REVIEW - DJANGO UNCHAINED

I think Westerns are great. & the journey of the Western has been long and interesting. Arguably its birth was with the 1903 film The Great Train Robbery, it then passed John Ford's phenomenal Stagecoach in 1939, went through Leone's magnificent Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s, and landed in contemporary cinema with films like Cowboys and Aliens. Yep, gone are the days when the Western was a great genre, and Clint Eastwood was less racist. One man, though, has always kept the genre close, shielded it from the apparent Alien attack: Quentin Tarantino. Growing up infatuated with Leone's framing and storytelling, QT learnt his trade in the back catalogues of a video store. Graduating through his filmography, it was clear to see his influences - you might even argue Kill Bill is his blending of Kurosawa and Leone (I'll save that one for another time). Still, it feels his entire body of work has been building to this film. If he can pull of this Western, he will have made it in his own eyes, as much as ours. Which is probably why the script took ~3 years to write.

*by a 3 year old

The story of Django Unchained is inspired by his chained predecessor: Django, made in 1966 and starring Franco Nero - who makes a brief cameo discussing the silent "D." Other than the appearance of Nero, there's little repetition from previous films of the genre. There's only 1 Johnny Cash song, for christ's sake! The film is undeniably Tarantino's. We open in the Antebellum South, following a posse of recently purchased slaves on route to their new plantation when up rolls Dr. Schultz (Chris Waltz), a German "dentist" who is looking to acquire Django's (Jamie Foxy) services. Dispatching the two white escorts with his wit, dialogue and fast draw, the two ride off together to the nearest watering hole for a pint and a business discussion.

"shooting from the hip"

Django's cunning eye reveals that Schultz is, in fact, a bounty hunter and not a travelling dentist. He offers Django his freedom and $75 for that same cunning eye to identify the Brittle Brothers, who Schultz will then shoot. "Kill white people and they pay you for it" quips Django, "What's not to like?" The two enter into an agreement and begin what feels like the trimmings of a buddy movie. Cowboys are lone rangers, these bounty hunters are more like BFFs & here QT's writing really comes to the forefront. So much so that you begin to ignore the stunning scenery they ride through, in favour of the snappy dialogue performed admirably by both actors. There are even some particularly well framed shots, that cut from wide angle to close up and vice versa (CRASH ZOOMS), that simply pass over the viewer because the film is so well balanced between the audio and visual. Speaking of which - the soundtrack is typically blazé and pop-ish (John Legend's contribution is excellent). QT even manages to slip a Rick Ross number in there, but does it look out of place? Hell no. Not in this Western.

you can't jus' WALTZ ina town an' shoot somebuddy

Django's super cool nature comes unravelled when he sees those who have wronged him in the past. For you see, even ex-slaves have subtext in Tarantino's Western. Django's real desire is to be reunited from his estranged wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington DC) - and Schultz, as a responsible whitey, agrees to help his free negro pal find her after a winter's worth of hunting; as this Django fella is proving himself quite the natural. The two grow close and soon Schultz paternal relation to Django wears thin, as the freed man becomes something of a revelation in his newfound liberty. The search for Broomhilda leads them to one name: Calvin Candy (Leonardo Da Vinci). Monsieur Candy is a particularly suave and ruthless plantation owner, the owner of young Broomhilda and a big name in the "Mandingo" business: also known as Nigger fighting. The two hatch a plan and make their way to Candyland. If the first half of the film had your curiosity, the second will grab your attention.

Sandy Joyner

The majority of the white folk are presented in a hilariously caricatured Blazing Saddles-esque fashion: "WHAT'S A NIGGER DOING ON A HORSE?" is a frequent line. Samuel L. Jackson also gives one of the best performances of his career as Steven, the head slave of Monsieur Candy. Deep-seated race relations are treated in Django Unchained like never before. It's OK to laugh as Steven suggests burning the pillow cases after Django has slept on them. But with the comedy, comes the brutality. Whips and early forms of KKK militarism are also shown in garish honesty. Although again, not without their hint of "Tarantino." In one of the best sequences of the film, members of a hate mob discuss the negative aspects of wearing white hoods with eye holes - none of them can see! The ironic hint to their reduced awareness, or blindness, is clear - Tarantino is criticising racial hatred in his own way. And it works.

and then they kissed?

Spike Lee recently hit out at Django Unchained: "American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It was a holocaust. My ancestors are slaves. Stolen from Africa. I will honor them." He couldn't be more wrong (in fact, Spike Lee has been a bit of a dick recently). In the same month Lincoln is released, the subject matter is being presented in two very different ways - but I know which one I'd rather watch. Tarantino isn't dishonouring the history of African Americans, hell no. He's celebrating the liberation of black people in his own unique, gory, hilarious, fan-boy way. In a running joke across the film - the "D" in "Django" is silent; the rest of the film is anything but.

45/50 STATES

p.s. QT's cameos are phenomenal

REVIEW - THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Happy 2013, crew! Which of yous have already broken your resolutions, ya naughty good-for-nothings? Hope everyone had good tidings and enough drink to put down a donkey. This is a little belated and my memory has been somewhat zapped by festive whiskey drinking, but here goes a few thoughts on the recent release of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. A film that most, especially Tolkien fans, had been wishing for since Frodo sailed to the Undying lands of the Elves (oops, spoiler). Our tale surrounds Mr. Frodo's infamous Uncle Bilbo and his unexpected journey "there and back again" - or at least, the first 6 chapters of it.

13 Dwarves, 1 Hobbit. (not a porno)

The immediate talking point of the film surrounded the formation of a trilogy. Lord of the Rings worked perfectly in this format as 3 different parts; indeed, some was even left out - Tom Bombadil, notably. However, to split a novel that barely covers 300 pages into 3 separate films seems foolish and money grabbing. Particularly when the bulk of screen time in LOTR was dedicated to grandiose battle sequences, of which there is little in The Hobbit (at least, in this film). Ultimately it would have been wiser to trim into one film, or even just a pair of flicks - the storyline drags and some less interested in young Bilbo would easily lose interest after the first hour, let alone the first film.

translated directions: "fly, you fools"

The "unexpected" nature of this journey comes one evening when Gandalf secretly scratches an invitation onto Bilbo's door for Thorin Oakenshield (who has more than a hint of Vigo Mortensen about him) and his merry band of 12 Dwarves (including James bloody Nesbitt) to have a shindig. The young Hobbit is soon overrun with company and invited to be the burglar on a quest to retrieve treasure stolen from Erebor by Smaug the Dragon - now located on top of the Lonely Mountain (see above). Soon the Took within the Baggins takes over and Bilbo finds himself out the door, on a pony, and without his handkerchief. The company are off towards Mirkwood and stumbling upon all sorts of Middle Earth life: outwitting trolls, being captured by Goblins and trapped by Wargs.

oh dear

This is where the film departs from Tolkien's work. In the novel there is no mention of a dangerous "Necromancer" conjuring dark spells, or of "Radagast the Stoned/Brown/Definitely Stoned," or even of a meeting in Rivendell between Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Nor is Thorin's one armed, allbeit bad ass looking, nemesis talked of at all in the book. Jackson clearly didn't feel there was enough entertainment in the first section of the book, and so placed a few more threats to keep audiences awake (again - why not just trim?). Still - the Dwarven company are infinitely likeable and Freeman's portrayal of an unassuming Bilbo, who flounders over the simplest of tasks yet excels where isn't expected to, is commendable and he carries it well (even has a slight "Tim" feel to the character).

HD 3D and Gandalf just don't mix

The film opens in HD 3D and unfortunately finishes in it, too. Jackson's decision to double the FPS (Frames Per Second) of the film from 24 FPS to 48 FPS always seemed a strange choice, and it seems absolutely ridiculous after watching The Hobbit. There's an argument for the natural technological advancement of cinematography, but those that make it should be strangled by 35mm film. The entire film looks almost CGI - but not in a good way; more in a video game cut sequence kind of way, particularly whenever long shots are used (which is often). It just doesn't feel cinematic. Plus making me put glasses over glasses always ruins my movie watching experience - it's genuinely one of the most annoying things imaginable. So fuck you, Jackson.

Bilbo's crack addiction will be interesting to watch

Sadly The Hobbit does not compare to LOTR: it's nowhere near in the same league of filmmaking or storytelling. In its own right, it's still a thoroughly enjoyable tale about maturation, adventure and friendship; and it will be interesting to see where the next two films take us. However The Hobbit feels as tall as its protagonist, in that it barely gets off the ground. Sadly, most fans of the book will lament it, and most newcomers get bored of it. Jackson's gone off the radar with this one, and we don't quite feel like we're in Middle Earth anymore. 

32/50 STATES

REVIEW - TWISHITE BREAKING YAWN PT. POO

At the premier, R-PATZ reportedly joked around with some Twi-hards outside by saying: "I don't understand what mental condition you have." First off, I'm not sure he was joking. And second - this is one of the problems with the Twilight saga. A lot of Twi-hards are dicks. There, I said it. They make hating the films easy for onlookers with their ridiculous obsessiveness and TEAM EDWARD t-shirts (+ I don't think i'm being at all pretentious or unfair). It's important, therefore, to remove any preconceptions you might have about the film/its fans before viewing the latest installment. I have, unashamedly, seen all the Twilight films and was one of the millions that went to see it on opening weekend. TEAM JACOB tank top and all.

I had a similar reaction

The release of the film was shrouded in controversy after K-STEW apparently went rogue and cheated on our beloved R-PATZ. Without slipping into a Perez Hilton blog post; HOW DARE SHE, R-PATZ IS A FUCKING SAINT! However in the filmic world, all is happy in the Cullen household. Bella is now a fully fledged Trampire after she was turned in the most despicable C-section in the finale of part 1. She's now got horrendous pink eye, and some newfound abilities to boot! No longer a mismatch in the bedroom, the opening 20 minutes or so are filled with Bella's newfound lust for blood and/or R-PATZ' genitalia. Indeed, the opening line of the film is Edward telling the mother of his new child "You're so beautiful." Probably the most frequent line of the film, despite K-STEW's ever present omni-frown. Despite all this, they have so little chemistry on screen that it's no surprise she sought greener pastures off screen.

again, all too familiar...

Most criticism of Twilight is levelled at its poor writing, cardboard characters and incredibly clichéd dialogue. Unfortunately none of these judgements are dispelled by the latest film. With all quiet on the home front, (the Wolves and Vamps are now getting along just fine, in case you were worried) the imminent threat of the film comes in the form of the VOLTURI. An ancient coven of Vamps that seek to destroy Bella's young one, horrifically named Renesmee, because they believe her to be some sort of demon child who will kill endless amounts of humans. Too strong for the Cullen's alone, they draft in their Vamp mates to stand against the innocent killing of Renesmee. There's little offered up in terms of character development - despite the influx of new vampires with unique abilities of their own. Element control/mind control/electric shocks don't add much to the already tiring abilities of the stock characters.

mighty morphin' shitty vampires

There is also yet more incredibly contrived one liners that tend to follow the lines of: "I love you 4eva nd eva bby" *BLEUGH* Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 at points feels more like an MSN conversation than a hollywood blockbuster. Although the film is arguably the least clichéd and OTT of the entire series, it still falls back to this weakness on a far too regular basis. Old habits clearly die hard. I understand the film/books are made for teenagers struggling with their soppy pre-adolescent relations, however there are far more suitable techniques than awful dialogue. Whatever message Twilight is trying to get across (sexual liberation of the female teen???????) it's often lost in its median.

honestly THIS is better writing

Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 looks a lot better than its predecessors, its budget has been vamped up and the CGI looks markedly crisper. However there is the questionable addition of a CGI baby Renesmee that looks about as real as Jordan's buzzers. Still, this film is arguably the best Twilight of the saga. The final battle is interesting enough, and the film actually caught me off guard with a twist I honestly did not see coming. See if you can catch it. Sadly though, Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 really is a shiny vampire in a clan of Cullens. I'm not in the franchise's target audience, and boy does it show. I think Twi-hards will love it, and the rest of us will be loving that it's finally over. Hopefully 5eva.

*SPOILER ALERT*

16/50 states

ALSO, BUNK FROM "THE WIRE" CAMEOS IN THIS FILM. THAT EARNT IT 15 STATES.

REVIEW - SKYFALL

Britain is a largely expectant country; whether it's football, tea strength, a Paul McCartney show, or other over stereotyped British activities, we demand the best. The same applies to our Bond films. Ever since Dr. No and (Sir.) Connery hit the big screens, there has been an air of "Britain Expects" about the series. And it's no real surprise, as Bond has become one of the most widely known exports of GB in recent history; just look at how excited everyone was when he jumped out a helicopter with HRH in July. MADNESS! But it's more than that. Watching in the cinema, before the film even begins there are half a dozen Bond related adverts each proclaiming their product will turn Jon Doe into James Bond. Bond is bankable. The franchise has the weight of a nation on its shoulders, and the pressure of the fat cat producers prodding it forwards. Does Skyfall deliver for both? In short: yes. And then some. 

watch Outland. Connery as a Space cop - Golden.

In the early millennia Bond was looking tired and worn, hence the 4 year break after Brosnan and the complete refresh to Flemming's first novel for Casino Royale. Directors were struggling to keep people interested in tired gags and repetitive fantasy story lines; there's only so many times the Russians can threaten to end the world after all (...or is there?). But with Danny Craggers the series looks to have found itself a lead to propel the franchise back into the right direction: tougher, darker and more attune to Flemming's series. And it has come to fruition with Skyfall. Third time lucky, ey?

old meets new

The film throws its audience straight into a mission in Istanbul; JB is in the process of recovering a hard drive with names of undercover MI6 agents. No easy feat, and after some rooftop motorcross he finds himself on the top of a moving train mano-on-mano with his adversary. With time running out, M (still Judy Dench) orders JB's female assistant operative to take "the shot". But of course she hits Bond, plunging him 200 odd feet off the train and down into the watery depths of a raging river. Apparently women can't shoot. Add that to the list ay? I jest! As a side note, I read an article suggesting Skyfall was the least misogynistic Bond yet; I'd have to strongly disagree. For reasons i'll get onto soon. 

JB > JC

Soon after JB disappears, he is pronounced K.I.A. and M writes a less than heart felt obituary. Yet in the very next scene we see him on a sunny beach, knee deep in a foreign looking lady (stage one of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) drinking a Heineken. Cut back to London and the MI6 building is in pieces, the files are being leaked, and M is having a moment. Bond acknowledges this and makes his way back to the new HQ, beginning his vendetta to get all British on those responsible. He soon discovers the face behind the treachery: Javier Bardem. His outstanding portrayal of camp fashion designer-esque villain Raoal Silva, brings a much needed kick of chaos to the film. He is hell bent on dealing revenge on M (stage 2 of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) and taking down the "establishment" of MI6 and Gran Britannia; he represents a threat to the old guard.

being typecast as the villain is working for Mr. Bardem

Meanwhile the war at home is raging, as the supposed incompetence of MI6 is called into question by top brass of Number 10: is there a need for 00 agents in this modern world? The analogy works to directly question the audience: is there a place for Bond in 2012? The rest of the film provides a succinct and booming "YES MUM." Skyfall is a stunning mix of action, witty dialogue, and a few gadgets (the ejector seat is mocked, as well as the exploding pen) that perfectly blends old with new; highlighting the need for balance. It should be considered the archetype for future Bonds, and the benchmark for the past. It is, indeed, a resurrection.  

not a half-bad Bond girl, either

47/50 STATES

REVIEW - LOOPER

Time travel films are always hotly anticipated. Something all of us wish was invented, it's usually a joy to see our childish hopes and dreams played out infront of us on the big screen. Personally I'd go back to May 19th and re-watch the Drogba penalty with less nerves, make a lot of money on accumulators and go into business with Roman Abramovic. However, in Looper  we see time travel being used for slightly more dangerous means: assassinations. It's 2044 in the grand ol' USA (more specifically, Kansas) and we're promptly told by Joseph Gordon-Levitt that time travel has not been invented yet, but in 30 years it will be...

UNBELIEVABLE, JEFF

JEFF DANIELS has been sent back from 2074 to run things - establishing a criminal network that runs the city. He employs JGL's character, young Joe, as a LOOPER. His job is to be in a certain place at a certain time, and kill whoever has been sent back from the future for a hell of a lot of silver. Trick is though, one day you will come face to face with yourself in the field - a mind fuck to say the least, and then you're supposed to kill your old self, termed: "closing the loop". For some reason, loops are being closed on a much more frequent basis. And surprise, surprise, it's not long before JGL comes face to face with Bruce Willis kneeling in front of him. A questionable casting perhaps, and in the moment that JGL is pondering how he became John McClane, the old Joe springs into action and escapes. Failing to close a loop is punishable by death, and so now there's Jeff Daniels chasing young Joe, chasing old Joe.

my god I want this poster

The greatest part about Looper is that it's incredibly simple in its explanation of how things in the present affect the future. Young Joe, for example, scars his arm to write "Beatrix" in order to get old Joe's attention for a meet at their favourite restaurant. The latter then informs young Joe that there's another waitress who works on weekends called "Jen" that would have been a better choice; but with age comes wisdom, aye? They talk. And young Joe learns that someone called the "Rainmaker" is closing all the loops whilst tearing shit up in a police state America 30 years later - it is, according to old Joe, therefore crucial they find and kill all of the three possible "Rainmakers"; who are nowt but a toddler in 2044. 

some questionable face SFX

All of this polarises the two Joes, who have differing opinions on child murder. The old Joe buggers off to make some regrettable decisions, whilst the young 'un uncovers the location of one of the possible "Rainmaker" children: a farm where Sara (Emily Blunt) is a badass mother/farmer/shotgun wielder who lets Joe help protect her child, Cid. As young Joe and Sara become close, he learns she is telekinetic - a genetic mutation that 10% of the population have, however most are unable to do much more than lift coins. Sara is slightly more proficient, as is her son. Meanwhile, old Joe is on a war path. Having lost his dear wife in the future, he is determined to do anything in his power to find the "Rainmaker" and stop his life from unravelling. Even going on one of the best-action directed rampages at Jeff Daniels' head quarters that you'll see this year.

think Kevin Smith would like to go back and un-direct that one, too

The director, Rian Johnson, really surprises in Looper  with some excellent cinematography and action editing, and at points feels more like a neo-noir than a time travel fiction. And a neo-noir/time travel film is a hard thing to do, least of all do well. But Johnson really excels in his first real shot at the big time. It's as if he's come back from the future as a master writer/director. Sure he's helped by a stellar cast, and one of the best JGL performances of his career, but the film is genius from start to finish. The dialogue is witty, the idea well executed, and the finale outstanding. We'll be watching Looper again, and again, and again, and again...

not quite as good as Groundhog Day, however.

43/50 STATES

REVIEW - KILLING THEM SOFTLY

Set against the backdrop of the 2008 Presidential election, America and its inhabitants find themselves in a precarious position. With the red guy promising to return the US to its former "glory", while the blue guy promises "change". I've inverted both because Killing Them Softly is a film that sets out to debate  both these claims. The opening sequence is perfectly jarring in its juxtaposition of an Obama's speech with intermittent cutting between the decadence of a post-Katrina New Orleans - the direction America is headed is still up for debate. Meanwhile, there's some killing to do. 

and they say money can't buy happiness

We are introduced to Frankie and Russel, two low time crooks who have fallen on harder times - the poor fuck Russel is Australian. They're promptly hired by Squirrel, played by Vince Curatola (Johnny Fucking Sac! for all you Sopranos fans), to roll over a high stakes poker game run by Markie Trattman. Markie is played by Ray Liotta, who clearly has let himself go somewhat since the glory days of Goodfellas; he's a disheveled shell of a gangster, hitting his own poker games to make quick bucks. Thus the set up seems perfect: Frankie and Russel rob the game, and immediately the finger points back to Markie. A victimless crime! Except that would make for one helluva boring mob film.

tony soprano playing tony soprano

Introducing Jackie, who puts the P.I. in Pitt and quickly the little scheme is uncovered. He is contracted by a nameless suit (played by Richard Jenkins), whose identity remains a mystery throughout the film, to turn the mess into a body count. He's going to need a bit of help though, so in flys James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) to lend a helping hand. Reunited the first time since The Mexican - another great Pitt movie if you have a spare few hours - Pitt and Soprano sit in a bar (a table I would do anything to pull up a chair to) and discuss business in what is arguably the best scene of the film. Turns out Soprano is becoming disillusioned with the recession, and proceeds to drink + hooker himself into early retirement, sadly ruining the promise of a Tony vs. Johnny Sac finale for the Sopranos fans. Jackie is well and truly alone.

Obama style?

Y'see, in an economy fueled by gambling - be that stock breaking or business deals gone wrong, the mob style mentality of an unidentified corporate America has plunged the country into dire circumstances. To reuse an earlier phrase: there is no victimless economy. Thus the poker game/entire plot of Killing Them Softly is simply one big, meaty, Soprano filled analogy for contemporary America. Hell, maybe Pitt is even supposed to represent Obama? Ok, maybe that was pushing the analogy one step too far, but the effort was there. The film is a really interesting semiotically, and one that allows various readings, of which I'm sure there will be many. It also treats its audience to some sublime editing and some of the prettiest cinematography you ever did see in a quasi-gangster film - some of the death scenes are anything but soft.

KILLING THEM SOFTLY WITH HIS SONG...

Killing them Softly has a lot to say, I'm just not sure it's fully articulate to its audience. There will be some questionable reactions, and some of the dialogue can seem a little preachy at times - however, it's America so perhaps we can chalk that one down to environment. It's stylish, has plenty of action, lots of favourite mafia stars, and a dollop of a message to send to its viewers. The United States is going through its toughest economic period since the 80s, and there needs to be more films made like this one. Ultimately in a recession, crime still pays; just not as well.

42/50 STATES

REVIEW - THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

The release of Nolan's thrilling conclusion has been surrounded by anticipation, frantic guessing and unfortunately, tragedy. Events in Colorado have slightly marred the release of DKR, but one yank maniac could not stop hordes of Batman faithful from flocking into cinemas on opening weekend; nor could he stop scores of ridiculous journalists from flooding the print and internet with various spoilers. Have no fear, if you are yet to feast your eyes on Bale and co. then this review will ruin nothing. It will, instead, contain some of the worst batman jokes you've ever heard. Apologies in advance.

thankfully not literally: "Batman Forever"

What did Batman say to Robin before they got into the Batmobile?

Get in the car, Robin.

Val Kilmer had his go, as have many others over the years - and so the challenge with adopting a series like this becomes how to define yourself against a back catalogue of all-too-similar Batmans. Nolan's great success from this series has been rooted in his ability to shroud the film in his unique aesthetic and avoid slipping into the established, boring, familiar genre tropes of shoddy superhero films. On the fast track to becoming an Auteur, his filmography reads dark, stylish, and unpredictable - accompanied by his brother, Jonathan, he has forged some of the most perplexingly brilliant stories that every screenwriter wishes they had penned. Oh, and he has a little help from an ensemble of actors he strings across his films: Leo, Hardy, Bale, Caine, Freeman, Neeson, not to forget...

the man married Uma Thurman

Why is Batman's voice so deep?

Because he suffers from larynJUSTICE

DKR picks up where the Dark Knight left off. Bruce has become somewhat of a Howard Hughes character - shut away from Gotham, entrapped by a city that has falsely exiled Batman, in favour of an equilibrium of peace achieved by the Dent act. The film opens at a benefit held at the newly built Wayne manor, where Commissioner Gordon is about to expose Harvey Dent for his true character; however at the last moment decides to pocket the speech, deciding Gotham is not yet ready for some hard truths. This is also the setting for the introduction of one of the most fondly awaited moments for the male viewing community: Catwoman. And Anne Hathaway does not disappoint, minxing her way onto the screen and into Wayne's private quarters (not like that) where she nabs his Mother's ol' pearls, you know the ones from Batman Begins, before escaping down a pipe (again, not like that). Brief introduction and sexy screen time done with, the film then hurtles into the main storyline with a ferocious pace that it never relinquishes. Introducing Bane.

kiddy got clawz

What happens when Batman sees Catwoman?

The Dark Knight Rises

Hijacking the Gotham stock exchange is no easy feat, unless you're Tom Hardy in a breathing mask. Making light work of a few guards and bankrupting the Wayne Corporation in a matter of minutes, Bane thrusts Bruce into gear; despite the best words of cockney wisdom from ol' Michael Caine, he dons the suit once more. Hot on the tail of Bane and Batman, the Gotham PD make a somewhat ill advised decision to go after the masked vigilante. However, aided with a new toy from Fox, aptly named "The Bat", we see Bruce take to the air and make it back safely to his now liquidated Batcave. He now has his prerogative of the film, stop whatever the hell Bane is planning. With only Gordon, Blake (new detective played by Gordon-Levitt), and Catwoman even believing Bane exists; Wazza enlists the help of Hathaway to guide him to Bane's sewer hide out. In a confrontation and the first real bout of fistycuffs of the film, Bane breaks, destroys and generally beats the Bat out of Bruce. He then informs our caped crusader that the League of Shadows are firmly in his control, and on the move to fulfil what Bruce only delayed in the opener of the trilogy - to destroy Gotham.

superb fight sequences

How does Batman's mother call him for Dinner?

dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner, BATMAN!

Bane then makes the very common super villain mistake, he keeps Bruce alive. Choosing to place him in the supposed worst prison in the world to teach him a lesson of subversion - to reduce someone that had everything, to nothing. Herein lies the main thesis of the film, and back at Gotham a similar project is already underway. The ruling class go on "trial" to be "sentenced" by the Scarecrow, where they are offered the choice between exile over the frozen river or death; tough. All the while the criminals loot, pillage and have their way over the city. There's no surprise, then, that this is probably Nolan's darkest looking Batman (although it's mighty close between the 3) - embedding Gotham and the prison with dark hues and shadows, the camera rarely sees any light; couple that with morose performances from Bale, Hardy & Hathaway. But just as Bruce's father once asked - why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up, Weezy! In Batman & Gotham's darkest fall yet, the question is whether there's enough energy left in weary legs to do so. 

"shut the fuck up, crime"

What's Batman's favourite fruit?

Ba na na na na na na na na na na na na na na n-GRAPEFRUIT

That's as far as I want to go regarding plot development, I fear any more comments would be dangerously bordering on spoilers. Ultimately, it's everything you thought it would be, and more. There's regular witty one liners, an overall sheen of incredibly stylised cinematography, some phenomenal action sequence editing, a stupendously sexy Anne Hathaway & some cunning twists and turns that will keep even the most seasoned viewer honest. Nolan indulges his audience in everything we've become accustomed to since Batman Begins those short 7 years ago. And in my opinion some of the negative reviews have become just that - too comfortable and unappreciative. Also ignore anyone that says you can't understand Bane, wash your ears folks. Arguably the finest 2 hours and 45 minutes of cinema this year, DKR has a very special and unique feel as the finale of the second best trilogy this side of the Millennia (LOTR). I take my Bathat off to you Nolan. And i'm not at all sorry for the jokes.

46/50 States