The Wolverine: Jackson Kicks the Sushit Out of Japan.

Marvel's snarling anti-hero is back with aplomb. 

The Wolverine, Hugh Jackman's highly anticipated Japan based action/drama, was on today's menu and the result was a little bit like japans signature dish; tasty but hardly filling. 

Considering the film concerns a very angry, very hairy man who breaks more bones than he does sweat, The Wolverine actually finds a decent balance between action and drama.

Between the small talk and the punches there are some genuine moments where Jackman gets to flex his thesp-muscles. The fantastic opening scene with the bear means the audience can't help but be emotionally invested from the get-go. The Wolverine, arguably, gets it right where a lot of comic book films, including this summers Man of Steel, falter. 

Overall, there is a great pace to the film and the scenes where people aren't being torn from limb to limb do not look like they were slapped in there simply to provide rest-bite. By and large, this is down to Jackman's presence as a lead man. It's to his credit that he can keep the audience interested in a character who is actually very one dimensional on the surface. 

Unlike other super heroes, such as Iron man, even Wolverine's punchy comic one liners are carried out under that signature scowl, his facade refuses to change, yet Jackman still finds ways to subtly differentiate these moments in his performance. It might just be a matter of the Aussie raising a singular eyebrow, or the manner in which he recovers from a thorough beating. Either way you can see this is a man who has fully inhabited the character.

The rest of the cast remain reletively untested, Rila Fukushima is a watchable sidekick as Yukio and there are some moments between Tao Okamoto (as Mariko) and Jackson that do well to avoid being overly cringey. The rest of the faces get lost in the action sequences, and there are times when you're not quite sure whose fighting who and for what particular reason. 

This is where The Wolverine suffers. It weaves more yarn than it needs to. The plot is made to appear complex but no part of the end result is. Yakuza vs Samurai, dad vs daughter, politician vs window pane and everyone vs poor Logan. It's a melting pot where motives are never fully explored. 

Then, there are things that are also undercooked.

The Viper, played by Svetlana Khodchenkova, for instance comes and goes with no lasting effect. Her character is reminiscent of Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy and after a few encounters she becomes somewhat irritating. Her back story is about as shallow as a puddle. We don't care about her character because we don't know her thus her credentials are like "eh?". 

In fact, the stories penultimate scenes run dangerously close to cancelling out the previous hour and a half's good work at times. This is because there are brief spells when you feel like calling bullshit. The film often feels like a well rehearsed trick. The action is lean, Jackman's acting is on point, so you just go along with it. However, give yourself the time to think a lot comes into question. 

Mangold's film just about pips Tokyo Drift as my favorite Japan based summer blockbuster. The seemingly complex family feud soon crumbles away and ultimately leaves us with a Repunzel in the tower type narrative but Jackson's convincing performance and the healthy dose of claws-smashing-jaws action papers over the cracks for the most part. 

The slickness of the stunts and the CGI impresses with this latest X outing certainly cranking it up on the brutal scale. However, the narrative becomes a moo point after a while, limiting the satisfaction somewhat. 

*** 1/2 stars.

The Best Worst Film of 2013.

Before I start this review I feel compelled to mention that two 3D tickets to this particular film cost me £25. I went to watch it on a Sunday, so I only have myself to blame. This is an Orange Wednesday or no-go venture, trust me.

Guillermo del Toro's "Pacific Rim" is the directors first fully blown blockbuster outing to date, with Blade II and the on-going Hellboy series perhaps the closest he's previously come to 'mainstream' cinema. Here, calling on a collection of gigantic robots (Jaegers- not the two for a fiver type variety) and big lizard shaped things (Kaijus), the Mexican filmmaker largely delivers displaying a mastery of scale that makes for a visually captivating monster mash up movie. The CGI is insanely detailed and, more importantly, in tune with the 3D- so much so that it manages to maintain a sense of realism throughout. No mean feat considering the subject matter. Credit where credit's due to ILM.

However, the human aspect of the film is where it falls entirely flat on its shiny metal face. The performance of the modestly assembled cast (including Charlie Hunnam of Green Street fame and one time EastEnders star Robert Kazinsky) is bog standard at best; maybe owing to the fact that they have to relay an awful lot of cringe inducing dialogue which could have been pinched from any high concept film in the last 20 years. If Prometheus and Top Gun had a love child, this would probably be it. Leading man Hunnam and Luther star Idris Elba do what they can with a below par script but there's only so many "Lets end this!" war cries you can endure before you actually start to root for the monster.

A large chunk of the middle third attempts to rectify this by trying its hand at character building. We are temporarily veered away from punching aliens in the face and instead forced to sit through the back story of Elba's character, Stacker Pentecost, leader of the resistance. Despite Elbas' snarling exterior it is the least convincing part of the film. It had me muttering 'bollox' under my breath as I sat there itching for it to move on to another healthy dose of senseless violence. It all seems very slap dash and the interrelationships of the characters are often held together by a below par bit of dialogue.

Pacific Rim will satisfy a younger male demographic and offer hardcore del Toro fans fresh material that they will likely take to, reflected in its current IMDB rating of 8 (no, really) and its solid CinemaScore of A-. However, for those you that enjoy more character based films, acceptable dialogue and being on land this probably isn't for you.

One of the best worst films I've seen in a while (make of that what you will), but if I could go back to that crisp Sunday afternoon and spend the money on something else, I probably would have.

Rating:***

Crude Gold. Hollywood's Likely Lads Make for Big Laughs in 'This is the End'.

What an apt title.

Just as I finish my degree Hollywood's most affable group of comedy actors decide to make a film that culminates with the world as we know it ending. It spoke to me on several levels.

From the get go the film feeds the audience a steady supply of mild chuckles, with best friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel sharing a few light-hearted spliffs (what else?) which, inevitably, leads to a course of man on man humping. This early display of boyish humour and hashed together montages really sets the tone for the rest of the film- although, by the end, two fully grown men scissoring each other on the living room floor will seem relatively normal.

The film then steps up the laughs when our two main protagonists move over to James Franco's boudoir for a A-list party that features several scene stealing cameos from Michael Cera. Cera plays the cocaine fueled sex pest in such hilarious dead pan fashion that it begs the question- why does he leave the party so early? The Superbad star's presence is rare in the sense that it adds to the film, wherein a lot of other exerts could have been chopped out and it would have had minimal impact on the laugh-meter.

"WE'RE PLAYING A GAME JASON!". 

RiRi gets groped, people sing about going commando; everything is hunky dory and seemingly in place. Then, of course, a huge sink hole emerges on the front lawn and the majority of our party get duly sucked in.

This is when things move from baffling to mind boggling, and for the most part, it tickled my pickle.

Eugh, that analogy just made me think of the Devil pumping horn sporting sperm into Jonah Hill.

The most satisfying thing about the film is that the majority of the laughs are unexpected due to the improvised nature of the dialogue. It may come in the form of a subtle facial expression from the softly spoken yet sinister Jonah Hill, the garish jizz fanatic Danny McBride, or a combination of the actors who, it has to be said, excel as an ensemble cast.

The film inevitably becomes a bit wayward at times and whilst the threadbare "buddies in crisis" narrative between Seth and Jay just about manages to hang together the film occasionally suffers from misdirection. Something can be momentarily hilarious and then it take a premature dip, or a joke can be elongated to the point where the only person still laughing is that wierdo at the back wearing a Donnay cap. This could have been easily resolved with some brutal editing but I'm kind of clutching at straws (not matches, thankfully) in terms of highlighting an obvious negative .

The films target audience is undoubtedly male, and I'd go as far as to say that the "laddish" humour may be quite suffocating for a female audience, probably best encapsulated by a rape gag concerning Hermoine Granger. However, none of the material is taken too seriously, with the actors managing to maintain an equilibrium between funny and offensive by often bringing the focus back to themselves with a well tuned self deprecating style.

I watched it with a group of friends and we were in stitches start to finish. The resounding opinion from my compadres was that they hadn't laughed as much since the first Hangover.

Purely in comedy terms I'd give it 4 stars, definitely not the smartest film, but brutal, gratuitous and joyfully ridiculous.

Have a good one folks.

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