The Wolf Of Wall Street

It's hard to look away from Martin Scorsese's cautionary tale of greed, guts and Gecko-esque monologues. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort, a young, hungry stockbroker who, through a series of dodgy dealings, ascends Wall Street, conjuring up a small fortune for himself whilst hastily indulging in a life of hookers and blow. Those who've done their homework will know it's based on the real-life memoirs of the real-life Belfort (who also snags himself a cameo at the end of the movie, introducing DiCaprio at a seminar).

A lot of criticism has been aimed at the movie, the focus straying on how it, potentially, could be seen as glorifying Jordan Belfort's lifestyle and his dirty, aggressive methods. He sure has a lot of fun but I question whether any sane person would opt to live that way. He's got the money, a beautiful wife, a luxurious yacht yet he's never portrayed as a happy person - his bitterness and rage is released towards the end of the film in a shockingly visceral scene as he attempts to remove his daughter from his wife's care, with force. There's no glorifying of any kind there.

Many will draw comparisons with Scorsese's Goodfellas and, in truth, the two travel side-by-side for a considerable length. In both movies, there is little hint of a plot, but a tugging to go one way, as far as bad taste will possibly dictate, before highlighting the spectacular fall from grace. Both sets of characters are criminals, one group are gun-toting and maniacal, the other group pearly-white grins and, also, maniacal. There are no friends on Wall Street, a harsh fact but an understandable truth given the context, particularly in this movie. Jonah Hill takes on the role of Belfort's best friend, Donnie, once again proving that Moneyball was no illusion. He's as unhinged as Belfort and enjoys the lavish lifestyle, replicating as little remorse as possible - there's no time for sentimental reflection here, highlighted by Belfort's gung-ho decision to fight the FBI and continue making money when all good sense demands he step down, cut a deal and live off his millions. Belfort's deranged view: where's the fun in that? And so says Scorsese's audience.

The Wolf Of Wall Street is a good film, perhaps even a great one. Whether or not it'll stand the test of time and deserve utterance amongst the likes of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull remains to be seen. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Scorsese movie that deals in such outrageous set-pieces and situations; it's definitely his funniest film though we're mostly laughing at Belfort, his senseless addictions and his habit of consuming and devastating everything around him. Scorsese deals in mindless excess here and many will raise an eyebrow at the movie's length (two hours, fifty-nine minutes), though it flows well, packed to the brim with twisted entertainment. It could have been condensed but when dealing with such outrageous source material, Scorsese was never liable to toe the line, he jumps head-on and encourages DiCaprio to the do the same (an Oscar with this guy's name on it is waiting down the line, though perhaps not this year), dealing out an unblinking performance, in terms of directing and acting. When the camera could choose to cut away, it doesn't (a trend that's becoming increasingly prevalent nowadays, thankfully), and like it, we, the audience, have the choice to look away but never do.

Whether you like it or not (and it's met a very stubborn disapproval amongst some circles), there is little morality to be found here. DiCaprio's on-screen charisma and hi-jinks are enough to anchor an audience onto his side though it's Scorsese who, after navigating us through a torrid series of depravity, is able to effortlessly remind us of who this man is behind the curtains.

12 Years A Slave

12 Years A Slave starts its harrowing journey by reminding us that the following tale is based on truth. It then proceeds to recount a story of betrayal, violence and utmost survival. It tells of Solomon Northup, a black man living in the northern territories of 1800s USA, a free man, until he is unceremoniously duped, thrown into shackles and sent to work across a series of plantations and cotton fields, turning this antebellum tale on its head.

In terms of narrative, what we have is relatively straightforward, though it begins en media res, an overused but efficient cinematic technique. Solomon's experience gradually wears him down, though, early on, he proclaims he will not wallow in sorrow or fall into despair. He's a remarkably strong character, accentuated by a remarkably strong performance by lead, Chiwetel Ejiofor - you hear that? Oscar bells a-ringing. It's a subtle performance and much of the story relies on the way director Steve McQueen has the camera linger on Northup for an extra 30 seconds or so, letting him do his work as well as lingering, rather uncomfortably (that's the point) on the atrocities committed by the slave-owners and their overseers. A scene late on stands out, but rather than let the audience use their imagination, McQueen allows us to experience it in its entirety, barely any cuts thrown in, one continuous moment of pain, grief and despair.

McQueen has made note of the lack of films depicting slavery in Hollywood (I love it, but I don't think Django Unchained rings the same bitter truths) and he's certainly gone a way to creating the essential entry that others will aspire to and be judged by. This movie has something of a happy ending, maybe bittersweet is more apt, considering what comes before, but it ends assuring the audience that this was an anomaly, a 1 in 1000 lightning strike, a story worth telling. There is no almighty push for the others on the plantation that Northup leaves behind - for many of them, worse off than him with his education and talents, things will only get worse - and we're meant to remember them the most. Aside from Ejiofor, Lupito Nyong'o plays Patsy, a unique slave, shown a warped affection by vicious, drunk slave owner Edwin Epps (McQueen regular Michael Fassbender). Her performance is stunning and captures both sides of the spectrum, a willingness to please, to survive, to do what is required of her as well as a dark turn of hopelessness, beginning Solomon to end her life. The final shot of her desperately trying to cling to him as he leaves for a better life, knowing her own will probably be over soon, packs a punch. 

Aside from all this, there are a fair few solid performances from household names in here - Benedict Cumberbatch continues his launch as benevolent slave owner Ford, an odd character who seems to be living the way a southerner is expected, but with a clear conscience. Fassbender is terrifying and hard as Epps, alternating between a soft-spoken, veiled menace to an explosion of rage, seemingly with ease. Brad Pitt has seen a lot of marketing for this film, the film he's produced, and he has a couple of good, important scenes. He's something of an aberration as well, a white man who calls Epps out on his actions and promises something better for Solomon. It's an important moment as we've got to this point, with Solomon, not knowing who to trust, but like him, we've been through so much that the sheer desperation is all we've got, all he's got. The score chimes in every now and then, representing the movie in its entirety; subtle, but not afraid to pack a punch, always inspirational and morbidly uplifting.

It's a favourite come Oscar season and it brings with it some uncomfortable truths (again, the point) but it's impossible to deny the significance of the film, as well as the technical brilliance and star turns. It's a long film, just over two hours, but it's hard to look away, running down the time with scene after scene, never wasted, never lingering too long in one place, always ready to shock and awe. It's an inspirational story, one that needed to be told, one that, all too sadly, could be considered as relevant today as it was back then. It's a total triumph of cinema and evoking emotion - I doubt many will chatter excitedly as they leave the cinema and many will remain silent as they shuffle out the doors, long after the final credits roll. But, again, that's probably the point.

American Hustle

David O'Russell's had a busy year; fresh off the success of The Silver Linings Playbook, he's back, reunited with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, as well as Christian Bale and Amy Adams (from O'Russell's greatest effort, The Fighter). It's a fantastic cast and each member contributes in their own unique way, adding an element to the film, playing off one another with precision, flair, humour and that surreal slice of Scorsese-ism that, ultimately, makes the film something of a success.

Somewhere around the mid-point of the movie, the moment I realised that the director's selection of tunes was stylishly obvious, I made sure to note how surreal the movie truly was. Essentially, it was all a con, it never really happened - nothing was real. Of course, that's one way of looking at it. With a layered story such as this one, who really knows what was going on - Richie (Cooper) didn't seem to have a clue and I guess we've been planted with him for this one. How long were Irving and Sydney plotting all this? Did it come to them late on or was it always in the works? It's never actually answered though there is one scene which seems to point to the former. Either way, you make your own assumptions - this is not a story, it's a character-piece, like most of O'Russell's films, and he'd have it no other way.

That being said, it does meander this way and that for a large portion of the movie - Sydney and Irving are con-artists, taking advantage of a gullible nation that's looking to make a quick buck until, bam, they're caught by FBI Agent, Richie. He claims he'll provide them with leniency if they aid him to catch four other con-artist. That seems like a plot and a direction, yet, all of a sudden, we're introduced to politician Carmine (Jeremy Renner), who may, or may not, be a shady character - again, it's never really clear. He appears on and off throughout the movie as if the plot depends on it but it's never really that vital - it provides Irving with some form of emotional backdrop, though most of that is provided with his unstable wife, Rosalynn (Lawrence).

Perhaps it's a movie that has to be seen twice to be fully appreciated - my viewing seemed all too brief and for much of it, I was viewing it out of necessity as opposed to desire. It may have altered my viewing somewhat but I expected more. It's quite a good time and, as mentioned, the performances are good fun and though the music was painfully obvious and never really in-keeping with the movie, it added to the flippant tone the movie seemed to employ.

For me, this is your average 7/10 movie - it's not something special and won't be the movie O'Russell is remembered for but it follows a collection of offbeat, unique characters and has fun with it. Though, partly based on a real event, you're never so sure if what you see should be taken seriously. These are criminals after all.

Your Standard Film of 2013 List

What is the greatest movie of 2013? Who really knows, everyone has their own opinion, and that single fact makes the magical world of film one of the very greatest. My list is not comprehensive as my own viewing history this season, this year, hasn't been particularly thorough. A combination of poverty and sloth has contributed to a limited selection of movies so you may have to power through some of these choices with little more than a snicker and a shake of the head. Let's get to it:

Star Trek Into Darkness

Granted, Star Trek Into Darkness is constantly, and probably fairly, branded an incoherent space trip with a significant lack of plot, character and sense. But it's a great time at the cinema, a pure popcorn flick in the way The Avengers succeeded last year (and Batman failed...). Also, Hollywood woke up and noticed more British talent in Benedict Cumberbatch and, as many expected, he stole the show. JJ Abrams is a good director, lens flare aside, so I'm glad he's making this his final Trek film before moving onto another beloved franchise. Here's for 2015...

Captain Phillips

The comeback for Tom Hanks? Not that he really needed it. But, Larry Crowne...

Captain Phillips, based on a real-life story surrounding piracy of the Somalian coast, is a kinetic thriller, directed by Paul Greengrass, anchored by one hell of a leading performance from Hanks. It's practically a lock-in for Best Actor, as most Hanks performances should be. Again, the movie's relentless and, despite its run-time, it's good times.

Pacific Rim

Again, we're following on from Star Trek, Pacific Rim was pure spectacle, but thanks to the name associated with it, Del Toro, it was well-crafted spectacle. I enjoyed it for what it was and, after Pan's Labyrinth, I have a lot of time for Del Toro. I'm sure there's a mass of homage and cultural references that flew right by me, but it's a monster movie done well. Robots too...

Saving Mr Banks

This is a Disney production about Walt Disney - an element of sugar-coating is to be expected and it's what we get. Throwing that aside, we also have a very competent, heart-warming/heart-breaking movie about a two-week period before the ever-loved Mary Poppins was released as a movie. It's amusing, well-paced and amicable - it's not the truth, as has been highlighted in a number of media outlets over the past few weeks, but it's as much truth as an audience needs.

The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug

I was a sucker for the first so the mere fact that the sequel was a hell of a great deal better made it inevitable the movie would make its way onto my list. I love that word - 'popcorn flick' - and the movie lives up to its reputation in every way. Once again, Martin Freeman proves he was impeccably cast as Bilbo and, though most of it focuses on the dwarves, he certainly gets his time to shine, particularly in the key scene towards the end with Smaug - another good year for Cumberbatch.

World War Z

This film makes the list merely because of the surprise factor that it was actually a darn good movie. I was scared, freaked out, on tenterhooks, on the edge of my seat, all of the above. It was rapid and frenzied and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Brad Pitt gives a good performance though, once again, it's something of a popcorn flick, moving from one set-piece to another. It's not high-art, but, on account of my limited cinematic viewings this year, it makes the cut.

Gravity

Gravity is a movie that is expected to be on most lists, a glorious example of spectacle film-making. It's not particularly substantial nor does it fall under Michael Bay's 'style-over-substance' category. It's remarkably beautiful and a lock for Best Cinematography during the awards season. In terms of performances, Sandra Bullock acts out her inner-Tom Hanks, left alone for much of the time despite George Clooney's sporadic space-ramblings. Is it the best movie of the year? Probably.

The Butler

Interesting trivia about The Butler, it was written by the cat who played Jonathan in Buffy The Vampire Slayer. That's not quite enough to push a mass audience towards the movie, that mainly deals with the struggle for civil rights in a torn nation, but it's an entertaining movie which flows freely from era to era, never settling for too long. And I appreciate that.

The Place Beyond The Pines

The narrative is certainly an odd one here, and I wasn't quite expecting it. I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it but it may push both ends of the spectrum. Some may turn off after the opening hour whilst others may stray a bit further. It's ambitious, a flaw to some, but spells out an interesting story on legacy and the sins of our fathers, I don't know, something like that, but it's always intriguing to see a movie that includes a series of events that act as ramifications of previous events. Act and react.

Prisoners

This was a movie that came in from somewhere else, something really unexpected. You look at the cast and you automatically expect something special but it didn't get a triumphant release and, for many, it was a hidden gem. It's a subtle, minimalist story that plays on tension rather than thrills and energetic set-pieces.

A TV Show So Exciting, It Has Its Own Name & Theme Music...

Here we are, once again, blogging about the important things in life. This time around, it's CBS's Stephen King-adapted UNDER THE DOME. Next time, I promise to hark about some serious worldwide issues, such as Rice Krispie Marshmallow Squares: What flavour WILL they come up with next?!

UNDER THE DOME is a show that served as a summer mini-series for CBS. It's adapted from Stephen King's science-fiction novel of the same name and follows a small town and its folk as they become trapped...under a dome. THE Dome. The mother of all domes. Without spoiling anything for those who are leisurely strolling through the first season, it follows the plights of those within as they try to adapt to life...UNDER THE DOME. Bam, there you have it.

I feel it serves up a semi-adequate blog topic due to its surprising RIDICULOUS STORY AND CHARACTERS vs DECEPTIVE POPULARITY correlation. The truth is, the show is not great, has poor, poor, clumsy exposition-filled dialogue and senseless characters. Yet its ratings are good, very good. So good that it's been commissioned for another season. So, and this is the million-pound question, why...?

Audience Love-In
I haven't read King's original novel but I get, from common sense, that it's a lot darker than the TV show. Then again, this is a CBS channel and we're hardly going to see sex, drugs and rock'n'roll on the same network that provides us all with unhealthy dollops of 'Geeks Are Ridiculous & We're Going To Mock 'Em Silly' otherwise known as THE BIG BANG THEORY. So there's that, the show engages with a larger audience, embracing the prudes who turn their noses up at the likes of HBO, FX, Showtime and Walter friggin' White.

Hank Schrader
That being said, it's not short on its badass factor. The town's councilman, Big Jim Rennie (played by Dean Norris aka ASAC Hank Schrader), has evolved from ominously caring father figure to an eyebrow raisingly insane mass-murderer. Rolling off the success of BREAKING BAD, Dean Norris is in demand and his presence in a Stephen King associated sci-fi show will have no doubt brought in a few more viewers. It helps that he's, by far, BY FAR, the best actor on the show, the best character on the show, and the guy who seems most liable to take out everyone else, freeing us of their lunacy.

Brains-Off Approach
There's a lot to be said for those rare breed of TV shows, usually reserved for the cable channels, that engage an audience's mind. UNDER THE DOME isn't one of them, and that's mightily OK. Sometimes, you need a show to spell it out for you because, bluntly put, thinking is overrated and TV is meant to morph our fragile, tiny minds (thanks to the PTC for that one). This show is a gem at presenting subtle mythology in keen and creative ways and then following it up by surgically dissecting it for you in the form of clunky exposition and maddening dialogue. I say go for it - I've stuck with LOST for far too many years and I'm tired of having polar bears and hench, icy donkey wheels running through my mind all day.

Small Town Ambience
A sure-fire way to my heart, the show has this fantastic feel of community. Even better, it's an eerie community. Set apart from the rest of the world, no one can come in or out and everyone deals with their own problems together, as a team, an eerie team...

An element that this show has really nailed is that aspect of being alone in the world, properly detached from anything else resembling civilisation, built-up cities, commercialisation, Starbucks... This, of course, all culminates with Big Jim building his own gallows so he can hang those who do him wrong. Handy.












*Strawberry, I reckon

Hollywood's Uncovered Gems?

There is a rowdy queue of merits associated with the serene art of cinema; perhaps one of the strongest advantages lies in its powerful sense of evocation. For some very privileged people, cinema is able to paint more than just a pretty picture and is fully able to rip into its audience’s soul and juggle with their emotions, their thoughts and feelings. Let me throw some names at you:

Nolan. Tarantino. Spielberg.

Household names; ground-breaking directors who have caused more than a mere stir during their renowned careers and all thanks to one endearing trait; their pure love of cinema. Their contribution has helped make cinema a dominant art form, one which truly caters for everybody with its eclectic style and creative prowess. So it’s really no surprise that the deaths of Tony Scott and Michael Clarke Duncan have packed such a brutal punch.

Tony Scott lived his life in the shadow of his more-critically accepted brother, Ridley (Alien, Blade Runner) yet thankfully, the overwhelmingly positive tributes that have flooded in for the late and certainly great director have focused solely on his aesthetically pleasing body of work. Many will recall the likes of Top Gun, an undoubtedly popular addition to the macho-men volume of Hollywood cinema and far superior to the likes of Charlie Sheen’s Navy SEALS and oh, yes…Iron Eagle.

What Scott lacked in critical backing, he made up for at the box-office. However, unlike film-makers who experience similar critical contrast such as Michael Bay, Scott was a true master of his craft. His ‘on-the-fence’ reviews would usually pin-point a lack of dramatic and narrative resonance (that was attributed so highly to Ridley) yet a picture made to pure perfection. In Poker terms, he was always the Full House opposed to the Royal Flush. His knowledge and dexterous touch as well as sublime craftsmanship were second-to-none and his flicks provided audiences with endless hours of thrills and spills. A truly remarkable, yet severely underrated film-maker.

Michael Clarke Duncan was a unique screen presence. Big Mike stood at 6’ 5” and his muscular frame, imposing stature and deep, booming voice were bizarrely contrasted by his kind, caring nature; or at least that was the way he consistently came across as.

Like many others, the role I’ll always associate him with was that of the (wrongly) convicted child-murderer in Frank Darabont’s The Green Mile. Strongly considered one of the best movies made in the last 20-years or so, The Green Mile was an adaption from Stephen King’s novel of the same name. Duncan portrayed John Coffey (“like the drink, only not spelled the same”), a seemingly uneducated simpleton who had been sentenced to death after being discovered with two dead girls. As the audience learns more about the character in Darabont’s majestic and emotionally charged movie, Duncan himself is a revelation. Never looking like a fish-out-of-water next to co-star Tom Hanks, Duncan was rightly nominated for an Oscar that year for his portrayal which will be remembered for a long time to come.

The point I wish to make is one that rings a beneficial bell in terms of Hollywood. Tributes poured in from all over when the shocking announcements were first made. It quickly became apparent that though neither was considered a household name, both were respected by those who cherish the art of cinema as well as those who perhaps consider themselves casual acquaintances with their local movie theatre. I think it’s a testament to the power of movies and the much-maligned Hollywood that these two figures are being celebrated so much. Scott’s True Romance defined the hyper-stylised and violent movies of the 90s (written by Pulp Fiction’s Tarantino of course) and contemporary film fans hold recent efforts such as Unstoppable starring Chris Pine and Denzel Washington and Man On Fire, again starring Scott-favoured Washington, in such high-esteem.

Duncan also had a varied career; The Green Mile will go down as his magnum opus due to his Oscar nom, but he also starred in many a-blockbuster such as Armageddon, The Whole Nine Yards and Daredevil. He was appreciated by the industry he loved so much and by the fans who flocked to the cinema, even if they couldn’t quite recall his name.

Hollywood is damn-near impossible to break and once you’ve made it, it can knock you back down from whence you came within a matter of seconds. That’s what they say anyway but I believe the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Tony Scott oppose that theory. Consistent, efficient, hard-working and reliable; they weren’t stars that shone the brightest and perhaps didn’t always get the recognition they deserved but when it came down to the final haul, both got the rousing send-off they deserved and the industry has suffered a great loss. The beauty of film is that they will always be remembered through their art and cemented within the rich history of cinema forever more.

Tony Scott (21^st June, 1944 – 19^th August, 2012)

Michael Clarke Duncan (10^th December, 1957 – 3^rd September, 2012)

The Dark Knight Rises; Better Later Than Never

There’s little doubt in my mind that by the end of the year, Christopher Nolan’s epic conclusion to his Dark Knight series will be top in box-office takings. I’m not a skilled mathematician in any way, shape or form but I believe if you deduct the extra earnings that The Avengers ripped off took from its 3D advantages (you know, an extra £1.50 for a tainted experience and over-sized glasses), then The Dark Knight Rises comes out on top. I’m sure far cleverer and wiser people than myself will tell you this is not the case though*

*it is.

But it doesn’t matter; at the end of the day people aren’t going to clamber home and divulge their full feelings and thoughts on the movie based on how much money it raked in. The age-old saying about quality and quantity comes into play massively here. Box-office success has never and will never equal critical acclaim – just ask Michael Bay.

Again, it doesn’t matter; no one is going to clamber home at the end of the day and sa—oh, I’ve done this part. Well, forgive my sanctimonious ramblings about film politics. The movie itself is wonderful. It’s a wonderful movie. It’s fantastically ambitious in scope and executed with the deft precision we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s skilled hands. It also brings up an interesting question:

Is it a good Batman movie?

Was The Dark Knight? As far as I’m concerned, Batman Begins represented the character of Batman as I, a comic-book virgin, would expect him to be portrayed. It felt like it jumped right out of the murky pages of a traditionally dark graphic novel with its steam-soaked streets, colourfully off-beat characters and, well…a guy dressed as a bat. Then The Dark Knight came along and, perhaps juiced up by Heath Ledger’s tragic death, the fan-boy community was given a sudden jolt of excitement; anticipation for this movie was sky-high and it delivered on all the right notes. I’m going to shamelessly quote famed movie-critic Roger Ebert on this one because he says it better than most:

“Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy”.

So that’s what Roger says and I agree whole-heartedly. It took Batman to a new level (for me at least) and gave us all a healthy dose of entertainment along the way. In a way it’s raised the bar for what many believe a good Batman movie should be (to be straight, I don’t quite agree with this as I really enjoyed Tim Burton’s gothic-inspired effort in 1989).

The Dark Knight Rises tries so hard to do this again and upon my second viewing, I noted the scope of the film; what Nolan tried to achieve was amazing; an entire city is ripped apart from inside, both politically and socially, and then stapled together precariously whilst awaiting the heart-pounding climax. It’s what Nolan loves to do and though I don’t think he truly achieved the successes he had with The Dark Knight, you have to stand up and applaud the guy. It’s no easy task and I doubt I could do it*

*I couldn’t.

That being said, I’d hardly label the movie a ‘failure’; its undertones and themes are convoluted and many plot-points are far too convenient and far-fetched. I’ve read thousands of plot-holes related to the movie and though I agree many of them raise an eye-brow or two, I would suggest that Nolan’s movies are perhaps slightly more exposed to quizzical wonderings from the online community due to the director’s stature which has truly polarised some as well as captivated others. I admit I’m a big fan; I wrote my University dissertation on the guy and the way in which he’s crossed the boundary between Indie and Mainstream without as much as a scratch on him. He’s a remarkable film-maker and whilst I will never be as arrogant and pompous to label him one of the greats, his contribution to Hollywood has left a significant mark.

Also, stop asking:

“How does Bane eat?”

Did you ever ask how Darth Vader ate? Perhaps he was a big fan of the suffragette era and took to consuming his daily meals through a narrowly worked straw.

I liked Bane. I liked the music (I like to imagine someone following Bane down the street, beating enthusiastically on a pair of drums slung over their chest). I liked Catwoman. I liked her outfit. I liked Michael Caine crying. I liked the special effects. I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt being called *SPOILER* Robin and I liked Bane beating people up with a bike-helmet.

There’s a whole collection of great things to like about this movie, but I think love is perhaps an expression too far.  The movie goes places that it perhaps needs to go but I don’t know how much it sacrifices audience entertainment for; the fight scenes are very well orchestrated with Bane matching Batman for physical strength with interest. Tom Hardy has a good time as the muscular and intimidating figure of Bane and his presence is felt throughout the movie, even when he’s sadly not on screen. Elsewhere, Anne Hathaway shoves her previous critics away with a flawless, confident and humorous performance as Selina Kyle (Catwoman is never once uttered) and her role is used well by Nolan as is the role of John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A lot of characters, a lot of balancing; I admit I was surprised at the lack of Christian Bale as the Batman. He has quite a journey of discovery in this movie and Bale probably puts in his best performance of the trilogy as a Bruce Wayne completely devoid of hope.

By the end you’ll appreciate the action that has unfolded; as always, it’s second-to-none and the urgency of the film’s events is felt throughout. Nolan has his pacing covered and it’s definitely a movie that you could see more than once without feeling like you need to stealthily check the time on your phone.

The story is rather insignificant at the end – I don’t think many will care for the ‘Save The World’ idea that is thrown about rather lethargically towards the beginning of the film and plot-points seem to follow suit, being branded about left, right and centre until dropped completely for the explosive ending. It’s a movie that deserves its plaudits and the money earned but it never quite reaches the heights set by its predecessor perhaps even Whedon’s Avengers, but it’s worth-watching as always and paints a beautiful picture thanks to the sublime efforts of cinematographer Wally Pfister.