Review: Man of Steel

Anyone over the age of 18 (and a few naughty fake I.D. holders under 18) will have probably experienced this at some point in their lives: the feeling that accompanies stepping out of a nightclub at 3am in the morning. It's a feeling that oh so many of us will have experienced from the later years of our youth: returning to the outside world having just experienced a barrage of flashing lights, images and fleeting moments, through a constant and unrelenting series of loud noises and bass-heavy tunes that have left your poor ears hearing everything as a distant muffled echo. As the distorted memories from what was probably a rather empty and difficult to follow evening of events begins to settle, it is at this point that we find ourselves asking that all important question: was that actually an experience that I enjoyed, and was it all really worth it? Sure you may have had a few moments of fun with some familiar faces along the way, but it's ultimately a question that is more often than not followed by a crushing feeling of disappointment and regret.

Stepping out of Man of Steel was like stepping out of that proverbial nightclub.

After the huge critical and financial successful of the most recent Warner Bros./DC Comics film collaboration - Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy - Man of Steel follows closely in the footsteps of the recent Bat-franchise by giving Clark Kent, alias Superman (Henry Cavill), a Batman Begins style origin story set on a dark and more contemporary version of Earth. Yet with 'Supes' being born into his superpowers and getting used to them through childhood, the film features very little in the way of the character learning and adjusting to his new-found superhuman abilities that you might expect from most superhero origin films. Instead we have a tale of self-discovery: it's not about who Clark Kent was and what he's now become, it is about discovering who he has always been all along, and why. It is these parts of Man of Steel that are the most interesting and engaging to watch. Simple moments with Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Clark's adopted Earth parents are subtle, touching and emotionally endearing, and apparitions of Russell Crowe as his biological Kryptonian father help to further Kent's understanding of who he is and how he must choose to live his life. Presented here through a non-linear Nolan-esque telling of a story that fans will already know more or less through the original Christopher Reeve film series, the film's narrative feels fresh and engaging, and the film as a whole benefits greatly for it.

Subtlety is key: simple scenes between Clark and his adopted parents justify Man of Steel.

Yet to some extent, the focus on characters that makes Man of Steel so interesting also forms part of the film's undoing - namely in the relationship between Clark Kent and Lois Lane. Although Amy Adams does a great job of re-imagining the iconic Superman love interest, news reporter Lois Lane, and Henry Cavill absolutely has the visual presence of a perfect Superman, it is the rushed character development of the film's screenplay that truly lets down what could have been the beginnings of an appealing relationship. Instead of saving any time to allow the relationship to slowly blossom in a natural way, the screenplay chooses to thrust the two characters together rapidly; seemingly because they have to, rather than because it is the appropriate time to do so. As a result, any early signs of the fantastic chemistry and banterous dialogue that occur between the two (especially during an interrogation scene) are cut short by the need to forward the plot as quickly as possible in order to get to the big budget action sequences - and when the film presents an on-screen kiss towards its climax, the moment does not feel at all natural or necessary, but instead rushed into the film just for the sake of having it there. With an inevitable plan for more films to come (with MOS2 already in the works), there really is no reason why Zack Snyder and co. could not have slowed down such major character developments like this for potential follow-ups.

Alongside these issues in the screenplay is Man of Steel's complete lack of humour throughout. It's clear that Snyder is trying hard to avoid the camp humour style of the Marvel Avengers universe with its heightened gritty realism, yet even the comparable Dark Knight Trilogy which the film is trying to match is able to have some laughs at itself throughout. With just a few moments of very subtle humour featuring in a film about a man in a skin-tight blue costume with a bright red cape flapping at the rear, fighting a group of people wearing blackened Buzz Lightyear suits, it is clear that the film is taking itself far too seriously. I'm not looking for the comedy of the year, but a few more laughs and lighthearted moments certainly would have made Man of Steel a far more enjoyable film to watch, and may have even allowed for a greater engagement and likeability towards the film's character ensemble. But perhaps establishing characters and their emotional developments doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, for as soon as the film reaches its final forty minutes the concept of characters gets thrown straight out of the window: both figuratively and - unfortunately, far too often - literally.

When the lead in a humourless film wears this, you know it needs to lighten up a bit...

As soon as the film's lead villain, the kryptonian General Zod (Michael Shannon), touches down on Earth with his dastardly team who threaten the safety of the planet in order to track down the Man of Steel himself, the film turns from the intriguing Nolan-style Hollywood art film character-drama into a Zack Snyder/Michael Bay CGI action wet dream. I'd be lying if I said I could totally follow what happened for the final forty minutes of Man of Steel, but it's almost incomprehensible: an endless series of explosions, noise, large scale destruction, and people flying through buildings. It all suddenly becomes very difficult to follow, and even more difficult to care. Constant, repetitive, nonsensical action between seemingly invisible characters (who appear to be unable to feel any form of pain or suffering at all) naturally drags on far too long, proving nothing more than the fact that people punching each other for forty minutes does in fact get boring; very, very quickly. And it seems that no-one else can be hurt either, as even the majority of the millions of Metropolis city inhabitants appear to flee collapsing buildings and exploding vehicles without even as much as a scratch - it's comparable to a darker adult version of The Avengers' final battle in New York, just with less interesting characters, and a lot less enjoyment. It's at this point where Man of Steel becomes its own worst enemy - what starts off as a promising film ultimately becomes everything you fear it could possibly be; a headache-educing hollow Hollywood corporate box-office machine.

Supremely stylish but unsatisfyingly empty, Man of Steel kicks off what could have been a promising Super-franchise, but a lack of humour and a seemingly endless finale of loud and unrelenting CGI destruction ultimately leaves a sense of disappointment that unfortunately looms over any positivity that you may initially have towards the film; leaving you to walk out of the cinema with an distasteful memory of 40 minutes of boredom and confusion. Not without merit, Man of Steel is by no means as good as it should have been with the name of The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan attached to it. As the set-up to many inevitable sequels to come - and the on/off Justice League film that's still on everybody's lips - we can only hope that the already confirmed follow-up will be the film that we deserve, but it's almost certainly not the one we need right now.

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Man of Steel (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Man of Steel? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

12 of '12! Part 2.

Welcome back to my list of the top 12 films that I saw in 2012! So far I've counted down from 12 to 6, which leaves us with just five more to go - my favourite films of 2012. So let's not waste any more time, cue the Top of the Pops jingle because here are my top five films of 2012...

Pioneers of cinema itself, and previous Best Picture winner at the BAFTAs and Oscars last year (for my favourite film of 2011, The Artist), the French are at it again, with touching comedy Untouchable (original title: Intouchables). The film, which after becoming the second highest grossing film in the French box office experienced a warm reception overseas too, tells the story of a wealthy paraplegic who decides to hire a less well-off young man to be his carer, as he is the only person to show him the one thing he desires: no sympathy. There isn't an awful lot to not like about Untouchable; it is effortlessly the funniest comedy of the year, has a touching and thoughtful story at its centre, the beautiful setting of France, and a close buddy movie relationship at its heart that makes the film a real feel-good treat. It may be predictable from the outset to see how each of the characters will learn from one another as their relationship blooms, but any flaws become significantly less problematic as the film is such a joy to watch. When placed next to a mainstream comedy such as Ted which is equally predictable, the laughs in Untouchable feel honest and genuine when compared to a film that in comparison seems to try too hard to make its audience laugh. Once again the French prove that they really are the fathers of film!

Michael Fassbender proves that he has the balls (literally) to take on a very challenging film in Steve McQueen's hauntingly beautiful film Shame. This harrowing art film about sex addiction tackles a very difficult subject matter and makes it accessible to all through the undeniably human them of addiction as a whole. With its flawless cinematography, stunning performances from Fassbender and Mulligan, and superb direction, Shame allows you to step inside the mind of a man battling his inner demons, in a mesmerising and powerful way. Heavily snubbed at last year's awards ceremonies, this is a tour de force piece of filmmaking that blew me away. Click here to read the full review.

Easily the most inventive and unique films of the year, Berberian Sound Studio was also one of my personal favourites! Toby Jones proves how he is one of the best and perhaps overlooked British acting talents, in a film about the creation of horror sound effects in film itself. Whilst the first half of the film gives us an insight into the construction of film (rest in pieces melons and cabbages), the second half turns art house as the film then goes on to deconstruct itself, as the lines between ours, Gilderoy's and the horror film's diegeses begin to blur as reality and film merge. A remarkable piece of filmmaking that will leave you thinking, but more importantly entertained as what starts out as a normal drama soon turns into a very unique horror.

Sam Mendes Took a stab at the tried and tested 50 year old Bond formulae and well and truly proved that nobody does it better! Reinvented for a newer generation of cinema goers, Skyfall took the classic conventions of every Bond film, all of the elements that made them so enjoyable, and updated them to create an instant Bond classic... and then some! With a narrative that storms along at a pace like nothing else, some of the most extraordinary action set pieces in recent film history, stunning settings, skilful cinematography, a classic Bond song, and a modern and engaging character driven narrative, Skyfall was much more than just a good Bond film, it was a fantastic film full stop, and one that dared to offer more to those looking for it. Immensely fun, enjoyable and tirelessly exciting, Skyfall was one of the most satisfying films that I saw this year, and more than ticked all of the boxes. Click here to read the full review.

There's a great irony to the fact that I am posting this article on the day that the 2013 Oscar nominations were announced, as my film of the year rather shockingly garnered a total of 0 nominations (and just 1 for the BAFTAs yesterday), despite vast critical acclaim, approval from waves of cinema goers and fans alike, and for concluding one of the greatest film trilogies of all time. I am of course talking about Christopher Nolan's epic Bat-Finale, The Dark Knight Rises. This sudden backlash of accolade for the film comes as a shock to me, as I am in nothing short of complete admiration for Nolan's work in this remarkable film. Where to begin? It's a comic book action film, that's intelligent and engaging, relevant and poignant, entertaining and moving - a Hollywood blockbuster of art house quality. It has a tremendous cast playing deep characters in a film which is in essence a character piece that focusses not on Batman, but on the broken shadow of a man behind the mask. It contains some of the best moments of cinema of all time within a film that I discover more and more within every time I see it. It is traditionally shot on film (which holds a certain special quality to me compared to digital), and more impressively on IMAX, which in my eyes remains the most impressive technical advancement in film - and seeing the entire IMAX print on the grand canvas of an IMAX screen made for one of, if not the single greatest cinema experiences that I have ever seen. Heavy use of CGI is put aside (and see if you can notice when it's used anyway!) in favour for real visual effects, creating a more impressive aesthetic experience for us cinema goers. All of which Nolan implements in most of his films, and to which I admire greatly, but what makes The Dark Knight Rises stand out is the epic scale that it encompasses within all of these areas, really pushing the limits in what can be done in film - they dropped an actual plane out of the sky in the film's opening scene for Pete's sake! I adored Nolan's work on this incredible finale of a film and the entire Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole, and whilst the Oscars may refuse to acknowledge it, I give it the title of my film of 2012. Click here to read the full review.

Of course it wouldn't be a best of list without a few honourable mentions, and 2012 gave us so many good films that I just couldn't fit them all into my top 12 list. In fact I could probably even do an honourable mentions list for my honourable mentions with so many enjoyable releases! So are just a few of the films that narrowly missed out on places in my 12 of '12:

• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: A fun outing that made for a much welcome return to the realms of Middle Earth, yet without the rose tinted glasses the over long running time (and we're only a third of the way through!) meant that the film was Baggins at times, resulting in it being more ummin' and aahin' than Balin and Dwalin; less Thorin and more borin' and snorin'! Yet as soon as Gollum steps onto the scene, everything suddenly comes alive, and the film well and truly begun. (Full Review)
• Lawless: a great modern gangster film that I enjoyed immensely. Shia LaBeouf was actually good in the role, and Tom Hardy (along with his role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises) proved that he can convey the raw animalistic intensity of a character with just his eyes and a grunt! A fun film that I struggled to keep out of my list.
• Brave: Pixar's latest offering was a visual treat that had a touching mother/daughter story at the centre of it. Whilst it wasn't the studio's best piece due to the strict confines of the fairytale genre, it was certainly a lot of fun, with a refreshing female lead, and the clans and the triplets bringing a great comic relief to the animated proceedings. (Full Review)
• Prometheus: fair to say that this was a film that divided people; I actually very much enjoyed Sir Ridley's return to the Alien universe, and even almost gave it a spot in my top 12! Perhaps it did ask more questions than it did answer, but is that really such a bad thing? Whilst I admire the stylistic qualities of the old fashioned sci-fi immensely, each time I watch it I find more and more thing to think about within the narrative, which leaves me enjoying it all the more. (Full Review)
• Frankenweenie: Tim Burton returned to classic stop-motion animation in great style with his pastiche of the monster movie genre. Not only was it crammed with references and a lot of fun, it was also the only film that I have seen that seemed to purposefully use its 3D effect to add to its narrative. Yes that's right folks; it made me fleetingly believe in 3D! What more can I say!? (Full Review)
• The Descendants: A big contender for awards season last year, the George Clooney starring film was mostly just an alright film, which elevated itself to a very emotional and poignant piece at times. There is nothing more heartbreaking than a shot of a young girl being told that she will never get to see her dying mother again - I haven't teared up this much since Toy Story 3!

Well there you have it folks, my cinematic highlights of 2012 (out of the films that I actually managed to see); I hope that you enjoyed this read, and now it's your turn to get involved too! I'd love to hear what your top films of the year were too, so be sure to let me know in the comments section below. Or perhaps you want to give me a telling off for forgetting one of your favourite films of the year; maybe you just cannot stand my taste in film!? Whatever it maybe I always love to hear from you guys too, so make sure to leave a message below.

Here's to 2013 being just as good a year for film!

Review: Gangster Squad

The 1940's Avengers Assemble in a Classic Warner Brothers Gangster film for a new generation!

In 1949, as Mafia Crime Lord Mickey Cohen's (Sean Penn) wave of terror continues to grow throughout Los Angeles, a special unit of L.A.P.D's finest, lead by Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin), are assembled  to end Cohen's reign once and for all. Can the newly conceived 'Gangster Squad' get the job done by cleansing the streets of the criminal underworld and all making it out alive?

Many moons ago, the folks at Warner Bros. Studios were well known for their output of Gangster films, through the 1930s especially with the films that helped to make the likes of James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart stars. Based on true crime stories of speakeasies and Capone Era Gangster movements that were happening at the time (as well as working as a deterrent to stop people committing the crimes), the studio's Gangster cycle became less significant and ultimately ended with the age of the gangster, bar the odd exception, like... oh I dunno... Gangster Squad! Yes folks, those iconic men in long coats, fedora hats, smoky rooms, exotic nightclubs and big shoot-outs are back! The question remains, is it a welcome return?...

Mickey Cohen handing himself over to the police? If only it were that simple...

As someone who loves watching those old black and white films featuring the sharp talking and even sharper shooting gangsters, it's a mixed bag for me. There is a nagging part of the back of my mind saying that this isn't what I want to see, mainly because of the modern filmmaking techniques used; It's odd seeing this very familiar world through the lens of a dynamic moving camera and the occassional Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes inspired slow motion shots. It also feels a lot less authentic being shown through a digital projector rather than on film, and strangely enough, in colour! Being shot in 3D would have been a big nail in the coffin for me, so I'm very glad that the filmmakers and the studio chose not to do that. Apart from that though the film gets it pretty much right, delivering exactly what I wanted to see (although I have a few mixed feelings about the ending, I'll leave them out to avoid spoilers).

With the focus being on good ol' fashioned characters, the cast also does a fantastic job, with an ensemble of modern acting greats taking on the classic style approach and pulling it off. Sean Penn gives a menacing performance as Mickey Cohen, a man who through Penn comes across as a very wild and dangerous presence. Josh Brolin leads the squad very well and feels very much at home in this environment, as if he were from the era himself. The ever-wonderful Emma Stone looks the part as the stunning female presence, but it's not a character that is explored too much, understandably so within the time frame of the film however (albeit a lot more developed and significant than you may expect). Heartthrob Ryan Gosling continues to break hearts as the quintessential pretty-faced cool guy, playing a character somewhere between his roles in Crazy, Stupid Love and Drive - an expert in women and violence! He plays the role well and provides a great screen presence, but would have benefited if he only had a bit more Drive to his performance, especially for in this sort of film.

Ryan Gosling charms the pants off of Emma Stone, and everyone else (admit it men, even you!).

Speaking of not having enough Drive, the film on the whole does play it a bit too safe for my liking, especially in terms of the narrative - the story on the whole is too simple and generic. I'd have perhaps liked something a bit more ambitious to really make the film stand out as something special, however having said that, sometimes there is nothing wrong with being completely average! In being a film that is so generic, Gangster Squad does become a loving tribute to those gangster films, and the fact of the matter is that that is what I wanted to see. Had the film strayed away from that then I'd have probably felt even more disappointed, because what I really wanted to see was those 1940s men, in their 1940s cars, with their 1940s suits, in their 1940s world! From that perspective the film delivers in being very aesthetically pleasing big time, and spending time in that world is just a pleasure and a hell of a lot of fun. At the end of the day the film is nothing new, and it certainly won't change your world, but it's not trying to; it's a very enjoyable romp, and for those who love this period and genre they will love it even more-so for it.

What's very interesting about this film's historical context aside from it's 1940s 'based on true events' story, is the more recent history of the film itself that makes it a significant piece of our time. For those who don't already know, Gangster Squad was initially set for release last September, with a pivotal scene featuring a shoot-out in a cinema. However being a Warner Brothers film, as was The Dark Knight Rises, in the wake of the tragic cinema shooting in Colorado, America last summer the scene was cut and rewrote, with all trailers featuring footage from the scene immediately retracted. It's a sad piece of history that won't soon be forgotten, and this film will last as a reminder of it. The scene re-shot in question is now set in Chinatown instead, and provides one of the more cinematic and extravagant settings of the film - in fact if I wasn't any the wiser I'd have mistaken it for a scene intended to be there from the start. The sad truth of it all is that Gangster Squad will go down in cinema history, but for all the wrong reasons.

The Chinatown scene won't soon be forgotten in the greater context.

Gangster Squad takes the old Warner Brothers classic Gangster film formulae and reinvents and updates it for a new generation. It may not be a perfect film but it is certainly a lot of fun, and what the film lacks originality it more than makes up for in satisfying expectations by delivering everything that you'd possibly want and expect from the Gangster piece. 1940's sounds and surroundings, a great ensemble of actors, Thompson submachine guns, shoot-outs, dancing girls, booze, cars, suits, fedoras, gangsters and squads - what more could you possibly ask for in a film like this!?

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Gangster Squad (certificate 15) is released in cinemas across the UK on January 10th.

Are you looking forward to Gangster Squad? Have you already seen it? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Fans may have been waiting nearly ten years for The Hobbit to finally be adapted for the big screen, but this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is never late, nor is it early, it has arrived precisely when it meant to - well almost! The road for the filmmakers and the fans has been nearly as long as the one Bilbo Baggins is just about to embark upon himself, with changing directors and studio crises aplenty, but now that it's finally here the big question will be answered: was it all worth the wait?

The first instalment of Peter Jackson's LOTR prequel trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, sees familiar Hobbit face Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) embark on an adventure with wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and a group of Dwarves to reclaim an ancient treasure taken from the Dwarves by the dragon Smaug. Along the way, the fellowship must encounter numerous creatures, challenges and threats, as well as a familiar face or two from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, including a certain motion-captured Gollum (Andy Serkis), who just so happens to be in possession of a certain ring of power! The journey will be long and perilous, and it has only just begun...

Home, Sweet Home.

This one is going to be a bit trickier than most of my reviews, for as you'd probably expect it's difficult to review a film that you've only seen 1/3 of! Of course I did see the whole of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - I didn't get annoyed and walk out an hour in or anything - but in the grand scheme of things this is just the first of three films that will make up the film adaptation of The Hobbit, and much like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy I expect that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. Unlike other great film trilogies, like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy for instance, the three films form the beginning, middle and end to Bruce Wayne's story, but each film is its own individual piece that can be watched without necessarily needing the others. Whereas in the case of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings the tree parts form just one continuous story, making it difficult to fully appreciate just one of the films as a standalone piece. So for those asking the popular question 'is it as good as The Lord of Rings?' - come back and ask me summer 2014!

As for part one of The Hobbit, fans of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy should feel what I felt; a sense of coming home. Returning to the world of Middle-Earth is nothing short of a nostalgic pleasure, jumping back down the Hobbit hole into the shire brought back the warm sense of homeliness established over a decade ago - I was back where I wanted to be, I was back home. Peter Jackson continues his cinematic argument that New Zealand is the most beautiful place in the world, with stunning vistas of wide fields, streams, mountains, forests and the like bringing the adventure well and truly to life. It all seems so familiar, with thanks in part to Peter Jackson returning to the helm to give the a film stylistic consistency with LOTR (whilst I'd have been fascinated to have seen how Guillermo Del Toro would have handled The Hobbit when he was set to direct it, I am glad to see Jackson back for this reason), and also with the return of a number of key members of the original cast too. I shan't give away all of the returning characters for those who don't know, but as you'll probably already be aware Ian McKellen returns in fine form as the lovable wizard Gandalf the Grey, and Andy Serkis steals the entire film with his reprisal of the iconic character Gollum in the best sequence of the entire film. But let us not forget the newer members of the cast too, with Martin Freeman effortlessly bringing life to Bilbo Baggins, and the ensemble of Dwarves forming a similar pleasure to be around too.

Andy Serkis steals the show once again by reprising his 'precious' role as Gollum

However, all is not well down in Middle-Earth. Whilst a Hobbit may be short, The Hobbit is not, in fact just like the epic trilogy that it is a precursor to, An Unexpected Journey is just short of a 3 hour running time. The film is very long, and at a number of points it does take it's time, which is good in some respects as it allows the us to fully explore the characters and plots of the film, but at times it is drawn out far too much to become unnecessary and a little tedious. This is where the maths doesn't quite add up: The Lord of the Rings is 3 books and 1077 pages long, where as The Hobbit is just 1 book and 255 pages long. So if there are 3 LOTR films each approximately 3 hours long, logically there should not be 3 Hobbit films at the same length if the tale is that much shorter. The Hobbit would benefit from a much shorter running time, as the film does not need as much time as the much bigger, more eventful Lord of the Rings Trilogy needs. They may be linked by certain characters, locations and events, but these are two very different stories. The Hobbit is a much more family based tale (with characters like Radagast the Brown and his cute woodland friends illustrating that point precisely), and the question needs to be asked: how many children can sit through such a long film?

This point extends further into the film's classification of a 12A, with some very dark moments and creatures that may not appropriate for the younger potential audience members. In this sense the film seems confused between deciding what it wants to be: the separate and more family orientated tale of The Hobbit, or the dark and foreboding precursor to The Lord of the Rings. However as I touched upon earlier, it was the prequel nature of the film that made it so enjoyable for me. As you'd expect the film ends on the cliff-hanger of the further journey ahead, and with certain elements of the LOTR trilogy already in place, I left the cinema in anticipatory excitement not only for the next chapter of The Hobbit story, but also to see how this will further lead into the events of The Lord of the Rings. The film ends on an exciting high note that will make the year long wait for The Desolation of Smaug a painful one.

Bilbo and the Dwarves face their greatest challenge yet - the long wait for the sequel!

The film is structured around - as readers of the book may already be familiar with - a series of mini-adventures that Bilbo and the gang encounter on their grand adventure to rescue the lost treasure. My main criticism toward this is that it does feel like something more appropriate for a television mini-series than to a film, with an episodic structure that would work on the smaller screen similar to something like Band of Brothers (with 10 1 hour episodes that make up the whole story) - breaking up the long run-time and making it more accessible to the family audience. It is also worth mentioning with all the hype and controversy surrounding the film being shot at 48 frames per second (rather than the standard 24fps) that I did see the film in 24fps 3D so cannot comment upon this matter, but I have heard several people saying that watching it at 48 gives the film a television feel (as TV is broadcast at a higher frame rate), further adding to that idea. (If I get the chance to view the film at 48fps as I hope to at some point, I shall update this section.)

EDIT: Debate 48. Well I had the opportunity to see the film again the other day in HFR (High Frame Rate) 3D and it's an odd experience I have to say. First of all the fluidity and the sense of higher definition hit me straight away as the Warner Bros. logo flew onto the screen at the very start of the film. However from the very first shots of the film problems very quickly began to appear for me. I personally  found through watching The Hobbit that in some cases the effect of seeing 48fps made things look like they were moving at double speed, in particular dynamic moving shots, close-up shots, short shots, and shots with a lot going on in them. As other people have said it can also give the effect as if you're watching live TV too, and I also felt this, as well as some shots (often unsteady ones) looking like home video footage. For a lot of the film it wasn't too bad, but quite often the same side effects would return to haunt me throughout. Perhaps this was just me, if you saw it at 48fps too then I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences in the comments below - nonetheless, I've yet to be won over by HFR films...

It has been a long wait for fans of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and readers of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic novel, but finally The Hobbit has arrived. Despite some problems with the film's running time and plots that cause it to drag at times, fans should feel a sense of pleasure in returning to the wonderful visual worlds and inhabitants of Middle-Earth after such a long time. Perhaps not as masterful as the LOTR Trilogy, An Unexpected Journey gets off to a bumpy but promising start for the rest of the films with scene stealing moments with Gollum and a foreboding cliff-hanger, but we'll have to wait until Summer 2014 when the final piece is released before we can see the bigger picture and decide just how good this prequel trilogy really is. One thing is for sure though: this Christmas, it'll be the film that everyone is Tolkien about...

Verdict: 4/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen the first instalment of The Hobbit Trilogy? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Trailer Park: Iron Man 3

The Journey to The Avengers 2 Begins...

"Marvel Studios’ Iron Man 3 pits brash-but-brilliant industrialist Tony Stark/Iron Man against an enemy whose reach knows no bounds. When Stark finds his personal world destroyed at his enemy’s hands, he embarks on a harrowing quest to find those responsible. This journey, at every turn, will test his mettle*. With his back against the wall, Stark is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him. As he fights his way back, Stark discovers the answer to the question that has secretly haunted him: does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man? Starring Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Stephanie Szostak, James Badge Dale with Jon Favreau and Ben Kingsley, Iron Man 3 is directed by Shane Black." (*So much love for the use of this pun in the studio's official synopsis!)

It has only been a few months since Robert Downey Jr. last put on his most famous suit by gracing the big screen in Marvel's mega-franchise Avengers Assemble, and just one year on; he's back! As the synopsis and the new trailer released this morning suggest, this seems to be Tony Stark's most personal challenge yet (don't count on him giving his Avengers pals a quick call for help in this one), setting up a film which should be more along the lines of the original Iron Man and deliberately steering away from Iron Man 2; the overcrowded nature of which didn't know whether it wanted to be an Iron Man sequel or an Avengers prequel - sounds good to me!

It looks like the trailer is confirming the rumours about the use of the comic book's Extremis storyline with Stark and the Suit starting to become one - something which should prove to make an interesting twist and really push the character to the limits; which probably explains those foreboding and bleak, snow-ridden shots at the start and end of the trailer. With Ben Kingsley playing comic book villain the Mandarin - who is already resembling something of a Bane-like terrorist in this trailer - this third instalment looks like it should be a solid addition to the Iron Man franchise, and rather promisingly not unlike certain themes and tones from Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy; with a new director, a new style and a new tone, Iron Man 3 is already looking set to kick off Marvel's Phase 2 plan with a bang as it ventures its way down the long road to The Avengers 2...

What do you think? Check out the new trailer below and leave your thoughts in the comments section.

Iron Man 3 is set for release in cinemas across the UK on April 26th 2013.

Are you looking forward to Tony Stark's third installment, or is this iron starting to rust? Will it be a blockbuster or lacklustre? Leave your comments below!

Review: Looper

I wonder if the DVD will have a bLooper reel...

"Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been" narrates young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), "I work as a specialized assassin, in an outfit called the Loopers. When my organization from the future wants someone to die, they zap them back to me and I eliminate the target from the future. The only rule is: never let your target escape... even if your target is you." Of course I'm sure you can gage the general plot for Director Rian Johnson's Looper from this quote alone: when his future self is sent back from the year 2072 to be executed, young Joe is suddenly confronted by the image of himself 30 years older (Bruce Willis). But after his target escapes, young Joe must stop his older self at any cost before he can do anything drastic enough to paradoxically alter time-lines, as well as to save his own life from the very organisation that he works for.

Imagine picking up your A Level exam results; you open up that brown paper envelope and pull out your results, and look at that: you got an A! How fantastic, that's absolutely brilliant. But then you realise you were just 1 mark off of an A* grade. A brilliant mark nonetheless, but one that is so painfully close to being perfect. This is how I felt after I had finished watching the new sci-fi thriller Looper: a brilliant piece of filmmaking but one that is flawed in a few minor places, frustratingly preventing it from being something really, really remarkable.

Willis and Gordon-Levitt's next project: 'Dude, Where's my Hair?'

Let's back track a little bit first off though and take a look at why the film is brilliant in the first place before I start abusing it! Boasting a well written script, Looper is an original, entertaining and intelligent modern sci-fi that follows nicely in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan's 2010 blockbuster Inception and Duncan Jones' 2011 time travel film Source Code. With a budget that sits somewhere in-between the gargantuan Inception and relatively small-budget of Source Code, Looper results in being a very stylish and very slickly executed piece, with any and all uses of CGI elements being used tastefully and not at all overbearing as they can often result in being in some films today (something that I find can often make a film less timeless as a result of dated looking CGI effects). In particular, this is perfectly seen in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face, which is very impressively made to resemble Bruce Willis' through a perfect combination of make-up and CGI enhancements.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who spent his summer battling Bane's army as Blake in The Dark Knight Rises, shines as the film's tough and gritty leading man role that his career has been leading up to (well, technically only half the lead role I guess...) - it is great to see such a fantastically talented screen-presence finally getting the top billing that he deserves. Supporting him is Emily Blunt who provides a really refreshing and a much needed strong female presence in the male dominated world of the film. Bruce Willis as the other half of the leading man is also a brilliant screen presence, displaying a bit of actual acting which provides a much needed contrast to his OTT gun slinging role in this summer's The Expendables 2. Of course that's not to say that Willis doesn't get any action at all in the film; Looper actually features a number of very engaging and exciting action set pieces throughout, including one particular scene with Willis' character mid-film which despite feeling like a pleasant piece of nostalgia hearkening back to 80s sci-fi action films like The Terminator (a clear inspiration for the film), does brings us nicely onto some of the problems that I had with the film...

Time's up for JGL's next victim in Looper

Despite everything I loved about the film, there were a few minor niggles that put me off somewhat. The Bruce Willis scene that I just mentioned - without spoiling anything for those who haven't seen the film yet - whilst brief does get a bit silly and feels like a scene from something like The Expendables 2. This is perfectly fine in one sense (c'mon, it's Bruce Willis!), but it did feel like a bit of a shame considering how much I'd appreciated Willis' more toned down performance throughout. This particular scene also ends a one of the important narrative strands of the film in a very sudden manor, which unfortunately made it feel somewhat rushed and underdeveloped as a result; especially when the outcome of this means that we get to spend less time with Jeff Daniels' (seen recently in Aaron Sorkin's excellent TV series The Newsroom) character Abe who is a fantastic presence in a role not unlike a slightly toned down version of his brilliant Will McAvoy character from The Newsroom... with a beard! This scene comes during the middle of a very long period of time set on Sara's (Emily Blunt) farm which slows things down a lot and in contrast actually felt too long (although arguably necessary and important to the plot) - I couldn't help but think that time could have been spread a little better during these parts to get the pacing balance just right.

My biggest problem with the film however is the telekinesis sub-plot (referred to as 'TK' in the film) which was somewhat unexpected to say the least. I'll once again avoid spoilers here but for me the whole sub-plot, especially towards the end, felt very random and out of place in the story and perhaps one leap of faith too far that I just couldn't fully buy into. A much more subdued alternative could have been put into place here which would still have allowed the film to come to the conclusion that it needed to. As it stands it did feel like a bit of a shame that within a film grounded so well into a believable sense of future reality to see an element of human evolution that leads to certain individuals being able to levitate objects; I just couldn't buy it. As a result this whole premise feels like it's been put into place by the filmmakers in order to feature some cool Inception-esque slow-motion floating effects into the proceedings (although if you don't think about it too much, it is stylistically very cool).

TK, or not TK: is it one plot too far?

In terms of the time travel storyline, as with all time travel films there are going to be plot holes aplenty. This is simply because time travel is impossible, and so there are numerous theories about how it could work but no definitive proof to support any of them. Therefore the best way to execute a time travel plot in film is to stick to one theory rather than to mix and match theories where and when it feels convenient; in any case though, in terms of time travel the best thing to do is to just not think about or criticise it too much, as there'll always be a problem with it somewhere. In terms of Looper, I did get the sense that it was picking and choosing theories when and where it was convenient, however the premise of the film is one so interesting and original that it doesn't come across as an issue at all - just try to enjoy and to not think about it too much, because if you do it will completely fall apart!...

Not unlike Drive last year, Looper is 2012's end of year gem of a film that you probably weren't expecting to find. With an entertaining, engaging and original sci-fi premise (that sits nicely alongside Inception and Source Code as modern sci-fi greats), fantastic action set-pieces, a wonderful cast and impressive visual effects (featuring enough lens-flares to entertain your average J.J. Abrams), Looper is an intelligent yet simple, stylish and entertaining piece that just so happens to be the big film of the moment - and if you're lucky it might just become one of your favourites of 2012! The more I think about Looper, the more I like it (although the time travel stuff  does fall to pieces if you think about it for too long); it's just a bit of a shame that there are a few problems with the film which ultimately prevent it from becoming something really special. But if you can look past these few minor niggles you'll get a very, very good piece of modern filmmaking that is a real treat.

Verdict: 4/5

Looper (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Looper? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

...And the Oscar goes to... - Predicting the 2013 Oscar Nominees

So the summer blockbuster season is coming to a close now, and soon we'll be seeing the wave of 'Oscar-bait' films being released as we enter awards season. Now we may be a long way away from the actual Oscars ceremony yet - with nominations due to be announced on January 15th, and the ceremony itself to be held on February 24th - and it may be too soon to accurately predict what will be nominated and what will win; but that doesn't mean I can't give it a try right!? So here's my little experiment; I've drawn up a list of nominees for next year's 85th Academy Awards that I believe are likely to be chosen based on what has been released so far this year and what is due for release in the awards season, as well as looking at the trends and controversies of past Oscar results. Of course this could all be likely to change, as some relatively unknown film could come out of no-where at the last minute and take all the big awards (and if the last two years' big winners The Artist and The King's Speech are anything to go by, this could very well happen); however if I'm even relatively close to getting this right, then that will say a hell of a lot more about the predictability and politics of the Academy and could provide an interesting debate next February...

So who will be 2013's big winner then!? Well if my predictions are accurate next year's awards ceremony will be a two horse race (similar to this year's with Scorsese's Hugo and Hazanavicius' The Artist) between Christopher Nolan's epic BatFinale The Dark Knight Rises and the Wachowski brothers' (The Matrix) upcoming film Cloud Atlas. Now some of you may be thinking "hang on, those are two big budget Hollywood films - doesn't the Academy only like small budget art-house stuff?" Well no actually, the Academy has been known to nominate and praise a lot of big budget Hollywood films (mega-budget Avatar was nominated for best picture in 2010), and in fact a lot of them have actually won the Best Picture award (including Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). Besides that, what both of these films have in common is that they both to some extent actually bridge this divide by being big budget Hollywood art house films - both sporting an Oscar worthy cast of actors who have won in the past. Just from watching its trailer you can see how that logic applies to Cloud Atlas, which with its large and ambitious scale focuses on a story of humanity and life - and judging by some early reviews that have surfaced this morning after last night's première, it looks like it's got the potential to be a big hit (although one that will potentially divide a lot of audiences), and it certainly will be when the Academy give it their seal of approval.

As for The Dark Knight Rises, not only is this a brilliant piece of filmmaking that well and truly deserves the recognition, I also think that there is more to it than that - enter the Oscar politics! For this case I'm going to bring in two examples; The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and The Departed. Both of these films won the best picture for two very different reasons, and in each case arguably for not being the best film of the year! It is widely believed that Return of the King did so well at the Oscars as recognition for the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy - and I don't think that I need to point out how this is a similar scenario to Christopher Nolan's brilliant Dark Knight Trilogy do I!? As for The Departed, most people will agree that the Oscar was awarded to this as recognition for Martin Scorsese's entire career after not having won any Oscars for any of his previous films - which the majority of people will agree are better and more original than English language re-make The Departed. Now there was a small bit of controversy back in 2011 when Christopher Nolan was not nominated for the Directing category for his brilliant film Inception - and that there is a strong chance that the Academy will see this as 'Nolan's turn'. If you take all of these factors into account, I think that The Dark Knight Rises does stand a pretty good chance of doing very well at the Oscars next February and possibly taking the big prize.

As for the other big contenders, I think the main ones in the running for a lot of categories but mainly Best Picture will be the following: Tarantino's Django Unchained, Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master (the dark horse that could be this years The King's Speech/The Artist if Harvey Weinstein has his way as he so often does), Tom Hooper's Les Misérables (which almost certainly won't win Best Picture or Direction after Director Tom Hooper won just two years ago for The King's Speech), Spielberg's Lincoln (not to be confused with the one about his fighting vampires...), and possibly Ang Lee's Life of Pi, Ben Affleck's Argo, and the Coen Bros. Gambit - and it is likely that other films will join this list over the next few months. Some of these are very likely to scoop some awards in a couple of categories, and some of them are very likely to win nothing at all - I do still feel that the night will belong to Cloud Atlas or The Dark Knight Rises or both though - of course, only time will tell...

So without further ado - exclusively on Beyond Infinity Film a whole 4 months and 6 days before the academy will announce it themselves - the nominee's for the 85th Academy Awards:

(Nominees in bold represent who I predict will stand a good chance of winning.) 

Best Picture:
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Django Unchained; The Master; Les Misérables; Lincoln; Life of Pi; Argo, Gambit. (Possibly more...)


Actor In a Leading Role:
Tom Hanks - Cloud Atlas; Joaquin Phoenix - The Master; Daniel Day Lewis - Lincoln; Hugh Jackman - Les Misérables; Jamie Foxx - Django Unchained. (Possible nominee: Christian Bale - The Dark Knight Rises).

Actress In a Leading Role:
Halle Berry - Cloud Atlas; Anne Hathaway - Les Misérables; Keira Knightley - Anna Karenina; other two nominees to be confirmed.

Actor In a Supporting Role:
Michael Caine - The Dark Knight Rises (a small role that brought an extraordinary emotional weight to the film); Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master; Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained; either Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman - The Dark Knight Rises or two actors from Cloud Atlas (or one from each). 

Actress In a Supporting Role:
Anne Hathaway - The Dark Knight Rises (if not nominated for Leading Actress - either category the nomination would be for both roles); Amy Adams - The Master; other three nominees to be confirmed.

Animated Feature Film:
Brave; The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists (titled in America: The Pirates! Band of Misfits); Wreck-It Ralph; Frankenweenie; other nominee to be confirmed.

Cinematography:
Wally Pfister - The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Django Unchained; Les Misérables; Lincoln. 

Art Direction:
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Django Unchained; Les Misérables; Life of Pi. 

Costume Design:
Cloud Atlas; Lincoln; Les Misérables; Django Unchained; The Dark Knight Rises.

Directing:
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Rises; Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master; Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski - Cloud Atlas; Tom Hooper - Les Misérables; Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained; Steven Spielberg - Lincoln. Note: only five directors will be nominated in this category - I can't decide which one of these won't though!

Documentary Feature:
Into the Abyss: a Tale of Death, a Tale of Life; The Imposter; other three nominees to be confirmed. 

Documentary Short:
To be confirmed.

Film Editing:
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Django Unchained; Les Misérables; Lincoln.

Foreign Language Film:
To be confirmed.

Makeup:
Lincoln; Les Misérables; Cloud Atlas. 

Music (Original Score):
The Dark Knight Rises; Les Misérables; Cloud Atlas; Lincoln; Django Unchained. Note: I'm not entirely sure if The Dark Knight Rises or Les Misérables are allowed to be nominated here if their score are not entirely original (based on music from the previous films and the stage show respectively).

Music (Original Song):
Les Misérables (one song has been written for the film); other four nominees to be confirmed (the Academy has announced that this will be the first year that five songs will be nominated for the award, after last year only two being nominated).

Short Film (Animated):
To be confirmed.

Short Film (Live Action):
To be confirmed.

Sound Editing:
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Les Misérables; Avengers Assemble (titled in America: The Avengers); Berberian Sound Studio.

Sound Mixing:
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Les Misérables; Avengers Assemble (titled in America: The Avengers); Berberian Sound Studio. 

Visual Effects: 
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Skyfall; Avengers Assemble (titled in America: The Avengers); Berberian Sound Studio. 

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
The Dark Knight Rises; Cloud Atlas; Django Unchained; Les Misérables; Life of Pi. 

Writing (Original Screenplay):
Lincoln; The Master; other three nominees to be confirmed. 

So there you have it folks! Of course it's still very early days, and all of this could change completely within the space of a week or so, but let's just wait and see how this little experiment pans out. Of course it says a lot about how predictable the Academy is if these predictions are even remotely accurate, especially considering that most of these films haven't even been released yet! It'll certainly be interesting when the nominees are announced on January 15th - and it'll be even more interesting when the BAFTA nominees are released too as forerunner Cloud Atlas isn't released in the UK until March, making it inapplicable for any nominations...

So what do you think of my prediction? Wrong or Right? Who do you think will win on the night? Have I missed anything off, or is it just too soon to make a prediction like this? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below.

Trailer Park: Man of Steel

Superman gets the Batman Begins treatment; so 'Superman Starts'!?...

2006 was the year that last saw the world's most iconic superhero grace the big screen, and next year; Superman Returns (brownie points if you got that!). After being sent to Earth as a child, Clark Kent is adopted into a human family in Kansas. Time passes and today Kent, who disguises his identity as a journalist, protects the Earth with his extraordinary powers whenever he dons his iconic costume to become Superman. Soon however Superman will be tested to the limits when a deadly threat strikes...

Whilst I'm not a huge Superman fan and haven't really followed his many other big screen outings much, I do know how big a deal this film could be. Firstly Man of Steel boasts the talents of David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan on writing duties, the double act behind the incredible Dark Knight Trilogy which has just come to an epic conclusion with The Dark Knight Rises which is now showing in cinemas. These two men have just finished reviving the once dead in the water Batman franchise, turning it into what most people would deem the best superhero films of all time - if anyone can make a Superman film work, it's these guys, and as you can tell by the trailer the film is clearly taking the Batman Begins approach to relaunch the franchise. Secondly, after the success of Marvel's Avengers Assemble, rumours have been persistent that rival DC comics are eager to get a Justice League film in motion - so this film could be the beginning of something much bigger! Alongside these factors, just from the trailer and poster alone it does look like this could be a very good film, and it's certainly the first Superman film that has grabbed my attention in a big way; check out the trailer for yourself and let me know what you think too:

Man of Steel is set for release in cinemas across the UK on June 14th 2013.

Are you expecting little from this film, or do you think it will be super...man!? Will it be a blockbuster or lacklustre? Leave your comments below!

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Director Christopher Nolan concludes the trilogy that turned "nah-nah nah-nah nah-nah nah-nah Batman!" into "yes-yes yes-yes yes-yes yes-yes Batman!"

The Dark Knight Rises picks up 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight; Gotham City is plagued with the threat of a new villain; the terrorist Bane (Tom Hardy). As Gotham sees its darkest hour, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) goes against his word and dons his bat-suit once again to become Batman - the city's Dark Knight - in order to face his greatest challenge yet.

Coming in at around 2 hours and 45 minutes, The Dark Knight Rises is a very, very long film - and at times it doesn't half feel like it! In the wake of 2008's The Dark Knight and all of Nolan's other cinematic greats there was an almost unbeatable amount of anticipation for this film, and from that perspective there was a slight feeling of disappointment for me at least. By the end of the film the main plot did feel rather simple (and strangely reminiscent of one scene from 1966's Batman: The Movie in many respects - never thought I'd say that!) for a Nolan film - from which you'd usually come to expect a lot more than what is on the surface - and for someone who has seen all of Nolan's other films was expecting a bit more.

But having said all that, less is more (but try telling that to the running time). Instead of focusing on blowing minds Nolan digs deep a bit further into our emotions instead in order to complete a film and a trilogy that are both truly historic moments of cinema. Whilst the film is long, it's as a result of immense attention to detail in story and plot that all builds up to create the bigger picture at the end - yes it could have been shorter, but I commend it for not being so - as a result Nolan creates a compelling, emotional, and breathtaking finale to his incredible Bat-saga. (C'mon, you weren't really expecting me to give this a bad review now were you!?)

Tom Hardy is the Bane of Batman's (Christian Bale) life in The Dark Knight Rises.

Well written and beautifully shot by Christopher Nolan and his excellent team (a special tip of the hat must be made to Director of Photography Wally Pfister), The Dark Knight Rises is an intelligent blockbuster that twists and turns repeatedly, keeping you guessing and double guessing right through to the very end. This is the beauty of a Nolan film - that regardless of however complex or not the story may be, it is always presented in such a way that it is constantly disillusioning you until the very last piece of puzzle comes into place right at the end of the film. Nolan is both a master storyteller and filmmaker who knows how the two work together and how they can be manipulated and developed in order to create the best result that will last with the audience. Whilst I correctly predicted how the film would end even before seeing it, there wasn't one moment where the film didn't force me to doubt myself as to how it would get there, and constantly throughout the film I was still being surprised with each choice that was made. The ending itself without spoiling anything is done perfectly as to allow everyone to feel satisfied with the film's conclusion (hopefully you'll understand what I'm talking about if you've seen it - you can't imagine how difficult it is to write this spoiler-free!).

Christian Bale leads an incredible cast with an excellent returning performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman which pushes the character to the very limits unlike anything seen in either of the other two films. Tom Hardy's Bane presents an incredible villain figure who many people may not recognise (his only film appearance was as a minor grunting bodyguard type role in Batman and Robin - the film that almost killed the Batman franchise before Nolan saved it), but one that no-one will forget. Anne Hathaway naturally has a large role in the film playing Selina Kyle/Catwoman, a screen presence so spectacular that she steals a lot of the scenes. Whilst some people were concerned about Catwoman's presence, rest assured that she is presented purr-fectly (couldn't resist!) in this film with Nolan challenging her good/bad identity unlike any of the other films that feature her. The supporting cast of both old and new faces is also fantastic and helps to make the film - although discussing some particular individuals best be avoided in order to steer clear of spoiler territories.

Selina Kyle/Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) experiences some time behind bars, probably for stealing all the scenes in The Dark Knight Rises.

Christopher Nolan has successfully achieved exactly what he set out to do with this film; his intentions were to create a finale that completes Bruce Wayne and Batman's story established in the previous two films, closing off many other unfinished storylines at the same time. For anyone who hasn't seen Batman Begins or The Dark Knight (seriously!? Why the hell haven't you!?) you can still watch and enjoy this film - you will however understand and appreciate it slightly more if you have seen these films, as above all else this is a finale. Whilst The Dark Knight remains as the best stand alone Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises is a film that completes Nolan's incredible trilogy, cementing it in history as one of the best film trilogies of all time. It more than deserves to be seen and recognised as a grand finale over a stand alone film.

It may have its flaws and an incredibly long running time, but The Dark Knight Rises creates an epic and satisfying conclusion to Christopher Nolan's incredible trilogy - a trilogy that will inevitably go down in history. The film is an exhilarating journey made on an epic scale; there were moments that made me want to stand up and applaud the film, and even others that genuinely brought a tear to my eye (it's a Batman film!?! Although Batman and Robin could make me cry, that's for all the wrong reasons...). Watching it on Imax is the best possible way to view this film as Nolan actually shot around an hour of footage with Imax cameras and intended for it to be seen that way - I encourage that you do if you are able to. In the grand scale of film trilogies this is up there as one of the best and will be remembered so for it ; and whilst it may be early days to be saying this, I'm feeling quietly confident that next year will see a very happy Christopher Nolan gracing a Hollywood stage in order to accept the Oscar for Best Picture when the unexpected occurs: a Batman film wins the Oscar...

Verdict: 5/5

The Dark Knight Rises is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen it? Agree or Disagree? Leave your comments below!