this nature go hand-in-hand but on this particular occasion it is nothing short of cringe inducing. The film continues to display a stomach churning sense of juvenility throughout, with the appearance of Tony’s genitalia on Facebook providing the films nadir. You’d be excused for thinking you were watching an episode of Skins. Can you imagine that happening to Ray Winstone or Bob Hoskins? No, me neither.

The main antagonists, who of course rein from Eastern Europe, are a border line parody act; with Zlatko Buric's greasy haired drugs boss handing out baking tips at one point. Their character profiles look like they were stolen from a Grand Theft Auto game. Fairly pathetic stuff. One of the few characters whose depth does seem to go beyond face value is the ambiguous escort Flo (Deyn) who emanates a sense of profound lost-ness that is engrossing to watch.

 Deyn impresses as the ambiguous Flo

Ultimately, the films substance does not match its style and there a very few moments that prove unpredictable and engaging. One particular sequence that does provide a gritty juxtaposition to the films shiny exterior involves a desperate old drug addict and a shotgun. However, moments like this are far and few between. After some steady pacing throughout the ending also feels rushed, with its last ditch attempt at surprising us falling painfully short. By the end of it all Frank feels more like Derek Trotter than Tony Montana.

Pusher is another below-par addition to the saturated English Crime genre that lacks Layer Cake’s inherent coolness and Sexy Beast’s character depth. Whilst the film can at times be visually arresting its content is about as exciting as a ham sandwich.  

2 and a half stars. 

Lawless; Hardy Does Hillbilly and LaBeouf Beefs Up.

It was a bitter Monday afternoon and I had been back in the UK for a mere 2 days following a 7 week stint in Ghana. I was itching for a trip to the cinema and much to my delight John Hillcoat's Lawless was still showing. It wasn't Orange Wednesdays but I was feeling roguish so ventured off anyhow. We chose the 8 o'clock showing, giving us enough time for a cheeky KFC beforehand.

A Big Daddy Box Meal @ £5- finger licking good, admission to the cinema @ £8- middle finger inducing.

Personally, I love films set in the Prohibition Era. Miller's Crossing, The Untouchables and Road to Perdition are all personal favourites, with each one finding that perfect blend of romanticism and brutality which makes the Roaring Twenties such an enticing spectacle. Fedora hats, Tommy guns, sharp suits and even sharper tongues. What's not to love? There was also the small matter-of-fact that a certain Mr. Thomas Hardy was fronting our gang of Virgina bootleggers. The incorporation of this man of the moment stretched my expectations from "mildly excited" to "sh*t the bed" territory. Other stellar cast members such as Guy Pearce, Shia LaBeouf and Gary Oldman only added to my boyish levels of excitement. The ingredients for a top notch Probi Era film were all there.

Sadly the packaging was shinier than the product.

Lawless is centred around the three Bondurant brothers (Howard, Forrest and Jack) who earned quite the reputation around Virginia for being a family full of hard, no nonsense red-neck sons o'bitches. The film delves straight into the families rise from country bumpkins to big shot bootleggers, dedicating little screen time to their troubled and colourful pasts. The hierarchy of the brothers is at the heart of the film, as it's here where their individual roles are made proufoundly, and somewhat bluntly, clear.

The Brothers Grimm

Howard is the oldest. Howard can punch things and drink. This is as complicated as his characters make-up gets. He brings nothing but brawn to the table, which might be forgiven if he was a part of the furniture, however he is not. He is one third of our troop, or is at least supposed to be. The brothers are supposed to compliment each other on some sort of intrinsic level but his presence only serves to irk me as he is so poorly constructed. He is a henchman in a straw hat. To put it James Bluntly he is a bit shit. Jason Clarke's haggard performance is border line irritable but in his defence Howard feels massively underwritten, leaving the characters presence as little more than underwhelming throughout. He reminds me of Lenny from Of Mice and Men only without the endearment or charm. Fortunately, the younger Bondurant’s have a bit more about them...

The matriarchal presence and undisputed leader of our booze-toting crew is Tom Hardy's character, Forrest. Despite parading around in Granny apparel Hardy manages to give Forrest that air of invincibility which acts as the pillar to the Bondurant legend. Despite most of his dialogue being an unintelligible series of moans and grunts (sound familiar?) he radiates a genuine sense of character and brings a great amount of presence to the screen. His awkward encounters with love interest Maggie dabble in giving him a more humane side, yet the sequence wherein he chops an adversaries balls off tell of a guy who cannot be brought from back over the edge. As well as being seemingly indestructible Forrest has an unnerving calm and quite sense of rage that, at points, is almost tangible. Portraying this type of interiority is becoming a staple of Hardy's acting profile and it certainly adds a valuable layer to a film wherein most of the characters are only skin deep. Writer Nick Cave has recently announced that Hardy aimed to play Forrest like "an old lesbian". I'm not sure if old lesbians make a habit of punching people's oesophagus's through with a knuckle duster but you can sort of get where is coming from. I think...

Finally, we are left with the youngest- Jack. Jack is ambitious, impatient, petulent and vulnerable. If the films rushed narrative could be personified by a character it would certainly be this young chap. For the most part LaBeouf does a sterling job as Bondurant Junior; diluting the excessive violence with a light comic touch. Jack is profoundly different from the other characters but is heavily burdened by the reputation of his older brothers thus he feels the need to get out there and prove himself. With the help of crippled best chum "Cricket" (played by the excellent Dane DeHaan) Jack embarks on a journey that see's him come to loggerheads with City gangster Floyd Banner (the sinfully underused Oldman) as well as triggering events which make the brotherly clan of special interest to Guy Pearce's corrupt cop, Charlie Rakes. Hardy may steal several of the scenes they share but the film would be extremely laborious without LaBeouf who is snappy, likeable and able to shift through the gears.

The Show Stealers

As the men go around snapping collar bones and removing testicles it is the women who are left to pick up the pieces. Barring LaBeouf's table top tantrum following the death of Cricket the Bondurant boys remain largely devoid of emotion. At first their unwavering confidence is admirable. They back themselves in full, a quality all men wish we had. However, after a while, and especially after Forrest survives his neck being sawn in half, it becomes a bit tiresome and alienating. The legend that the boys are "invincible" is tested far too often and it begins to encroach on piss taking territory.

Jessica Chastain gives a quality performance as the seductive but troubled barmaid "Maggie" whilst Mia Wasikowska (blimey that took a few attempts) glides around the screen as the ethereal yet rebellious "Bertha". Both bring a sense of equilibrium to the film and try their best to fill in the holes that the boys leave. Chastain's character is perhaps the more absorbing of the two and the actress’s ability to convey both strength and vulnerability is bang on the money. You get the impression Maggie has had a tormented past without really being fed much information, this is largely owing to Chastain’s excellent performance (as opposed to the writing).

Irritations

I will spend little time covering Guy Pearce's character because by in large he is extremely irritating and one of the films biggest mishaps. Rake's is played as an excessively refined character; a nasty little bastard who plucks his eyebrows, polishes his gloves and dies his hair charcoal black. These additional characterisations would be all well and good if they served a purpose but they gradually reduce Rake's to a laughing stock. His obsessive compulsive behaviour isn't mixed with a deadly dose of cut throat killer, but instead, a slimy little bully whose dialogue is often childish and unconvincing. I genuinely rate Pearce but not in this case. It feels like his character was struggling for an identity so they merely polarised him to the Virginia surroundings. If a guy is going toe to toe with Hardy the last thing you give him is a pair of tweezers and a nail file.

Why wasn't Oldman used more?

Did he have commitments elsewhere? Was he unconvinced by the script thus limited his own part? I hope so otherwise he was criminally under used. Floyd Banner is one of the coolest mother funkers in the film but he fades away without really leaving a lasting impression. His entrance promises so much, wherein he mows down an on-coming vehicle with a Thompson submachine gun, but he leaves on a whimper. Pah!

Brief Summary

Lawless is a visceral, dizzy, whirlwind of a film whose epicentre consists of cut throat violence and a generous side dollop of gore. Hardy is commanding, LaBoeuf is charming whilst a host of the other cast members are grossly misused. Larger roles for Oldman, Chastain and Wasikowska could have provided a greater sense of depth and extended the films boundaries to beyond that of a switch blade. The last 10 minutes of the film are also a bit of a slap in the face to the rest of it and could have done with being axed from the final cut. If this film was a steak cooking on a Virginia barbi it would come out rare, not because it's one in a million, but because it's bloody and far from well done.

Rating: Promised so much and delivered so little. Still relatively entertaining but Hillcoat could have produced something much more engrossing with the talent at his disposal. 3 Stars.

 

Bale Goes full Circle and Bane Breaks Bones. The Dark Knight Rises Reviewed.

The end of an era. Nolan passes on the torch, leaving me with a tear in my eye and a hard on downstairs. 

What can you say about The Dark Knight Rises that hasn't already been said? I want to write something insightful, eloquent and probing because this film has capped off a series that I, like most of you, have truly come to love. However, all I can think to say is that it was awe-inspiring and I am itching to watch it again like a heroin addict for his next fix.

Of course it's not totally infallible, nothing is. There are plot holes, character flaws and things that generally make no sense (which if you would like to explore & debate see here: http://sequart.org/magazine/13903/why-the-dark-knight-rises-fails/) but no final instalment comes without that inkling of anticlimax- see Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Legally Blonde etc- but the fact of the matter is Nolan's Batman has been a game changer. DC's original vigilante has single handedly elevated the genre it unwillingly inhabits to new heights; finding the perfect balance between mainstream appeal and intelligent film making.When a man who dresses like a 6 foot bat is kicking it with the The Godfather on IMDB and Metacritic then you know, as a generation, you have witnessed something special.

To avoid becoming sidetracked and falling into an unintelligible fanboy ramble I have limited my review to two main topics/trains of thought. 

1. What do the new additions to the Batman family bring to TDKR?

&

2. What does the future hold for this stupidly good film series?

Here goes...

1. The Newbies

Tom Hardy as the indomitable Bane

In terms of physicality villains do not come much bigger than this. His delts look like two skin covered mountains sitting atop his shoulders and he has a stare so menacing it alone would knock me the funk out. Hardy's character even manages to make good of a jacket that looks like it was ripped off the back of a Big Issue salesman! In short, the man is an absolute weapon (and accidental style icon). However, physicality alone does not make a good villain -as demonstrated so handsomely by Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr Freeze. Fortunately, Hardy's character does not resemble an overpriced frozen drink; he has a bit about him does this hunk of meat, and it quickly becomes apparent that he prefers a nice long game of chess over a quick-fire bout of checkers. Make of that what you will. 

Brains Over Brawn

The most important aspect to Bane's character is his ability to inspire fear without raising a single one of those ice-cream-tub sized fists. It's his probing eyes and long drawn out voice that instigate most of the squeaky bum moments, not his twitching muscles. The "mind over (substantial) matter" approach that this character thrives off is established from the get-go; with Bane offering himself over to the CIA on a mussel clad platter. Of course, the fact he nullifies his most obvious threat is nothing more than a simple serving of misdirection. As chaos ensues Bane barely has to lift a finger. His plan unfolds before him like well rehearsed play and the CIA agents meet a grizzly end without the big man breaking sweat. What Nolan & Co show us during this early sequence is that Bane's indomitable physique is merely a disguise for even scarier cunning. Only the Batman (as Gary Oldman calls him) warrants a fisticuffs and even then he puts poor old Bruce Wayne over his knee like a temperamental child. Bane's pre-emptive strikes show that he prefers to control his enemies rather than destroy them, treating life as game wherein the only reward he seeks is the demise of the weak. If the Joker was anarchy Bane is the embodiment of oppression. The sequence where Scarecrow hosts the sadistic "court room" proceedings provides one of the few moments that perfectly captures the essence of Bane's character. As the vociferous cries for either "Death" or "Exile" ring around the chamber Bane stares at spectacle with empty eyes, seemingly disengaged by the pantomime nature of it all. Yet, as the camera pans slowly across his face it appears that he is emanating a deep rooted sense of satisfaction because someone, somewhere, is meeting their maker.

I think it's safe to say that Hardy makes Bane well and truly his own. His virtuoso performance gives the character a chilling sense of invincibility; he isn't just your classic "brains and brawn", he is the quintessential predator. Although the characters motives for keeping Gotham hostage are relatively unclear (seeing as he is going to blow it up anyhow) he is still a thoroughly engaging character, albeit a confusing one. After seeing Hardy portray bald lunatics such as Charles Bronson and Bane I genuinely think the guy has an inner maniac. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene where he punches through a concrete pillar was real. I thoroughly look forward to seeing the Brit in the re-imagining of Mad Max.

Foxy Lady. Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle.

I was a tad sceptical about Anne Hathaway at first. Previous to TDKR I never imagined her to be the femme fatal sort. My old dear informed me she was "really quite good" in The Devil Wears Prada but my most prominent memories of her were still from Disney's The Princess Diaries. Don't judge me. However, any reservations I had about her were quickly dispelled as she sauntered sexily around the screen as the captivating Selina Kyle.

One of the most welcome aspects about Hathaway's character is that she provides a much-needed respite from the intensity of the others; she breezes through her first few scenes, giving the impression of someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The film does not delve into her past, there is no strange cat rituals to explain her abnormal reflexes (see Halle Berry); we are fed just about the perfect amount on Mrs. Kyle to enjoy her presence without questioning her motives too scrupulously. She's like a smokescreen, one minute she's Waltzing with Batman, the next she is speeding off in his favourite Lamborghini. And who is her female companion? The levels of intimacy they share during the opening sequences definitely hint at an ongoing romance but she disappears all too soon as the story progresses. Promiscuous indeed. I was waiting on bated breath for a Black Swan moment.  Sadly, it never came. Ahwell.

What I found most impressive about Hathaway's performance was her ability to change her demeanour without compromising her cool streak. Her character experiences a wide spectrum of emotions throughout the film but she rarely betrays the "sole survivor" ethos the character embodies. She gazumps us all when she leads the caped crusader into Bane's dungeon but in doing so she cements her status as someone not to be reckoned with. The look on her face as she leaves Batman to face certain peril tells of remorse but you get the impression she'd do it again if she had to. She's ruthless yet vulnerable and that's what I like about her. And the suit. And when she rides motorcycles. Phewf. Selina's crowning moment has to be during the bar scene- a display of slick shooting, crocodile tears and pure feminine cunning that ensure she is a worthy addition to the Bat-family.   

                                        Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Blue Nose John Blake

Like Hathaway, Joseph Gordan-Levitt has started to redefine his acting profile. Even after his superb turn as Arthur in Nolan's other lovechild, Inception, many of us would still have referred to Gordan-Levitt as "that guy out of 500 Days of Summer". However, after his convincing and gritty performance as Gotham City good-cop "Blake" it's safe to say he is steering away from his softer side.

Blake is similar to Selina in that we are left to fill in a lot of the blanks concerning his past. The only substantial information we are given on him concerns the early demise of his parents- which subsequently ties him to a local orphanage. This is not a character who gives an awful lot away; he is extremely focused and this intenseness limits our affections towards him. A lighter more charismatic side to John Blake wouldn't have gone amiss but I suppose opportunities were limited by the dooms-day/oppressed city plot. Maybe, just maybe, little details regarding this hard-boiled blue nose were left a little blurry for future adaptations...

Despite his icey persona our John is still an extremely gripping character. This is no mean feat considering he is missing for large parts of the film, but thanks to the sheer screen presence of JGL there isn't a minute wasted when we are with the policeman come detective. One of the Blake's more obvious and admirable qualities is his unrelenting willingness to throw himself into the firing line. Early on in the film he earns a reputation as an impulsive "hot head" (following an alarming keenness to jump down a manhole that has just erupted in flame) which goes some way to garnishing our affections; everyone loves a rebel. Brucey‐boy is evidently impressed by his characteristics and soon earmarks him as a vital component in the continuation of the Batman legacy. Much to Blake's dismay Wayne takes him out of the front line amidst the final battle and gives him the responsibility of evacuating the cities most vulnerable and needy. The ensuing bridge sequence solidifies Blake's image as someone who is willing to "put the people before himself", a virtue that leads him to be entrusted with the secret location of the revamped Batcave. Blake is eventually revealed as "Robin" but is this simply a tongue in cheek reference or a sign of things to come...?

Will John Blake be the Next Batman?

Cracking little article on this particular theory can be found here: http://entertainment.time.com/2012/07/25/the-next-batman-is-john-blake-the-new-bruce-wayne/

The topic of Blake and the Batcave leads us nicely to our next topic...

2. How Will The Legacy Continue?

Nolan

Well that is that for Chris Nolan and rightly so. He has dedicated 10 years of his film making career to the caped crusader and after its colossal success he is now arguably the most powerful director in the world. He is currently producing the eagerly anticipated Man of Steel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKWJZsjm5U) but after that it is a guessing game to what the Brit will do next. Will he go back to small budget films with mega tight story lines, e.g Memento, Insomnia, or will he be lured by something of similar size and spectacle to Batman. I personally would love to see him front a Justice League film, but that may be wishful thinking as the project has struggled to get off the ground before...

Nolan had a final bit of advice for the franchises next director before he walked off into the Gotham sunset, which went a little something like this: "The only advice I would have is that ... when I first met with Paul Levitz of DC Comics prior to 'Batman Begins,' he explained to me clearly that Batman, of all superheroes, has thrived on reinterpretation and almost is strengthened by it. And I'm talking about over the years in the comic books but also in the movie. So when the time is right, whenever someone does whatever the next iteration of the character is, they simply need to be true to whatever it is they want to see, to what they believe in, not worry too much about what everyone else is telling them it should be." 

Simple enough eh?

Where does the story go from here?

So will Gordon-Levitt be the next Batman? Me-thinks not. However, the next instalment could continue where Nolan left off, with John Blake or "Robin" being left to source someone who is worthy of becoming Gotham's Dark Knight; thus bringing the story back to a Batman & Robin set-up... Wishful thinking indeed. I think starting from a clean slate is probably more realistic but a break away from the Dark Knight trilogy would be something a bit different. What we do know is that Sony have just successfully relaunched Spider Man 5 years after Sam Raimi's final shindig, so will it be that long before we see those pointy ears and big old wingspan gracing the silver screens again? Probably not. Lets have a look at some potential candidates for the lead role...

Batman

1. Michael Fassbender

He is young enough, has a diverse acting range and has dabbled in the super hero genre before (Marvel's X-Men:First Class series). He has also shown (in films such as the critically acclaimed Shame) that he can convey someone who is charismatic yet dark and broody. With the Fass just starting to get into the swing of things I think he has got to be a big contender.

2. Ryan Gosling

Too pretty you say? The same guy out of the Notebook? Pah! Well those of you that have seen him reduce someone's skull to a pile of mash potato in Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive will agree the guy has a darker side. Gosling definitely has the swagger and charm to pull of Bruce Wayne's playboy image should the series be totally rebooted. An outsider but I think still a very decent candidate.

3. Joel Edgerton

The man is an absolute beefcake, as displayed in UFC film Warrior where he somehow managed to dispose of Hardy. Wasn't given enough screen-time in the re-boot of John Carpenter's The Thing but is set to star in Baz Luhrmann's vision of The Great Gatsby. Has the physique and charm to pull of a more traditional Bruce Wayne but is perhaps approaching the peak of his acting career to soon.

4. Jon Hamm

After watching an episode of the hyped up Mad Men on AMC I thought to myself that Hamm is very much in the vein of a 1940/50's Batman- the time period our hero originated from. Pulls off a sharp suit like nobody's business and could be part of a Batman series that goes back to it's roots, rife with fedora hats and tommy guns. Highly unlikely but mindless speculation is half the fun.

5. Wild Card: Robert Pattinson

Scoff all you may but the one thing Pattinson has on his side is time. If, like Spiderman, Batman is rebooted 5 years down the line then I think Pattinson will be a prime candidate to step in. He has started to move away from the much-maligned vampire flicks and towards more challenging material like David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis. Admittedly I haven't seen it yet but the story line doesn't sound too dissimilar...

Villains

1. Leonardo Di Caprio as The Riddler

Was reported to be Warner Brothers first choice of villain for The Dark Knight Rises way back post Batman Begins but evidently it never materialised. Leo is one of the best actors of our generation and has shown that he can play characters mentally tortured by a mysterious past on numerous occasions. Could be ace as a re-imagining of The Riddler although it would be extremely difficult to get Jim Carrey's ridiculously camp version out of my head.

2. Ben Kingsley as Hugo Strange

For me this combination is a match made in heaven. Ben Kingsley could bring a bit of Don Logan (from Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast) to the role and combine it with the cool, calm and unnerving approach he displays in Shutter Island as Dr. Cawley. Kingsley is a very busy man, according to IMDB anyhow, but Im sure a Batman reboot would be too appealing to turn down. He is already set to star in Iron Man 3 so maybe that will whet his appetite for the comic book genre. Doesn't exactly bring a physical threat to the role but that could be solved with the introduction of a handy sidekick.

3. Andrew Scott as The Penguin

Anyone who has seen Scott play Jim Moriarty in the BBC's Sherlock adaptation will know of his ability to play a nasty little b*stard. Has an extremely unsettling array of vague expressions and can flip on a sixpence. Definitely more bark than bite but his physique and demeanour could make for a perfect "Gentleman of Crime". Wouldn't carry the biggest star appeal but the Batman series thrives on producing wild cards. I could have just said Phillip Seymour Hoffman like everyone else but I thought I'd go out on a limb.

4. Jean Dujardin as Black Mask

The Black Mask comes from a similar background to Batman. His parents mingled in the same circles as the Wayne's but unlike Bruce's parents they despised anyone whose social status hovered around the ordinary. Dujardin could be perfect for the role; he is likeable, charismatic and has an aura which suggests wealth and power. His profile is rapidly increasing after his turn in The Artist and he has just been signed on to Scorsese's latest flick The Wolf of Wall Street. 

- Of course these were just the first guys to pop into my head, I would love to hear about any alternative versions that you guys may have conjured. 

To summarise (extremely briefly), TDKR isn't as intriguing as Batman Begins nor as gripping as The Dark Knight but Nolan finds a masterful balance in his final instalment, making for the perfect sign off to the greatest Super Hero trilogy of our era. 

Now if Nolan and Bale could team up for a Bond movie then that would be swell...

This blog has really taken it out of me, so adios amigos.

Twitter- @CPHamill

"Everybody wants to kill their parents..." Prometheus reviewed.

As I came out of the cinema rubbing my chin in wonderment I was still undecided on whether or not I had just watched a good film. The spectacle and scale of Prometheus was bloomin' staggering but there was something about it that deeply irked me. For the most part, I didn't have a funking clue what was going on and I'm usually quite tapped into these things. 

This film is built up of a lot of if's but's and maybe's and the vast majority of the subject matter is left down to the individuals interpretation. There are a lot of people who have done their homework on the film and have a much more in-depth opinion than me on what's what in this space oddity- and those people can be found using this link- 

http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/uswn1/prometheus_everything_explained_and_analysed/

However, if you're not particularly interested in unearthing hidden meanings or theorising on the use of religious symbols then my review will probably serve you just fine.

The riddle of Ridley continues.

Admittedly, I am not as absorbed by the Aliens universe as some. I think one of the primary reasons for this is down to my exposure to the AVP series- the early trios inbred cousin. Despite this I went into Prometheus with an open mind, encouraged by the fact that the director said no prior knowledge of the Ripley series was required to enjoy this film- "It could easily stand alone" he says.

The opening sequence instantly grabs your attention, introducing us to one of the so called "engineers" of human life. Imagine the love child of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lord Voldemort and that's about where we are at with these mysterious grey beings. The Engineer is positioned against the vast backdrop of what we can only presume is pre-historic Earth; the waterfall, the panoramic sky- it's all very pleasing on the eye. 

However, the love child lasts all of 60 seconds before he begins to disintegrate as a direct result of drinking some unknown black liquid. His leg snaps with an uncomfortable crunch, his skull fizzes like a bath bomb and before we know it his DNA is flowing freely in the water of this unnamed planet. Presumably, this grey dudes sacrifice acts as some sort of catalyst for life itself. Sacrifice is a frequently visited theme during this film, which is why so many people are tapping into the religious symbology, Space Jesus etc. Honestly, I cant be bothered. 

This part of the film isn't touched upon again and no further explanation is made evident throughout the entire production- a reoccurring theme of Prom. This comes as no surprise when you learn that Damon Lindelof, whose other well known work is on ABC's Lost, heads up the writing team. I expect the questions posed in this film will be answered in a possible third installment, or maybe never at all. Sigh.

Personally, I think what holds the film together in the midst of this kaleidoscope of space madness is the performances of a few very well rounded cast members. Noomi Rapace and Marshall Green have a great on screen chemistry as intergalactic space couple Shaw and Holloway, whilst Theron provides a stern and icy exterior as the morbidly seductive Vickers. Michael Fassbender manages to keep his pants on and gives an eerily polished performance as the ships only android "David" and the extremely likeable Captain Janek, played by Idirs Elba, provides small bouts of comic relief amongst the films overwhelming seriousness. He also manages to seduce Theron with nothing but an accordion. Lad.

The Lead

Rapace provides a performance that perfectly balances vulnerability and strength. This is typified in my favourite sequence of the film wherein she masterminds her own abortion, having been inseminated with Alien sperm via the contaminated Holloway. As you would expect with a Ridley Scott film the pacing of this sequence has you on the edge of your seat, half covering your eyes, half begging for more- it is gruesomely wonderful. As she lasers her stomach open the med-pod is filled with the desperate screeches of her unwelcome inhabitant which is then swiftly removed with "the claw" (Toy Story reference)- but that's not the end of it, Shaw has to staple her stomach back together with industrial sized staples and snap the flailing umbilical cord with her own two hands. *heave*

But Shaw can't get pregnant, wait....is this IMMACULATE CONCEPTION!? ZZzzzzzz.

Again, for me, this film feels like a question that is going to be answered over another 1, maybe 2 films and I am not quite sure how I feel about that. There isn't really one arc in the entire film that reaches full circle, so you don't get that that traditional sense of satisfaction or closure. For someone who is only vaguely interested in the series (like myself) I felt there was an imbalance between drawing me in and pushing me away. Do I really want to dedicate my precious time to a film wherein I have to start up some sort of case study back home to fully appreciate its many, many, many different layers? Not really, but I suppose it swings both ways. I appreciate some film fans will take great pleasure from dissecting the film and they will probably relish in making sense of this unfinished puzzle. Not me though.

It felt like more like a spectacle than a film. The costumes, the set design, the special effects were all incredible but the storyline was lacking substance. A lot like David, Promethues is pristine and polished on the outside but when you dig a little deeper you're missing a few vital organs. It has no heart beat, no soul- it's just an empty shell.

Rating: More questions than answers, slightly cheesed off at the wayward story arcs and dog turd script. 3 stars.

Peter Parker Peps Up & Gwen Stacy Dresses Down. The Amazing Spiderman Review.

My last cinema trip irked me. Deeply. I could have spent the £10 I used watching Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter on a double breast burger from Nandos, or 3 succulent Marylands, or 2 of Maccy D's finest Big Mac's...You get the picture.

It is safe to say as I left the warmth of the Cinema this week I was a lot more satisfied.

The journey started off in treacherous fashion, one of my compadre's had supplied me with an Orange Wednesday code via text and I smugly approached the desk thinking I had yet again beat the system (being on O2 myself).

"Two Orange Wednesday tickets for Spiderman please"

"Can I see your text?"

"913......"

"No can I actually see your text"

"......"

This is where the panic set in. I froze. I mumbled something unintelligible and then for some reason pressed the Orange Wednesday code and it attempted to call said number. I had been firmly rumbled. What a cock up. Anyway, after paying £6 pounds each we were in at the expense of my dignity.

The first thing that strikes you about The Amazing Spiderman is how comfortable Andrew Garfield looks in the role. Although he clearly isn't a pre-teen (he is in fact 28) he finds the right balance of nerd and cool which makes him a lighter, more likable Spiderman. This is one of the biggest differences between Webb's Spidey and Raimi's. Garfield is a breeze, whilst Maguire was always a little down trodden.

For this reason TAS Peter Parker feels a lot more relatable. He is no longer an awkward, socially estranged misfit; he is firmly within the New Wave of "Chic Geek"- a look compounded 20 minutes into the film with the addition of his father’s very up-to-date Rayban style glasses (they are the same prescription, what are the chances!). 

The transformation to cool urban dweller is then solidified with Spidey's skills on a skateboard- Tony Hawk take five pal. Webb uses our preconceptions of Skateboarders (cool, outsiders, clique-y) to add depth to Parker's pre Spidey persona. Until that red and blue spandex enters the fray Garfield seems more like the boy next door in a Rom-Com as opposed to the oppressed and isolated figure Maguire cut in the original series- which isn't to say it's a wholly positive thing.

For me this does two things:

1) It enables Spidey to be funny, witty and charming without it seeming forced (het hem, Spiderman 3 infamous bar scene).

2) It also makes Garfield’s Spiderman much more "family friendly".

I'm still unsure as of yet if number two detracts from Spidey's image. It makes our lycra clad hero feel slightly more universal, almost safer this time round.

However, a "family friendly" Spidey has his positives too though. Garfield’s mannerisms and comic timing draw consistent laughs from the audience and it is these qualities that are utilised to make up some of the film’s most memorable sequences. The part where he semi-accidentally beats up half the cast of Shameless on a train ride home is ace, as is the morning time duel with the bathroom following his transformation.

EMMA STONE, BLONDE BOMBSHELL.

The supporting cast members give solid performances and the origins of Peter and Gwen's relationship is handled smartly. The pair exchange some very slick dialogue that is rarely overdone or cringe worthy, a rare quality for a Marvel film. Webb knows how to portray great amounts of emotion within microscopic moments, allowing the audience to exert the meaning by themselves, as demonstrated in the final sequence. Whilst there are no iconic "love" scenes, a la upside down kiss, there is a steady flow of chemistry between the two lovesick puppies that is weaved like a fine tapestry throughout the whole picture- Garfield even pulls off a cheeky little one liner in the films penultimate scene (I won’t ruin it).

The villain.

I almost forgot to mention the secondary British presence in the film- actor Rhys Ifans who plays Dr. Curt Connors aka "The Lizard". This has little to do with his performance, more so the character he inherited. 

Ifans is entirely convincing both as a man who has dedicated his life to science and as a man who very much misses the bottom half of his right arm (nod to that cracking little moment where the Doctor wishfully rubs his hand down a window pane, providing the illusion of 2 fully functional arms). Sadly, as soon as Dr. Curt Connors morphs into  "The Lizard" I found myself less and less interested in his character. 

One of the strangest things about The Lizard is that the presence of a 15 foot lizard doesn't appear all that shocking to the rest of the cast? There is never really the feeling that this creature is going to reap havoc. Admittedly he takes several rounds from an elite firing squad pretty darn well but even then it seems a little half arsed. 

The Lizard seems more like a slimey inconvenience than worthy adversary.

To conclude- go and have a watch, you won’t be disappointed. 

At times it seems like a Rom-Com on steroids but it provides a refreshing new vision of Marvels most youthful Hero. Webb's TAS has a very different feel to it than the previous SM; it's not as serious, it's not as gritty but it is very light on the palette and is in my opinion the second best in the series (pipped by the classic SM2). As youth reinvents itself, so does Spiderman- so for those that are sceptic have no fears, it is a worthy addition to the Marvel family.

Rating: Highly enjoyable if less spectacular than Raimi's. Garfield and Stone provide great chemistry although the villain is utterly deflating. 4 Stars.

Theatres and Abe Don't mix. Period. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter reviewed.

Big Abe and theatres do not mix. Period.

The familiar dreary settings flickered past as I stared out of the 85's window. The sky was grey, rain was inevitable but hey ho, it was Orange Wednesdays. It's the little things that keep you going.

The sticking point that particular evening was that the choice in film was almost as bleak as the weather. There was a touch of pathetic fallacy about the whole thing. It was between the Chernobyl Diaries and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Confronted with this tantalising selection me and The Bear whipped our iPhones out, reasoning that IMDB would be the arbitrator in the face of this dilemma. One scored 4.5 and the other 6.5- so either way we were in for a worldy. Logic dictated that we chose the higher of the two, so Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter it was.

The very B-movie esque notion of America's 16th president slaying the undead part time, mixed with the unflattering scores on t'internet, meant my expectations were very conflicted from the get go. My gut instinct told me this probably wasn't going to be worth the bus fare but my head provided a reasonable counter arguement:

Abe Lincoln + beard + axe - vampires = intriguing.

As long as it provided me with a steady supply of thrills and spills I would be content.

The fact I wish I had gone to watch Chernobyl Diaries probably signals the extent of my miscalculation.

The first 15 minutes are fairly easy to digest. It sets the time period nicely with a creative opening sequence and we are slickly transported back in time to Abe's childhood where the origins of his night stalking tendencies are (weakly) explained. The film does not take long to spring into life with the young Abe losing his cool at the sight of his black friend Will being visciously whipped for a misdemeanour he presumably did not commit. In fact, Abe goes beyond losing his cool and lunges at Mr. Whippy with a child sized axe. This signal of intent is presumably supposed to act as some sort of precursor to his "choppy" future but it just makes seem like an infantile delinquent. If I was Abe's father I would probably have had him sanctioned at that point which would have undoubtedly made for a much more interesting film. Instead Abe's father has to jump to his rescue, landing a sweet right hook on said whipper.

It is around this point slave owner Jack Barts (Marton Csokas) enters the fray. Bart is supposed to be deplorable and wicked but in all honestly is pretty uninspiring as one of the films lead antagonists. He looks a bit like an acid fuelled Fagin which is ironic, because I certainly got the sense my pocket had been picked after sitting through this film. The price of Abe's outburst is one mother, whom Bart slays in the dead of night presumably as an act of brutal authority. Sadly, the young Abe see's this fiendish action and from this point onwards Bart becomes his sworn nemesis.

The next time we see Lincoln he has transformed from the puny dock dweller into the burley Benjamin Walker and his narrative voice lets us know that "now his father is dead" he is to unleash his long awaited revenge. Abe's return to Barts dwelling does not go according to plan and it takes an intervention from Dominic Cooper's Henry to stop him being transformed into donner meat. Henry is like Blade in the fact that he is a vampire with a moral conscience, drinking blood from a chalice or the wretched instead of poor unsuspecting victims. However, Henry is unlike Blade in the fact he is largely unconvincing as someone who could tear s**t up. Cooper, whose most famous role up until this point was a heartthrob in Mamma Mia, is simply too pristine for the role. His one liners smell like a bag of Wotsits and he is simply too smarmy looking for a character who is supposed to have had a troubling past. Soon after Abe's ill fated revenge mission Henry (who can come out in the daytime unlike conventional vampires, thanks to the shoe polish like sun cream) becomes his reluctant teacher and soon moulds Big Abe into a slick vampire killing machine, all within the space of one very Rocky-esque montage and the brutal chopping of a sycamore.

After a few well polished duels the film introduces dull love interest Mary (the usually quirky and quippy Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and quickly hurries Abe the arse kicker on to Abe the politician. Barring one last semi entertaining brawl in the house of "Adam", as well as the ridiculous fight scene amongst the stampeding horses, we become subjected to a down trodden grey haired Abe for the next 35 minutes. This is when the tone of the film takes a horrible downward spiral and drops the formula that could have made it a nineteenth century Zombieland. The well paced fight scenes that take place in the dusty town of Springfield were drip feeding me satisfactory levels of adrenaline, but then POP that arc comes to an abrupt halt. As I watched the story about his son unfold, as well as the thrown together civil war sequences  I forgot what film I was actually watching and stopped paying a particular amount of interest. One minute it was Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, the next Mel Gibsons The Patriot. I felt that the introduction of sensitive subject matter betrayed the films whole feel, it seemed to ignore its own farcical nature and in doing so made the nonsensical, well...nonsensical!

Rating: I can't be arsed to talk about this film anymore. Two and Half Stars at best.