Why Aren't There Any Good Science Fiction Films These Days?

So what do I mean?

I'll being with what the term "science fiction" means to me, what I look for in a film with that as the labelled genre.

Let's go through the last year or so: To me, for a film/book/tv show to be labelled a "sci-fi" it must feature two key things. First, a level of technology that is different to our own. Notice I chose to use the word "different" and not "better" or "more advanced." That was deliberate, because a film set in a universe where the internal combustion engine was never invented, and clockwork is used as the primary form of locomotion/energy generation is still science fiction. Break the phrase down; fictional science. 

Nope. Back to Bond with you.

Second, it's not enough to just have a setting that features a different level or form of technology, the film itself must be more than just "Twilight with Space Lasers" or "Die Hard 5: Death Star Revenge," and this is the absolute biggest pet peeve of this critic, seeing a film listed under "sci-fi/action" or "sci-fi/thriller" when it's just the same boring action tropes covered in shiny CG and lens flare (no guesses for who I'm referring to there). The film needs to utilise the environment, the universe, and weave it together into the integral parts of the plot. You can't just have a cowboy film with aliens and call it sci-fi, it's not. It's just a cowboy shooting at an alien.

Some examples of recent films that have utterly failed to hit the sci-fi butter zone:

Prometheus

Ridley Scott, you wonderful man, what were you playing at? Taking one of the most successful sci-fi franchises of all time and ruining it with this. I'd rather watch AVP Requiem again. It's not enough that you decided to forgo writing an actual story, create any decent characters or set pieces in favour of side-stepping canon, you had to go and ruin the Xenomorph as well. It looks ridiculous. Not to mention the main antagonist closely resembling the offspring of Chunk and The Michelin Man, what were you thinking?

This is a Space Jockey?!

But why does it fail as a science fiction film? It's set in the future, sure. There's space ships and aliens, sure. But it's nothing spectacular, it's a hash together of so many things we've seen before, in previous Alien franchise films as well as further afield. What was missing, the vital spark of pure sci-fi, is the unknown. You don't throw out a film, cobbled together from the ideas you had 30-odd years ago but just couldn't fit into the original franchise. If you do you end up with Jurassic Park 3, and nobody wants that. Sadly, that's what we got. New money for old rope. Instead of sci-fi, I'm relabelling it "action/horror in space."

Total Recall

If you haven't seen it, go watch the original Paul Verhoeven version. And then Robocop. And then Starship Troopers, the man is a genius.

However, the remake starring (for some reason) Colin Farrell was also not a science fiction film. And no, I'm not going to harp on about it being nothing new, it's a remake. And even then, the original was based on a spectacular book by Philip K. Dick (one of the fathers of sci-fi) titled "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale." Originality, less important with this one then. 

A Total Recall without Kuato isn't a Total Recall

So where did it go wrong? In the execution, that's where. Truly, the film misses the point of the original (disregarding the source material, assuming we're working with a direct remake of the Verhoeven film) the idea that a man can have his memory copied over, muddled up, until he's unsure of what's real and what is just the "mental holiday" he paid for. Instead of utilising this as a way to keep the audience guessing as to what is real and what is implanted memory, or even if the implanted memories were originally his that he'd had wiped, the film quickly breaks down into a by-the-numbers action film. This might as well just be an amnesia-driven Statham film. Don't get me wrong, I love a good JS film, but this is supposed to be sci-fi. And yes, Len Wiseman, we know you have a pretty wife, there's no need to keep showing us.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Yes, I'm a trekkie/trekker or whatever the parlance is these days. I somewhat enjoyed the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek, but not because it was Star Trek. Abrams made damn sure that we all knew he wasn't going canon with this one from the start. The whole "it's an alternate timeline" rubbish belongs in 80s TV, not multi-million dollar grossing blockbusters.

Did he think we wouldn't see this coming?

Remove the established universe, as Abrams did, and what you're left with is a very mundane film riding on the wave of praise the first film generated. By-the-numbers action film, very little in the way of character arcs, a surprise twist that wasn't a surprise twist and dear god, so much CG. More CG than absolutely anyone ever needed. So far as fitting my rules of sci-fi goes, yes it's full to the brim with phasers, teleporters, warp drives etc. but none of it can really be called sc-fi any more - we've had over 50 years of it now, it's like calling a film about modern fighter pilots a sci-fi; it's just not new and exiting to the audience any more. Regarding the integration of the universe into the plot, to qualify as a sci-fi by my second rule; still pretty poor. You could take the exact same plot, same characters, same twists etc. and set it on a galleon in the 16th century and not a lot would change.

Oblivion

This is so obviously intended
to be Apple tech.

Wow. This film really knows how to take brilliant ideas from anywhere, cobble them together and slap a Tom Cruise in it. Trope after trope after trope. None really gelling together to make a cohesive story. You can't really put "last man on earth" with "the guys in white are actually bad and the guys in black are actually good" with "giant red glowing eye computer wants to kill us all" with "let's hijack a ship and fly into their mothership" with "everyone is a clone" and really expect anything good to come out of it. It's a sausage film. Made of the best bits of other films. Sprinkled liberally with Tom Cruise. So this neither satisfies the first, nor the second of my requirements. How can it? When it's a chimera of other, better films. It deserves absolutely no credit for any success it has

.

As a point of balance and fairness I feel I should mention those films that have hit that sci-fi sweet spot in recent months:
- Looper

Yep. Just one.

So how do I think the problem can be solved?

New IP.

The major, major problem with the science fiction film industry is that films are being made, either of books written during the height of the sci-fi era (early 60s to late 70s) which have been feeding our pop culture for nearly 40 years now, and there's not a lot left we haven't seen/someone has been brave enough to make. If not "adapted from...." then "ripped off from..." seems to be the name of the game. Time and time again I see films being released in the same formulaic manner, playing it safe to make back all the millions of dollars spent on the shiny CG. We need risk takers, we need established directors who have the influence, the industry confidence and the finances to make passion projects, ideas that no one else would even risk giving the go ahead to without a S. Spielberg, R. Johnson or a M. Bay stamped all over it. (This is not a plea for Michael Bay to do any passion projects, for the love of god please, the world can't take that many helicopters, explosions, underwear models and Linkin Park soundtracks)

If not an established, proven director, then some bright spark coming from the bottom up. Like Josh Trank and Max Landis.

Landis made his name with a short film detailing the events unfolding in a comic book arc titles The Death and Return of Superman (linked -->) but moved onto the big screen with his first feature, Chronicle. It was by no means perfect, but what it did achieve was an injection of fresh IP. I very much enjoyed Chronicle, the idea of every comic book origin story but instead of kids destined for greatness getting bitten by radioactive spiders or what have you, it deals with ordinary teenagers and how they deal with super powers. Directed by Josh Trank, it did pretty well. It even earned Trank the tiller on the new Fantastic Four movie, and most probably the upcoming Venom origin. Both of which will help us to forget the two awful examples we have from the last 10 years.

Whilst not technically a science fiction film, by my definition at least, Chronicle is certainly something I want to see more of. We need more universes. More unique and interesting backdrops to more unique stories. Not just the same old tropes re-hashed with a younger actor taking the lead.

Table Top Games: The Quest To D&D

Dungeons and Dragons has always taken a beating from the more "socially acceptable" circles of hobbyists, such as sports fans, despite both groups exhibiting the exact same behaviour. Both groups avidly follow a specific activity, discuss it at length with their friends, arrange times and dedicate days to come together to enjoy said activity and even mirror the figures of each activity by dressing up to resemble them, only, DnD players can make do with a bed sheet and a lampshade to be The Great Wizard Ooloo, whereas sports fans seem completely willing to pay upwards of £40 for a slightly different shirt/shoes/vest/cup every season.

This discrimination is question something that I have never understood. But that is just another example of the irritating and pervasive trend of 'geek/nerd bashing' that is thankfully starting to reverse as the bespectacled and pocket-protected amongst us rise up to assert themselves as a valued and relevant section of pop culture.

I have long considered myself to be firmly rooted at the Indoor end of the Indoor-to-Outdoor activities spectrum. All that running around after a round thing couldn't even come close to the enjoyment of drawing pleasure from the rolling of several hexahedrons and giggling about the doom that would spell for your opponent. However, I always considered Dungeons and Dragons to be 'too nerdy' for me. Me, the child who would regularly wander out from his room high as a kite after spending six solid hours stooped over a small figurine, paintbrush in hand, tongue protruding resolutely from the side of his mouth, determined to make sure that the colour tones on the shield of his hero would be just so.

I was a serious table top gamer between the ages of 13-17, mostly throwing my money at the Warhammer people in return for increasingly extortionate models and modelling supplies, but I gave it all up around the same time my friends did and started spending the money on attempts at seducing women. For a while I took my leave of the table top, until I encountered kindred spirits at university who had never given it up. Eventually, I started gaming casually with them, though I never spent any more money on it having learnt my lesson from calculating the financial cost of my collection after giving it away. But something was missing.

For those of you familiar with the Warhammer world, we played Fantasy, 40K and Space Hulk. For those of you not familiar, a brief description of each: orcs fighting elves and such with some magic thrown in; space marines and tanks set way in the future; and the board game version of Aliens. These games were fun, for a time. Pouring over the various rule books and army lists would spark an idea of a new tactic, or memories of an old victory and my friends and I would throw together an assortment of representative figures (termed 'proxies') in order to circumvent the need for purchasing and assembling entire armies for just a few games a month.

Eventually, however, I wanted more depth. Grand armies clashing was all well and good, but I was interested in really exploring the world in a more personal way. To that end, we turned to the more specialist game of Inquisitor. Set in the 'space marines and tanks' universe of the 41st millennium, the player takes control of an individual character, most of whom had far more depth to their abilities, gear and histories, and would embark on campaigns over the course of many games, resulting in a lengthy and fleshed out playing experience that rewarded forethought and adaptability in character creation as well as encouraging the players to develop a connection with their characters.

Prime example, during one game my character lost an eye, an ear, a leg and several internal organs to a grenade. Between that game and the next I chose to outfit him with a prosthetic replacements, and bestowed upon him the moniker of 'Lucky.'This level of connection to the character that I had created allowed me to further enjoy the experiences of each game to an even greater degree. It is genuinely thrilling to have your character attempt a Matrix-esque backwards dive into cover whilst firing twin pistols at an enemy, leaving only their shredded corpse remaining. It is also gutting to attempt the exact same manoeuvre and have your character dive backwards into an explosive barrel, accidentally shoot the barrel and end up as a thin red mist settling on the shoulders of your guffawing enemy, post-explosion.

But again, this still wasn't enough.

It's similar to those anti-drugs messages we were shown in our younger years; "don't smoke weed, it's a gateway drug to the harder stuff" etc. The same can be said with table top games. First I played chess, then Warhammer, I moved onto Inquisitor, and now I find myself with a group of friends experimenting with Dungeons and Dragons when our parents are out of town.

The buzz of role playing is very addictive. I find learning the rules to a universe, be it a table top or video game, and then planning on how I would fit into that world to be the best kind of fun, especially when surrounded by people who are enjoying it just as much. Notice that I didn't say how my character would fit into the universe, but how I would. It's not called a role playing game for nothing. And finally, with DnD, I have found that perfect hit of RPG goodness.

So what's so good about it? Well, everything. Or more specifically, the ability to DO everything. The rules are so expansive and so fluid that if you can conceive of a scenario and a way to deal with it, it can be done. This is made possible by the dynamic and yet surprisingly simple gameplay system, which I shall briefly outline.

A game can be played with a minimum of three players. Two play the game, whilst the third plays the Dungeon Master, or DM. The DM has no character on the table, but instead plays as the world. The DM is there to control the creatures you encounter, to progress the story of the scenario you are playing and to respond to everything your characters do. All of this is achieved through the wondrous device that is the icosahedron. The 20-sided die. With this single item the DM is able to judge the success of any action or event in the world. For a simple example, your character wants to climb a ledge. Using a single statistic the DM rolls the d20. Depending on the result when compared to that statistic for your character you either succeed or fail, with a variety of outcomes. At the other end of scale, a complex request by a player, asking if his character can take the coil of rope in his backpack, fashion a lasso and try and mount a troll and ride it into the sunset, can also be decided with a single d20; the DM just needs to use his or her judgment to set an arbitrary score required for success. When I said you can do anything, I did really mean it.

So these endless possibilities stretching out before a first time player may seem daunting, but the once you've drawn up your character and embarked on your first few adventures, everything starts to become more fluid and natural. Making sure to remind your rogue companion to check a treasure chest for traps before they open it, just in case the sneaky DM has concealed a trip wire connected to an arrow launcher, will soon become second nature. 

Overall, I would say I'm very much enjoying my DnD experience so far, an experience that is only improved by the people I'm playing with. It is of vital importance that players buy into the shared experience, suspend their disbelief and play in an active manner, instead of just letting the DM tell them a story. The game has a definite need for make believe skills, and sadly they are certainly something most of us will lose as we enter adolescence, and so I'm very glad that I've only just come to DnD at the ripe old age of 22. It certainly is a magical experience, sitting round a table with university educated, intellectually equipped individuals brimming with all sorts of talents to inflict on the world, arguing whether or not that goblin in the next room can hear you fluffing up your bedroll. Something you won't find anywhere else, I promise you.

A brief account of my character:

Keith the Elven Sorcerer, a sprightly young thing at only 121 years old, has embarked on a few minor quests with his companions Lia and Errik the Shadow. Necromancy has been quashed, plagues have been cured, towns have been saved from bloodthirsty beasts and old witch's cottages broken into, all in the pursuit of prestige. Keith has expanded his knowledge of the arcane arts, increasing his repertoire of mystical powers and adding more pages to his spell book. He also learnt to conjure an animal familiar, Simon the Faithful Toad, who never leaves his side. During one adventure, Keith and his companions stumbled across a town with a master blacksmith, who adjusted Keith's crossbow and improved its aim. Whilst travelling through a dark region of the land Keith encountered an old crone, who promised to imbue his blade with a mystical power, for a price of course. From the moment the old witch touched his longsword, it seemed to glow with a faint red light -- she had tainted the blade with unholy words, improving its power over creatures of the light.

Currently, Keith is lodging in a tavern near the south coast, practicing his spells and counting his gold as he awaits his next adventure. 

Humble Indie Bundle 6

For those of you not familiar with the Humble Indie Bundle may I, as a serious player of video games, suggest that you check them out. Not only are the offering a collection of some of the best indie titles out there at a price you decide, as well as offering Windows, Mac AND Linux versions of said games, but they're also donating some of your money to charity. There is absolutely no reason not to give these guys a round of internet applause.

The HiB payment system allows you to pay whatever you want, from a minimum of $1 up to any amount, and to decide who receives it. The website offers slider bars to split your donation between the HiB company themselves, the game developers or the charity(s) being supported with each bundle, which have included Child's Play, Electronic Frontier Foundation, charity: water and the American Red Cross. 

In the last six bundles there have been some phenomenal games available. Titles such as World of Goo, Braid, Machinarium, Osmos, VVVVVV, Atom Zombie Smasher, Bit.Trip Runner, Super Meat Boy, Cave Story+, Amnesia: The Dark Decent, Limbo, Psychonauts, Bastion and Lone Survivor. Any one of those games would be worth £10, and over the last few years I've managed to pick them all up for less than £40 in total, choosing to donate 50% of that to the developers, 40% to charity and 10% to the HiB team. More often than not, many of the official soundtracks for the bundled games are included.

So it's safe to say these guys are offering great games and a great chance to donate to some very worthy causes. But let's get into Bundle #6, the most recent, and cast a critical eye over the titles contained within:

Shatter

An updated version of the classic brick-breaker game, Shatter is by far one of my favourite 'casual games' I've played this year, only coming in a close second to Beat Hazard.

Originally released by Sidhe Interactive back in 2009 for the PS3, this brightly coloured, engaging title has taken the basic mechanics of a brick-breaker and added in a touch more depth and variation. The player still controls a paddle in order to bounce a ball against bricks, smashing them for points, however now the ball can be controlled with a 'suck' or 'blow' action. Simply put, you can alter the trajectory of the ball after it has bounced off your paddle in order to direct it towards that last elusive block, or to hit the critical spot on the end-of-level boss. These bosses are what I find most enjoyable about Shatter. They add a sense of achievement when defeated that brightly coloured squares don't give.

There are multiple game modes aside from the main 'story mode,' including time attack, endless play and pure boss battles including co-op versions of each, giving it a very long life. Shatter also features various power ups and paddle abilities, including a protective shield and a 'shard cannon' which turns your accumulated points into an offensive weapon which is useful for removing large sections of blocks or defeating a boss, adding an extra dimension to the well-known brick-breaker set up.

It is also worth mentioning the score, composed by Module, as it's absolutely cracking.

Torchlight

The highly-acclaimed 2009 title from Runic Games is, in my opinion, one of the purest representations of how to make a fantasy WRPG near-perfect.

Torchlight follows a very traditional path, with the player choosing from one of three archetypal characters, The Destroyer (melee) The Vanquisher (ranged) or The Alchemist (magic), and fighting their way through a variety of dungeons, mines, temples etc. slaying creeps, hoarding loot and levelling up in a similar way to the Dungeon Siege or Diablo series. It's simplistic beauty, in a genre that is quickly flaking away and becoming very bland and homogeneous, or just being abandoned all together.

The art style is simple, featuring a decent pallet, with terrain, creatures and object modelling all of a high standard. The combat system is point-and-click, meaning a faster trigger finger and a better sword will often win you more gold and fame than complex tactics, but thankfully combat is far from repetitive. Plot-wise, so far I have found it to be unsurprising, which is to say familiar and enjoyable as opposed to predictable and boring.

Vessel

Published by Strange Loop Games earlier this year, Vessel is a generic platformer/puzzle game that are two-a-penny in the indie market these days. To be fair, there isn't much here that hasn't been seen before, but Vessel still managed to initially interest me.

The game centres on M. Arkwright, the inventor of the Fluro, a liquid-based automaton designed to replace human workers. Inevitably, the Fluros don't entirely fall in line and it's down to M. Arkwright to assert control over his creations. An interesting plot, that disappointingly boils down to little or no motivation or relevance during each level.

Vessel comprises mainly of single room puzzles revolving around the use of liquid to activate switches, create and manipulate Fluros, via activating lights, and pushing switches in order to advance to the next room. For the first few puzzles this seems remarkably easy, but the difficulty curve quickly ramps to a point where so much is going on at once it can confuse the player.

I feel that there is potential in Vessel to be a truly great platformer/puzzle game, but not everything works together to give a genuinely enjoyable experience. The mechanics are often haphazard and counter-intuitive, the plot's existence doesn't seem to matter and the controls are sketchy and often woefully inaccurate.

Rochard

"Rock is hard, John Rochard is harder" reads the subtitle to this 2011 title from Recoil Games, and whilst rock may be hard, Rochard the game is fairly weak. A cartoon-style science fiction setting for a 2D physics/platformer mechanic sounds great. However, a weak plot and poor mechanics really lets Rochard down.

Set on an asteroid during a mining expedition, Rochard is essentially another puzzle/platformer with the player controlling John Rochard and navigating him through each level, comprising of a series of individual rooms containing puzzles to be solve by utilising local gravity controls, John's gravity gun and any available blocks in the nearby area.

I wasn't impressed, as the early puzzles were barely a challenge, usually consisting of moving a single block around to be able to jump high enough to reach the next platform. But quickly the difficulty increased, sometimes leaving me downright irritated by the physics engine/my inability to fling blocks with accuracy.

I'll admit that I've not spent a great deal of time playing Rochard, but what I have played of it didn't satisfy the most basic criteria of a video game; to be fun.

Dustforce

Hitbox Team's 2012 title Dustforce is high on my list for Best Art Style of 2012, with its blend of cell-shading aesthetics and animé action I instantly warmed to it.

The game focuses on four super-hero janitors, each armed with a broom or vacuum fighting to clean up the various levels of the game that have been covered in leaves or dust by four enemy characters.

The basic mechanics of Dustforce can be likened to those of Super Meat Boy, (another game I loved but was awful at as timing and speed are the two most important factors) featuring wall running, complex jumping and chain-maneuvering combos and other such precision play. Upon completing a level the player is awarded a rank based on percentage of the level 'cleaned' and the speed at which the level was completed. 

Dustforce also features multiplayer modes for up to four players, but I feel this is very much a side-note to a really good looking, good feeling game that I'm just not good enough at to fully enjoy.

Here's another title who's score deserves special mention for being awesome.

S.P.A.Z.

SPAZ, or "Space, Pirates and Zombies" to give it it's full title, was developed by MinMax Games, a two-man Canadian team who begin SPAZ by telling the player that they've developed it because they wanted to blend HD graphics and modern engines with old Golden Age gaming styles. And boy, have they done it.

SPAZ puts the player in control of a space ship, The Clockwork, as a member of a pirate organisation in search of Rez, a most precious element, by venturing into the galactic core. Along the way the player will encounter the authoritarian forces of UTA, the more amicable local colonists and space zombies. Yep.

The top-down RTS style is incredible engaging, with the player controlling one ship within a small fleet (but with the ability to swap between all members of said fleet) as they scout star-systems for resources, defend possible allied planets from raiders or take on the role of raiders themselves and pillage UTA supply depots.

Each ship is able to be customised with a variety of armaments, defenses and utility equipment to specialise in combat, mining or trade, and range in size from tiny scout ships with one laser and a pathetic shield, to huge ships with multiple lasers, missile launchers, turrets, shields, tractor beams etc.

Not only are the general mechanics well hammered out, balanced and sensible, but the progression through the galaxy has been well refined as well. There are consequences to your actions, resulting in improvements in relations with various factions and subsequent bonuses as a result. Additionally, when starting a new game the galaxy is randomly generated, allowing players to choose a smaller, more difficult campaign or a longer, easier galaxy that allows for slow growth and peaceful learning of the basics before any real challenges present themselves.

As a sucker for customisation and all things sci-fi, I predict SPAZ will be a major time-suck in the coming days, and so receives a hearty recommendation.

Overall then, the HiB #6 was well worth the money I paid, features some quality games (personal favorites being SPAZ, Shatter and Torchlight) and the knowledge that not only am I helping the indie developers stay afloat, but I'm also supporting a charity, albeit with only a few dollars. If any of the games featured in this bundle, or any others mentioned from previous bundles for that matter, appeal to you then I heartily recommend you head over to the HiB website and at least check them out.

Brave

Brave is this year's summer Pixar offering that tells the tale of young Merida, a fiercely independent and self-assured Scottish princess, trying to remain just that as her mother pressures her to behave in a more lady-like manner and to get married. Or so I was lead to believe.

As it turned out, Merida (Kelly Macdonald), is not much more than a whiny, entitled child for the first half of the film, living in the absolute lap of luxury with her three irritating brothers, gargantuan father (Billy Connolly) and fussing mother (Emma Thompson) who is insisting she conform to tradition and choose a suitor to wed. This instantly soured the character to me; why should I feel for a young princess who never wants for anything, being asked to conform to the traditions of her family and culture? I could go into the political and social ramifications of the rise and fall in popularity of arranged marriages versus marrying for love, but this is a Pixar film, so I shan't.

So the initial setting and exposition failed to impress me, put me off the main character and generally dissolved any remaining hope I had for enjoying the next 70-or-so minutes. The second act failed to change my opinion much. There's a witch (Julie Walters) and some shape shifting, resulting in a bit of slap-stick comedy and what could be considered the 'crisis' section of this by-the-numbers plot.

During the scenes with the witch, I couldn't help but continue to dislike Merida. All her dialogue is focused on how she's not to blame for her poor relationship with her mother, and that if only her mother would change then everything would be OK etc.without a single thought regarding her own behaviour and whether or not she should change herself as well. As  Merida  implements her spell, the complete lack of sympathy for her mother's quite obvious pain was rather jarring.  Merida seemed more excited than concerned, right up until the spell had run its course, and then all her excitement turned into fear, not for her mother, but for herself. Distinct lack of caring for her own mother. As I said, jarring.

Thankfully, we see a clear change in Merida's character as she moves from the whiny child to a more responsible young adult after some time spent in the forest (a very folky mechanic/metaphor for change). Here she becomes a far more likable character, showing compassion, humour and caring instead of the rebellious tantrums we've seen so far.

Eventually, Merida figures out how to undo the spell and return things to normal, and so we move into the third act. Here there were a few scenes that I feel were attempting humour, but never quite hit the mark. Exaggerating people's features or highlighting one character trait for comic effect only goes so far, and what were supposed to be the few non-visual gags failed to entertain.

After some rather poor and predictable action scenes and reveals the film comes to a close with the ubiquitous message that love conquers all. A poor end to a mediocre film.

Overall, a mostly dislikeable protagonist, a bland and under-used supporting cast (didn't even spot Robbie Coltrane or Kevin McKidd), a predictable plot, poor-to-none on the action front and a very thin resolution. I don't really recommend this film to anyone over the age of about 12, as it has very little appeal beyond the surface story, which is naturally aimed more at the younger audience members.

So let's talk about Brave without talking about the story it tells.

The Production

First of all, the scandal with the directors. Brenda Chapman (Prince of Egypt, Beauty & The Beast) was set to be the first female director of a Pixar film, but during production Mark Andrews (John Carter) and Steve Purcell (a helluva lot of Sam & Max stuff) were attached to the project as well. Chapman promptly left, though she still receives a Director credit. 

Secondly, with five writers, Chapman, Andrews, Purcell, Irene Mecchi and Michael Arndt, all trying to not only share the responsibilities of directing but also trying to work together (when they're not walking off the project or being replaced) to carve out a script between them, there were bound to be issues - big and small - leading to a chimera of a story. Despite some of these writers having worked on great titles such as The Lion King, Fantasia 2000, Hercules and Toy Story 3 it does show, what with there being a very under-developed sub-plot revolving around Meredith's father and a bear, basically no secondary characters to speak of besides the other clan leaders who don't really feature enough to be interesting and a very limited number of locations (I counted five in the entire film).

As a result of such a maelstrom of directing and writing the finished product only features 14 voice actors. Compare that to Toy Story's 37, or Finding Nemo's 24. There are only 7 proper speaking roles, despite the film being set in a huge castle and featuring a few scenes with large crowds of people. Pixar usually does 'background entertainment' very well, utilising larger scenes completely by including interesting characters or events whilst the foreground focuses on the more important characters. Think of all the toys in each of the Toy Story films, most of them get very little screen time - especially those in Toy Story 3. The more important minor roles, such as Crush and Squirt in Finding Nemo or the Aliens and Army Men in Toy Story, also really helped to flesh out the world, whereas in Brave, even the obligatory John Ratzenburger role was minute and easily missed. I feel this is just an indication of a rushed, chopped-and-glued script that left next to no time for anything other than the main plot to be developed, resulting in a rather dry and perfunctory attempt at a film.

The 'Feminism'

There was a rather large hoo-har about Merida being the first female protagonist in a Pixar film. Think back, there really hasn't been one. Not in the Cars series, Toy Stories, Nemo, Up, WALL-E, every single one was male (or a robot). And now we have a fiery-haired Scottish princess heading up the story in Brave. Only, she's not exactly a great role-model.

With Merida, Pixar had the opportunity to sculpt a believable female role model to contrast the Disney princesses we're all too familiar with. What they have ended up creating is a character who enjoys all things tomboyish. There is not a thing wrong with girls enjoying horse riding, archery, rock climbing and other such activities deemed 'unladylike' by Brave.

However, when you contrast that with the incessant nagging of Merida's mother, who is trying to turn her daughter into a 'proper lady,' you have a clear gender divide between the more female pursuit of marrying a man and the more male pursuit of sportsmanship and such. This is such a black-and-white contrast that it backfires horribly. Where there could've been a respectable, strong young girl who just wants to do her own thing instead of being shackled to a man we're presented with a strong young girl who wants to be a boy.

When presented with the suitors, Merida is initially completely uninterested in them. That is, until a rather gorgeous looking gentleman is presented to her, at the sight of whom her jaw drops open. Another example of this film just missing the mark. Had she remained uninterested then I would've believed she really did have a problem with marriage. As it turns out, she just has a problem being married to ugly men.

I really couldn't believe this. I was skeptical that Merida was going to do to Pixar films what Ripley did to action films, but to see the finished product really disheartened me. It would appear that only Joss Whedon can write female characters that are not only relatable, realistic and deep but also entertaining to watch.

Crusader Kings II

As a life-long fan of historical strategy games (most notably the Age of Empires and Total War series but with a significant nod in the direction of Empire Earth) spotting Paradox Interactive's sequel to the famously popular Crusader Kings on sale for only £7.99 excited me greatly to say the least.

Being such a deep and complex title, from a studio that produces nothing but deep and complex titles, I shall attempt to break Crusader Kings 2 down into its constituent parts and attempt to explain and somewhat analyse them. Rounding off thearticle with a short account of my experiences as Duke of Brittany.

Gameplay

Crusader Kings 2 is best described as a 'dynasty simulator.' More simply put, which ever county, duchy, kingdom or empire you choose to start as is ruled by a family. Your entire objective is to keep that family in power for as along as possible whilst accumulating the highest score by the time you fall out of power. This is the simple concept at the heart of CK2, and sounds rather underwhelming at first. But once you dive into the plethora of game mechanics specifically designed to usurp your seat of power from under you, it becomes mighty intriguing, Whilst a brilliant concept, and new take on the global dominate game-type, it is mighty daunting and to the newcomer can appear nigh on impenetrable.

Highlighted Area - County of Penthièvre,
Maroon Area - Duchy of Brittany

As ruler you will be presented with a court and vassals. Even if you only rule a single province, the towns, castles and churches within that province will have named Mayors or Clergymen who consider you their liege. Your family, immediate and distant, representatives from neighboring provinces as well as travelling dignitaries from foreign lands are all presented to you as characters to be interacted with in your official capacity as ruler. Managing these relationships is the key to success in CK2. Ensuring you choose the right courtiers to fill positions in your advisory Council, granting landed or honorary titles and finding spouses will help to keep people's opinions of you positive. Failure to meet their needs, or ruling in a haphazard and unjust manner will only serve to fuel rebellion and plotting amongst your inferiors, and could lead to your assassination. This is where all the fun kicks in. Having the foresight to predict when and how the inheritance system of your lands works and bending it so you have a claim to nearly everything in the nearby vicinity is a great power trip. Spreading rumours about neighboring Barons so their sons begin to plot to usurp them is ridiculously satisfying, especially when those sons reward your assistance in the matter by swearing fealty to you and offering their lands as a reward.


There is a heavy lean towards historical accuracy with, as far as I can tell, every ruler based on an historic figure. Obviously, if you start marrying people and begetting children who never got married or begat then the historical accuracy will break down, but the effort and attention to detail is a very nice touch. Where possible, characters also have a direct link to their Wikipedia page in their character panel, which is a great example of the level of detail Paradox is willing to include. It also encourages tangential learning, which I'm all for.

De jure kingdoms of Europe

Continuing this attention to detail theme, the game introduces a rather complex concept to the player right from the start. I needed to Google 'de jure' and 'de facto' fairly early on in my time with CK2, and I'm still not 100% sure what they mean. The closest I have come to defining them is this: a de facto duchy describes the provinces that swear fealty to Duke, be they under his direct control or under the control of a loyal vassal Count; a de jure duchy describes the provinces that *should* make up the duchy, regardless of who owns them at that time. For example, Brittany is a de jure duchy of five provinces in Northern France, independent from France itself. However, the de jure Kingdom of France includes Brittany, meaning that were you to choose to play as the Kingdom of France, you would not be in control of any of the provinces in Brittany at first, and bringing them under your control would be a prime objective in order to complete the de jure kingdom. Simply put, de jure should be read as 'wants to be together,' and de facto as 'current ownership.'

The aforementioned 'score' is calculated upon the death of a ruling family member, by adding their Prestige and Piety scores together. This number then becomes the score for that ruler, and is added into the family score, together with all previous rulers. Piety is generated by ruling in a just, magnanimous, solemn or zealous manner by pandering to the Pope, the local bishops and the religious needs of your subjects. Should your clergy favour you over the current Pope, and should you chose to, you can even elect one of your Bishops to become Antipope and break away from Rome.


Prestige is awarded for ruling in a more Feudal manner, with gallant acts, defeating enemies in combat and becoming the envy of your courtier through lavish feasts, construction of superior infrastructure and settlements. Most key decisions you are presented with will most likely increase one of these key factors whilst decreasing the other. For example, when throwing a mighty feast in honour of your recent successful hunt, a courtier might suggest you hire some Jewish jongleurs as entertainment. This will improve the Prestige haul you get from throwing the feast, but will most likely upset your Court Chaplain by having Jews in the palace, thus reducing your Piety. It is, in essence, a balancing act.


This system could be considered a moral choice compass, but only very loosely, as neither option is consistently the 'right' choice to make. It is a great tool to simply allow you to mold your leader, and subsequently your domain, however you see fit. I find myself leaning towards the Pious choices more often than not, as my experiences with the Total War series have taught me time and again to never, ever aggravate The Pope lest he call a Crusade.

Finances are also a consideration, however there is no periodical upkeep or expenditure from the treasury, unlike most other empire-building simulators I've played. Taxes are collected from your subjects and added to the reserve for you to spend at will until there is nothing left, at which point you just wait for more taxes to be collected. There is a financial penalty for having a standing army that increases with time as soldiers become more disgruntled with war and require more pay for equipment and supplies. Whilst this certainly makes the game easier to play, I'm not sure if it was the right choice because it boils down the military aspect of the game to simple numbers - he who owns more land, has more levies, wins more battles. There's no sense of strategy to combat other than choosing the time to strike. Example: during a brief play as an Irish Count I chose to invade Wales just after the local levies had been raised to deal with an English incursion. Taking advantage of the lack of defenders I laid siege to a province. Unfortunately, the Welsh forces returned home and ousted me rather brutally.

Making a decision to shape the next generation

There is a heavy slant towards selective and careful breeding in CK2, with an entire mechanic devised purely for accurately assigning genetic traits of the mother and father to any offspring they might have, as well as blending these traits to create entirely new ones. This means that choosing the correct débutante for your son can make the difference between him fathering a military genius to lead your family in future generations or a simpleton who becomes the butt of all the court jester's jokes. Having certain traits, such as Arbitrary or Gregarious, which can be acquired through making key decisions presented to you during your rule, enables you to choose additional options in future decisions. For example, my family ruler received Gregarious after throwing one too many lavish feasts. The next decision I was presented with regarding how to respond to a drunken insult from one of my courtiers, presented me with the usual two options but a third option to give the bloke another drink and laugh it all off, due to being known as Gregarious. The idea of shaping a person by their lineage, decisions, actions and experiences is a highly rewarding experience, and is as close as any game has come to simulating the lives of a medieval ruler that I have so far experienced.

By breeding in the correct traits your future leaders can gain advantages when ruling. Each character has an individual skill level across five statistics: Diplomacy (for negotiating with all other characters), Martial Skill (for commanding troops and the respect of military leaders), Stewardship (for managing finances), Intrigue (for uncovering the nefarious actions of others and conducting your own) and Learning (for researching new technology/for spreading faith). Every trait your character gains during their life, from inheriting their mother's silver tongue to becoming a renown vanquisher of enemy forces in battle, will affect these statistics, and these statistics are what mostly define your success as a ruler. For example, it's very difficult to dissuade your courtiers from plotting to kill your heir if you have a very low diplomatic skill, and it can be most troubling to find that your army refuses to fight for you due to your woeful martial abilities. Knowing the traits of your ruler, and understanding the applications of each statistic is vital to success. However, a good player can adapt their style to suit these statistics. For example, a ruler with high Intrigue should quickly grow accustomed to the most slimy and duplicitous roads to more power - assassinations, usurping and deceit. Whereas a leader with a high Martial Skill should be used to gain power by way of the sword, not the tongue.


Aesthetics

Not Pictured: Playable provinces in
Iceland and The Middle East

Crusader Kings 2 doesn't need to be pretty, as it's focused around managing people instead of fighting grand battles. The game is less than 1GB in size and contains enough gameplay to allow you to rule from Morocco to Scotland to Dubai; more than most Total War titles I might add. The main map is detailed enough, with basic terrain visually represented, such as forests, mountain ranges and rivers, without being too crowded that you lose sight of who owns what. There are eight different colour-coded overlays to the map, allowing you to quickly see how a certain County is ruled at every level, from the local Baron to the Duke he owes direct vassalage to, up to the King who rules the immediate area and finally to the Emperor who holds sway over the region. This is great, as it allows you to easily see the ramifications of attempting to take over a certain region. Other overlays present you with the dominant religion, the de jure duchies, kingdoms and empires, any casus beli you might currently have as well as a general opinions filter; where all provinces have a spectrum from green to red depending on how strongly they feel about the leader of the selected province. These tools are vital to governing an empire, and presented in just the right way so that, once learned, they can be rapidly referred to at a glance instead of having to try and fathom how many different rulers of various levels will come crashing down on me if I invade county X.

Character models for the Council figures and armies are, similarly to the map, enough to get by. This is certainly not a complaint as there really is no need for anything more than what they are. 

The shining jewel in the presentation of Crusader Kings 2 is most definitely in the score. In fact, four out of the available nine DLC packs are for more music. Have a listen:

Longevity

Considering the objective and the number of playable positions, CK2 can be considered endless. So long as you have a desire to play you'll be able to find a county, duchy or kingdom you haven't tried yet, starting during a time period you haven't experienced yet. This combination of really quite a daunting number of possible starting positions does mean even the most die-hard fans will tire long before the game has been exhausted - which is the right situation to be in. With the additional DLC 'Sword of Islam' even more playable areas are unlocked across Spain, North Africa, The Middle East and Pagan Europe; not to mention the Custom Ruler DLC pack that allows you to design and flesh out characters to be used in general gameplay.

There is also online/LAN multiplayer options which I haven't tried yet, but I can imagine that would be one ridiculously lengthy LAN session.


One of the more popular aspects of CK2 is the modding. Paradox have a fairly open-door policy when it comes to customer feedback. Register your game code on their forums and start throwing suggestions for new DLC, new maps, mods, music, colour palette anything, and they'll listen to the community and take the time to produce the most popular suggestions.


And of course, the most popular mod to come about so far is Game of Thrones. I'm a huge fan of the HBO series, haven't read the books, but after playing CK2 and understanding the political sport in Westeros I can definitely see how the two could gel very well.

Very excited to try my hand as a Lannister

Conclusion

The best way to sum up Crusader Kings 2 would be 'Football Manager: Total War.' It has the complexity and detailed stats analysis of a roster game but with the historical depth and appeal of an empire builder. It certainly is good to see a game where conquest isn't based on than having a bigger stick that the other guy, but on being clever, attentive and forward thinking. The bigger you play, the bigger you have to be thinking, and I'm not ashamed to admit that sometimes everything does get a little too much for me, especially when playing as a kingdom or empire, but I count that in the game's favour as it just indicates the quality of the ruling simulation.

In short, some cracking mechanics and stunning depth, mediocre on the aesthetic side but not to the games detriment. The staggering replay value certainly makes this a game to grab, but I would suggest watching a few Let's Play videos on YouTube first, just to be sure you're comfortable with it not being Total War.


A solid suggestion to all strategy fans, if for nothing else than it's a fresh look at how to rule the world. If you've already played any of the other popular Paradox games then you'll be right at home here.



As promised, here is an account of the first few decades of my experiences as Conan II, the Duke of Brittany:

King Conan II and the Duchy of Brittany

King Conan II inherited the duchy from his father Alan III. Being an independent state, Brittany is autocratic but cultures a strongly peaceful relationship with neighboring Kingdom of France, despite the French desire to claim Brittany as part of the Kingdom.


But in 1069, Conan's uncle, Count Eudes of Penthièvre, became displeased with the result of his brother's death. Duke Alan III's titles had been divided amongst his children, in accordance with the agnatic-cognatic gavelkind inheritance laws of the duchy. Count Eudes saw himself as a more fit ruler, and was quite vocal about it at court. Several months passed before his words became actions, however.


Duke Conan tried to appease Count Eudes, by allowing him to remarry after his wife had died of consumption the year before leaving him childless. Conan even saw fit to grant Count Eudes the honorary title of Master of The Hunt, as well as throwing a feast in his honour, in an attempt to quell his dissent. But it was to no avail.


In the spring of 1071, Conan's wife and spymaster, Princess Maior of Navarra whom he had wed early on in his reign to secure ties with Catholic allies in Northern Spain, discovered that Count Eudes was plotting to have Conan killed during the next autumn hunt After his attempt to arrange an 'accident' failed Count Eudes saw no other alternative than to raise the levies of his realm to engage Duke Conan in open war in the winter of the same year.

Duke Conan could not hope to raise an equal army on his own. Luckily, he was a generous and strong leader, possessing of high martial skill and two trusted vassals; the Counts of Leon and Nantes. These stout men could be relied upon to offer the services of their levies in times of need, and this was one of those times.

Rallying the now bolstered army to his stronghold in Rennes, Duke Conan awaited his traitor uncle to make his move. Count Eudes chose to invade Rennes at the height of summer, heading straight for Duke Conan's forces.

A bloody battle took place, but the valiant forces of Duke Conan outnumbered those loyal to Count Eudes 3-to-1, and the Count was forced to retreat back to his castle in Penthièvre where Conan besieged him for three long years.

Eventually the siege was lifted in 1074 and the revolt suppressed. Those levies in the service of Count Eudes were excused their actions and allowed to return home, on account of their commander being the source of treachery, and not the men themselves.

As for Eudes, Conan saw fit to have him imprisoned for his crimes, not having the heart to execute a member of his family despite his actions. In the dungeons of St. Malo Eudes resided for five long years until his life ended in 1079.


Having no heir, wife or siblings Eudes' title as Count of Penthièvre passed to his closest living relative; Duke Conan II. As a reward for their loyal services in suppressing the revolt, Conan awarded the Count of Nantes a sizable gift of gold and bestowed upon him the title of Master of The Horse. The Count of Leon was gifted a comparable reward of gold, and the title Keeper of The Swans.



Meanwhile, Conon's brother-in-law, King Antso the Unready of Navarra was under attack. The Muslim forces invading Spain had pushed their way northwards to the foothills of the Pyrénées, and Antso was calling for aid.

Once again, Conan and his loyal vassals raised the levies and made preparations for war. In 1082 the army departed Leon for the coast of northern Spain.

The Battle of Teruel

A month after landing, his forces engaged a Muslim army in Aragoza, at the Battle of Teruel. The two forces were evenly matched but, with God on his side, Duke Conan was victorious and the invaders driven out.

King Antso was very grateful for the assistance, and warmly welcomed Conan's bastard son Alan into his court. Young Alan was a promising young man, destined for a life in the clergy, until he fell for a young debutante in the court of King Antso; the daughter of Antso's most loyal vassal - The Mayor of Tudela. Both King Antso and Duke Conan blessed the union and in 1083 the two were wed.

Sadly, Alan's father-in-law passed away in 1085. Owing to the succession laws in Navarra, the position as Mayor of Tudela should pass to the oldest male son. However, Alan was a bastard and therefore could not hold landed titles. Duke Conan sent his envoys to Rome, to ask The Pope to legitimise Alan, and he agreed. Alan became Mayor of Tudela later that year.

Unfortunately, owing to an old wound he received on a hunting trip as a child and his dedication to God as a result of his formative years spent in Rome, under the guidance of Conan's Court Chaplain, Alan never had any children.

When he passed away in 1087, killed in battle in the service of King Antso, there was no heir to his position as Mayor of Tudela. The closest family relative able to hold landed titles was Duke Conan II of Brittany. Conan graciously accepted the title, declaring that he shall use Tudela as a base of operations in the war against the Muslim invaders, to secure Christian lands for Christian people once again.



And that, is how in-depth Crusader Kings 2 can be.

The Dark Knight Rises

Ladies and gentleman, please direct your attention to the following sentence: here is a spoiler warning, as the following article contains plot development, character actions and other important information for The Dark Knight Rises. You have been warned.

Having shelled out the ridiculous price of a cinema ticket to go see TDKR (primarily so I don't have to worry about reading any spoilers in the months before its release on DVD) I am going to share my opinions with you. I have chosen to structure this review on a character-by-character basis, before talking about the film in general and then reflect on its quality. I will honestly state that I'm not a comic reader, but I do have experience of the DC universe through secondary media - games, films and tv shows - so when I'm discussing what so-and-so character *should* be like, I'm referring only to my impression of them through secondary media alone.

Yes, it's a long one, so let us begin:

Batman

Well, we don't get to see a whole lot of The Caped Crusader this time round, what with Bruce having more interesting things to do in deep Caribbean prisons and being a tad shaken up since the death of Rachel in the last film, some 8 years ago by the Nolanverse calender. When we do get a glimpse of the shiny black suit and Kiss-style eye makeup it's pretty much more of the same. Some fighting, some "WHERE IS SHEEEEE?!?!" screaming into some poor bloke's face and some very cool double-team fighting with Selina in the third act. The interaction between Wayne+Selina and Batman+Selina was a definite highlight for me. When Bruce catches her stealing the pearls right at the top of the film and suddenly this quiet, dutiful maid comes out with sass and passion I was pleasantly surprised, a feeling that continued throughout the film in pretty much every one of their scenes together. I loved the "So that's what that feels like.." line Batman mumbles after Selina disappears from the rooftop mid-conversation; really impling that these two are equals in each others eyes, and therefore they should also be in the eyes of the audience, instead of Poor, Feeble Selina and The Big Bad Bat (something I was dreading).

Overall, Bale did another good, solid Batman when he was actually on screen, as well as his usual half-smooth, half-emotionally damaged Wayne behind the mask.

Bane

Well then, Bane.....

I think this was a poor stab at the character, only capturing the bare essence that makes him such a brilliant rogue. The absence of Venom I can understand, the Nolanverse is supposed to be more realistic and uber-steroids aren't really that viable. But the lack of a well defined and self-fueled cunning and calculating nature was really poor. We first find Bane working for Daggett in order to ruin Wayne financially, which seemed a bit reminiscent of the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship in Batman & Robin, where Ivy uses Bane for muscle and not a lot else. However, with time it appears that Bane is running his own scheme, with designs to only appear to be working for Daggett until the time is right.....but then Ra's al Ghul is pulled back into the mix and it turns out that Bane is just doing what Ra's wants, with the hopes of being accepted back into the League of Shadows. This totally undercuts Bane as a strong, intellegent character. The way that he talks about Ra's indicated a sense of admiration and respect; a desire to prove his worth to someone else. That isn't the Bane I know or wanted to see.

Incidentally, Bane and Talia al Ghul never had a romantic relationship, she despised him, calling him weak for not being able to beat Batman, which was when Ra's decided Bruce should marry Talia and become the heir to the League. I must say, Bane + Daggett felt very reminiscent of Hammer + Vanko, albeit a lot more serious and dark, as is the way with the Nolanverse.

There is also a lack in the admiration and respect Bane shows Batman (their first encounter came about because Bane heard that Batman was unbeatable and decided to challenge him, motivated only by personal pride and sportsmanship, not madness/ambition), their relationship should've been more akin to two individuals with differing political views on how to run Gotham, coming to the conclusion that they will have to fight for control, not one going after the other because reasons.

Regarding the presentation of Bane; I felt he wasn't muscular enough. Yes, this is the Nolanverse where everything aims to be as feasible as possible, and yes Hardy does look pretty damn stacked, but it wasn't enough for me. I grew up on a diet of Bane looking like a walking tank, and I guess I was just expecting a little more. Jeep Swenson, the actor who played Bane in Batman & Robin was a real person, so it's clearly possible to that muscular.... But, understandably, Swenson never had to act or even talk in Batman & Robin, and Nolan needed an actual actor for his iteration, so a compromise between muscles and acting had to be found.

The mask was another issue. Not only is it never explained further than "it keeps the pain in," but as Talia is reattaching parts of it after Batman has beaten Bane there is the sound of escaping gas, which could easily have been Venom. Not attributing his ability to withstand the beatings in Peña Dura to his use and subsequent reliance on Venom was a missed opportunity, I feel, as it would have explained the "it keeps the pain in" line as well as giving an actual reason for the mask to exist.

Selina Kyle

Selina Kyle (never referred to as Catwoman in the film) was wonderful. She felt nearly Whedon-esque in her portrayal, and by that I mean she wasn't a 'tits+ass in leather' girl, but more an actual character who was also female. I was truly happy that I didn't have to write "standard arse-out scene for SK" in my notes whilst watching the film; a serious concern of mine. There was only one moment in which I felt that Nolan felt obligued to have a kiss, and of course there had to be less than 2 minutes left til the detonation. 

Selina was written exceptionally well, with perfectly sculpted dialogue to keep the audience guessing as to her sincerity in pretty much every scene. I didn't see her betrayal coming at all, which I'm attributing to the strength of the dialogue and direction. There was a touch of 'Lower Class Hero' about her, made very clear during her dance with Bruce, which I found quite trite and boring. I was glad to see it didn't become a main theme throughout her development, and seemed to merely be dropped in to give her a reason to initially side with Bane and his plan to overthrow the upper classes.

After every inevitable betrayal there is usually an inevitable reconciliation and rescue. This is implemented really well, managing to tie in nicely with the canonic character of Catwoman; she has serious affection for Batman/Wayne and yet always has this animalistic instinct of self-preservation, which is perfectly illustrated by her vehemently expressing her desire to escape as soon as the opportunity presented itself, and the momentary pause after she clears the tunnel blockage.

The costume was great. It was less superhero and more practical thief, with her goggles acting as subtle little ears when she pushed them back off her face. The bladed stilettos were a nice touch, keeping the character 'strong and feminine' without making her a 'strong female.' Enough to be recognisable as the comic character, but not so feline-obsessed as the last time round.

Det. Blake

Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to be one of my favorite actors these days. I loved him in (500) Days of Summer, I loved him in 50/50 and, of course, I've always loved him in 3rd Rock From The Sun. However, I was skeptical regarding his casting as what appeared to be a serious-faced policeman, I didn't think he had the style for it even though he handled his role in Inception with aplomb. Up until now I had nailed that down as a fluke. However, I was thoroughly proved wrong, it was not a fluke and am now looking forward to Looper even more that before.

As, what you could call a secondary character, Blake gets a helluva lot of screen time, some of the best conversations and interactions as well as the most emotive character arc. His relationship with the children, with Gordon and with Wayne are all solid and believable. Following his developing career, seeing him promoted from an officer in uniform to a plain-clothes detective was great. The personal interest Gordon shows in this 'young hot-head' helped to reinforce that this guy was the one to watch, he knew what was going down before anyone else and finally someone was listening to him. He was my favorite aspect of this film, hands down. 

I wasn't aware before seeing the film, but Blake (revealed to actually be Tim Drake) was one of the boy wonders who became Robin. This is revealed right at the very end of the film with a throw-away line regarding his name. I feel that the character has already progressed past my impression of who Robin is/is supposed to be as a character and feels more like a Nightwing or a Red Robin (as the Robin's have all become). Nolan has stated there will not be any more Batmans in the Nolanverse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a Red Robin film being discussed soon.

Other Characters

Those few important figures in this film that deserve mention but aren't really 'main characters.'

Alfred:

Still a perfect balance between that sweet, caring humour and the calm voice of reason and welcome council that Michael Caine has always portrayed so well in the Nolanverse. This time round Alfred feels much more fleshed out, with more intersting aspects to his relationship with 'Master Bruce' as well as a gut-wrenching scene at the end which WILL have you reaching for the tissues.

Miss Tate/Talia al Gul:

I disliked this character greatly. I felt she was rapidly introduced from nowhere, expecting the audience to treat her on the same level as Lucius Fox or Alfred, i.e. background characters that will have a few very important things to do or say during the film. It was only because she was played (reasonably well, I don't dispute) by Marion Cotillard that I actually payed any attention to her early on. Her relationship with Bruce seemed very unnecessary and frankly made no sense. Yes, she is in love with him in the other Batman universes, but in the Nolanverse she appears from nowhere, badgers Bruce about the generator project a bit then turns up at his house and suddenly they're in bed (or rather, in rugs by the fireplace) together. I didn't buy it.

The shock reveal of her true identity took me completely by surprise. It did explain her relationship with Bruce and having a connection to the League Of Shadows is pretty much the deus ex machina reason to be on the board of this or that in the DC universes, so it made thematic sense to me - albeit shockingly.

Commissioner Gordon:

Taking a more minor role in this film, Gordon felt underdeveloped. This was probably a result of working on the assumption that we know all we need to know about him. His wife and kids have left him and he's about to be 'asked to step down' as Commissioner. He looks and acts tired, like the weight of the Dent Act is physically hurting him - a perfect portrayal of the situation. After getting shot and being confined to a hospital bed you can feel his frustration at having no control over 'his city' and 'his cops.' After the city is cut off his role as leader of the resistance gives him new life; it's back to the rough and ready work that we saw him handle in the first two films, a situation where he thrives. Overall, another testament to Gary Oldman's abilities.

Dr. Jonathon Crane:

A brief appearance for Cillian Murphy, reprising his role but without the mask and FEAR-gas associated with his alter ego, Scarecrow. I enjoyed him showing his face, but couldn't help but think that the part had been written for Heath Ledger's Joker; sitting in a chaotic court room passing judgement on the elite of Gotham and sentencing them to death or death thinly-veiled as exile.

The Film

I felt that the pacing was both a strength and a weakness; as a strength it worked well to slowly increase the threat that Bane posed to Gotham which upped the stakes not only for Batman but for Blake, Gordon and Kyle as well. As a weakness, the pacing caused the second act to drag a little for me, there was an absence of Batman and whilst I'm not an action-junkie, there could've been a decent prison riot scene in Peña Duro or at least a few scenes explaining how Bruce gets back to Gotham from the Caribbean.

I'll divide the action into two parts; set pieces and showdowns.

The set pieces weren't anything special. The escape from the stock market was mediocre, with some potential tension sacrificed to make way for some entertaining cops. We've seen the whole city out to get Batman before, what I wanted to see was Bane fighting off dozens of cops single-handed. The chase sequence in the third act involving The Bat and two of the tumblers was, again, mediocre. I was expecting Batman to put The Bat on auto-pilot and swing down onto a tumbler and punch out the driver or something equally as exciting, but I guess that would've made the ending even easier to predict.

The two showdowns between Bane and Batman were polar opposites. The first instance was great; we see Batman giving it his all and Bane just taking the punches. Bane even shows a glimmer of his towering intellect that Nolan mostly ignores when he manages to compensate for Batman's use of the dark - his best weapon. After a few minutes of slugging it out and getting nowhere Bane destroys the Bat - I certainly felt every single one of those blows to Batman's temple that crushed his cowl. The scene had no 'epic battle music' which was a massive plus; it just focused on the clashing of two powerhouses. When Bane finally breaks Batman's back the whole movement was superbly done, from Bane lifting him to the momentary hesitation as he held Batman aloft to the sickening noise as he dropped him. This has been called a 'fan service' inclusion, but I feel it's pretty much vital to any story involving Bane, I would not have been happy if it had been left out.

The second showdown was dire. I'm referring to the encounter amid the street-war between the Police and Bane's forces, where the newly healed Batman has very little trouble kicking the crap out of Bane, breaking his mask in the process. I feel that a few weeks/months training in a prison and climbing a wall should in no way give Batman this sudden edge. Had I been in charge of this scene, it would've been longer and a much closer match, with Batman only just managing to win by the skin of his teeth. But then again, that scene does lead into the final reveal of everything and the total running time is 165 minutes so I can understand if it was a logistical call.

Issues

I do have some issues with this film. And by issues, I mean anything ranging from actual problems to nerdy nit-picking. I'll start with the most important:

The Dark Knight Rises suffers heavily from The Phantom Menace Syndrome. By that I refer to the impossible-to-define-the-protagonist aspect of Star Wars Episode 1. Is it Obi-wan, Amidala, Qui-Gon, Anakin, Mace Windu? There is no right answer.

The same happens here, with Batman, Blake, Gordon, Kyle and Bruce Wayne all apparently (to me at least) getting pretty much the same amount of screen time and development. Yes, all their paths come together at the end to tie up the film nicely, but during the second act, in particular, I found myself having to keep track of five different threads. When this happens, usually one or two are integral to the main, over-arching plot, but here *all* of them are. And that smacks of either two films shunted into one; panic that the film wasn't interesting enough and so more content was shoveled in or an indecisive editing process. Either way, it's simple maths - the more story arcs you have to follow the less each arc will be developed. As a result, there's very little Batman in a Batman film.

Bane's voice was ridiculous. Now I saw the 11 minutes of footage released months ago and I couldn't understand a word Tom Hardy was saying, so I'm glad that his voice was changed so that the audience can at least understand the words. But what was presented to me throughout the film ranged from a poor Sean Connery impression to General Grievous. It added to my dislike of the character, as he either sounded deranged or comical in some of the most crucial scenes. The 'improvements' to his voice irritated me in a second way; they felt like a narration. Given the fact that Bane has no visible mouth, I found it difficult to associate this disembodied voice with the character on screen. Tom Hardy did a great job of conveying emotion and intent with just his eyes, but it always felt about a second before or after the words Bane was supposedly saying.

Bane also appears to have some sort of Jedi mind-powers. On two occasions he touches people (Daggert and Wayne) relatively lightly and suddenly they're in serious pain. What the hell was that?! Never explained or even mentioned; very confusing.

Selina Kyle's martial arts skills, her abilities as a master thief and her acrobatic prowess are never explained or addressed, but just presented with the expectation that the audience will accept them. Well, I didn't. I could've done with at least a short section of dialogue explaining her backstory.

Similarly, Blake figures out who Batman is by looking at him once. Now, this is canon, as Blake has aspirations from a young age to be the World's Greatest Detective (Batman's accolade) and does manage to figure out who Batman/Wayne really is. But the short, throw-away line explaining this seemed a tad silly. Even more so when you compare it to Selina Kyle *not* managing to figure it out, even though she's spent considerable more time in the company of both Batman and Bruce Wayne.

I see no point in having Detective Blake revealed to be Tim Drake right at the end of the film, and then having him follow Bruce's instructions to find the Batcave if there are going to be no more Nolanverse Batman films. It seems pointless, and therefore there must be a point to it. I feel it's just sequel baiting, but not for Batman.

A few nit-picky flaws:

During the stock exchange robbery scene, I do not believe that a shoe-shine and a janitor could've smuggled automatic weapons into a building that reacted so strongly to Bane just because he was wearing a crash helmet.

In the escape from the stock market the police raised barriers to prevent Bane's escape. My question is, why make ramps? Why not just have a vertical-sided wall that no vehicle could just easily drive over? Seemed purposefully stupid to allow Bane to escape.

After getting his hands on what looked like the wireless antennae to the tablet Bane's minion was using Batman is able to trace all its traffic? I know he's Batman, but that's a bit ridiculous.

During the chase sequence in the third act one of the tumblers fires a barrage of missiles at The Bat, something like 8-10. Most harmlessly and quickly impact nearby buildings, but 3 missiles manage to track The Bat through numerous narrow streets and around tight corners. Were these 'better' missiles? Seems like adding risk and/or tension just for the sake of it, but then having it end up looking silly.

That chant. I really hated that chant. It sounded like "this is sparta, sparta" to me ever since the first teasers came out. Hans Zimmer states that it's written 'deshi basara' and it apparently means 'rise up' in a legitimate, but as of yet unconfirmed, language. Those words and that sound don't compute to me.

Conclusions

Overall, not a bad film. It's not the second coming that I was told it would be, nor has it managed to live up to my experience of watching The Dark Knight for the first time. Sadly, I feel that it fails as a Batman film, which for me need to have at least three things:

1) A strong villain; with a believable motivation, unique style and personality

2) A good interaction between Batman and the villain; either in back-story or through the clashing of order/chaos as we saw with The Joker, or through ideology as we *should've* seen with Bane

3) A smattering of Batman-esque gadgets and feats; this time round we had a gun that stopped a motorbike once, a very poorly designed and implemented Batwing and big ol' bomb that might as well have been red sticks of TNT with an alarm clock in it when compared to the microwave emitter in Batman Begins.

My recommendation won't make anyone see or not see it, with the media saturation and Batman Fever that Nolan has cultivated you've either already seen it, are going to see it soon or have no interest in seeing it. But, for what it's worth, I'd recommend this to fans of the Nolan Batman, but not to those fans of Batman as a universe. It's not a great end to a series that has been so popular for so long, but it is a reasonably good film overall with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway being my two shining stars.