Reviews

The question The Longest Daycare raises is "what is the point?" Overall, it's an interesting enough experience, and it is certainly an antidote to the spectacularly awful standard of the television show for the last few years. But as a standalone experience, it just seems kind of pointless.

For starters, the story isn't exactly the most original ever conceived. We see Maggie being dropped off at daycare by Marge, and she is then left to fend for herself against her arch-nemesis, baby Gerald. Let alone the fact that this kind of story has already been done in various different ways a couple of times, it has also been done much better. The television episode "A Streetcar Named Marge" deals with Maggie being sent to Daycare, and we've seen baby Gerald several times also, so there really isn't many new ideas raised here.

Also, Maggie is actually quite a strong character considering she rarely, if ever, talks, but despite this she is the one Simpson that tends to be forgotten about, so a short based solely on her probably was never going to work particularly well anyway.

It does, however, allow the writers to work without dialogue, which is an interesting idea that we haven't seen from the Simpsons before, and is the strongest aspect of the short, and is certainly the best way to deal with a story based on Maggie.

Unfortunately, this doesn't save the story from being weak, and the adventure Maggie embarks on in daycare is pretty lacklustre and not particularly exciting or entertaining. Couple that with the brand-new animation, which I firmly believe only reminds us that this isn't the same show that was so legendarily hilarious and of such high quality back in its prime, and we're left with merely another hollow shell of what The Simpsons used to be.

The Longest Daycare is another example of the traps the show has fallen into these last few years. The new-age animation can't make up for poor stories, unfunny scenarios and wasted characters. This kind of material is fine for low-rated, low-quality shows struggling to get by, but it shouldn't be enough for The Simpsons.

The Simpsons Movie is curious. What was one of the greatest television programmes ever broadcast until season eleven, and a very good show until season fourteen, eventually nosedived by the time it reached season fifteen, and the quality of this monumentally enjoyable series plummeted into the rock bottom territory in finds itself in today. The film is an unusual experience, as it offers a mixture of both the great and awful periods of the show and, to its credit, creates a new standalone experience of its own, meaning that despite any criticisms, at least it feels like a legitimate film, not just an overlong television episode.

The story itself however is all over the place, an effect I suspect the writers may have suffered after nearly twenty years of the show being written to fit twenty minute time slots rather than nearly ninety. The plot of Homer bring about the family's exile from Springfield after causing a major environmental disaster, and their eventual attempt to return to the town when they hear of an evil plot hatched by a dastardly government agent, is amusing and gives the Simpson family plenty of screen-time, particularly Lisa who gets a surprisingly affecting love story sub-plot, but as it progresses and more crazy and uneven plot-lines develop, it feels like the writers are struggling to keep it moving forward. Despite avoiding the trap of feeling like an extra-long episode, the film's plot just seems incapable of sustaining itself throughout the whole running time, and occasionally becomes desperate for momentum.

Despite this, Matt Groening and his team should take pride that at times a bit of the old magic that made the show so legendary in its time manages to shine through, and some excellent jokes and one liners are breathed into The Simpsons again, something which looked almost impossible given the standard of the series for the last few years. But the film certainly has some extremely funny moments, including the popular Spider-Pig. The cast are all on fine form, some actually seem better than they've been in sometime, and some of the past guest stars make an appearance, such as Joe Mantegna and Albert Brookes, who makes a hilarious return as shady government agent Russ Cargil.

That being said, it's not always hilarious, and although we see some of the old high quality again, we also see a lot of evidence of the huge drop in standard of The Simpsons, with some blatantly unfunny moments and some cringingly bad jokes. I firmly believe the improvement of the show's animation only emphasized the poor quality of the newer episodes, and similarly with the film, the high definition, crystal-clear picture of the new and improved animation often reminds us that this is not the same Simpsons that changed the way we view television comedy series. This constant reminder of the drop in quality isn't helped by the fact that there are just times where the film is not funny. It tries very hard to be, giving it an occasional feeling of self-consciousness that doesn't feel right and actually makes the jokes more unfunny and a little awkward. This mixture of both hilarious and banal jokes is strange, and it really feels as though we're watching a classic older episode that has been spliced together with a terrible new one.

Another weakness that in the film's defence was to be expected, up to a point, is the lack of adequate screen-time for most of the supporting characters. In fairness, expecting every one of the many minor characters to appear for a large amount of time is unreasonable, as even if they were each given just five minutes to themselves, the film could have run for hours. However, some characters, such as Chief Wiggum and Mr Burns, are given a satisfying amount of time to shine, merely a few funny lines or a couple of amusing moments, but that is plenty of time, and in that case, the same certainly should have been expected for other hugely popular characters like Krusty, Moe or Apu, who, although make a brief appearance, are robbed of any memorable or enjoyable moments. I don't ask for huge sections devoted entirely to these specific characters, just the couple of lines or small moments that would have satisfied everyone.

Worse than this is that some characters don't even make a real appearance at all, appearing only briefly in the background, such as Mrs Krabappel, Barney, or my personal favourite character Sideshow Bob, whose scene was cut entirely. During the film, there is a fantastic shot of all the townspeople, looking fantastically detailed in the sharp and refined high-definition picture, but what is the point of even animating them at all if they don't get the screen-time they deserve? Realistically, it would have only added a maximum of ten minutes to the running time, which I can safely say we all could have survived with.

Despite these faults, there is something the film should be applauded for- it gives depth back to the Simpsons themselves. One of the truly great things about the series was that the characters were three-dimensional. They had an emotional aspect that felt real, something sorely missed from the series for several years. The film brings that back. For the first time in years, we feel for the characters. We want Homer to do right by his family. We want Lisa to be happy in herself. We even want Bart to say "eat my shorts". This vital ingredient has been absent from the show for some time, and is most welcome in the film.

The Simpsons Movie is an interesting film. It mixes good and bad aspects of the show, along with touches of its own unique style, and overall succeeds pretty well. Whether it's a nostalgic glimpse of the show's glory days, a sad look at the state it's in today, or just an entertaining ninety minutes you're after, this film has it.

I think I know exactly what the majority of the people reading this interview are saying- "5/10?? What the hell is going on here?! Has this guy lost his mind???!!" I admit, it was quite a difficult rating to give, and not one that I imagine will go down particularly well. But the unfortunate fact about this review is that I can't just look at the show's "Golden Age" when it was widely considered to be one of the funniest television shows ever created, cartoon or otherwise. Nor can I talk about the almost inconceivable plummet in the show's standards over the past five or so years, though God knows I could talk about that for hours. I have to look at the whole series, from the very beginning to where we are now, and take the whole of The Simpsons into account, from the ingenious hilarity of the past to the staggeringly awful quality we have today.

First off, I should make it abundantly clear that to me, The Simpsons, from season one right up until season ten, was one of the funniest television shows ever to air, past, present and I strongly believe future. Creator Matt Groening, together with Sam Simon and James L. Brooks, should be very proud of the work they achieved with them. These seasons are simply incredibly, painfully, blood vessel-burstingly hilarious. Blessed with an incredibly talented and naturally comedic cast, nearly all of whom have stayed committed to the show since its beginning, it has been host to a huge amount of characters who are all brilliantly funny in their own unique, very original way. The jokes range from silly slapstick, all the way through to sharply satirical, and everything in between, and they are nothing short of fantastic. The sheer amount of hilarious quotes and one-liners The Simpsons has in these seasons is nearly unfathomable, and it's not mystery as to why people all over the world can quote them so easily. Truly, they have set the bar for not only television comedy, but comedy on a whole.

As well as this though, it never lost sight of the three-dimension of its characters. What makes it great is that we feel for all of them, and watching it, it never feels as though we're watching a cartoon comedy, because it engrosses us in the stories of the people in it, and because there really is so much depth to the characters and the stories that concern them as well as excellent comedy that they almost feel like real people. This of course is especially in the case of the Simpson family themselves, all of whom are excellent characters in these seasons, who have real emotional reactions and feelings, which makes their short-comings all the more relatable. The ability of the cast to convey these emotions as well as the comedy is remarkable, and has led to some truly touching and poignant moments over the seasons.

Once we move past the end of the tenth season, there is a definite drop in the quality of the show, though not a drastic one. The jokes are a little less funny, the characters somewhat wasted, and the stories aren't quite as intelligent and enjoyable as they used to be, however it is still excellent television and extremely funny. The cast are still as inspired as they always were, and despite the tragic loss of Phil Hartman by this time, which saw the loss of two excellent characters Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz among others, they are still displaying immense talent and understanding of an astronomical amount of characters.

Now, we come to the problem. The reason for the 5/10 rating. A truly heart-breaking moment in television history, because once we reach the fifteenth season, we see the standard of The Simpsons has dived. And it has dived pretty deeply. From this point of the show to where it is today, it's as if we are seeing a different show. The stories are moronic, the jokes are cringingly awful, exchanging intelligence and wit for silliness and humourless exclamations, and the characters are mutilated. The fact the animation has improved only emphasises the change, and all the guest-stars and guest writers in the world can't salvage this shipwreck.

The awful jokes and lack of good stories are bad enough, but the worst problem with The Simpsons today, is that the characters have been ruined. All of them were once three-dimensional, interesting and real, but they are all now nothing but background pictures, opportunities for jokes. And bad ones at that. My answer to the question that everyone asks about The Simpsons is my favourite character (other than Homer) is Sideshow Bob, but even one as hilarious as him can't seem to manage one good joke. The worst offence is of course ruining the Simpsons themselves. It started early on with Marge, who was given terrible jokes and pointless stories, and now has even spread to Maggie, who is also stuck with uninteresting, unfunny stories.

I don't fully understand how people can stop being funny. It doesn't sound like something that can just happen, but that is exactly what has happened to the writers of The Simpsons. The show that was once ground-breaking and ingenious is now pathetic, a tired old dog limping to the grave that it should have reached years ago. I may sound bitter, and in truth I am, because this was a truly spectacular, one-of-a-kind show, and now it will not be allowed to be put to rest. I love the Simpsons. I love the characters, I love the cast's performances and I love the stories. But that was quite a long time ago, when it deserved it. When it does eventually end, I will of course be extremely sad, but I will be more relieved that finally this great television programme can call it a day at last.

This is the film that Woody Allen notoriously shot and then scrapped, re-wrote, re-cast and re-shot, and was reportedly keen to do it a third time. But to be honest, I really wish he'd just left it scrapped. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Allen fan, and would sit down to watch anything by him, comedy or drama, and on top of that, I'm also a fan of Ingmar Bergman, whom Allen admires greatly and has obviously taken huge inspiration from for September, most notably his film Autumn Sonata. I also have great respect for Woody's constant desire to do his own thing, his desire to never get caught up in the demands of mainstream, money-making Hollywood, and his determination to always be different. But in this case, his desire to be different hinders September totally, and what could have been a thoughtful and original psychological drama ends up being a desperate attempt by Allen to be as bleak and "different" as possible, and is unnecessarily tedious and condescending.

The story is simple. A group of six people, (in my opinion some of the most boring characters ever assembled), gather together one summer at a country house. From there on in, there is lifeless and at times pointless drama between the characters as they all deal with love and evaluating their lives, each one more annoying than the last, completely lacking any power or conviction.

The concept of the film is fascinating, and suits a filmmaker like Allen, who focuses primarily on characters and their thoughts and feelings above all else, particularly in his dramas, down to the ground. The film is a chamber piece, that is, it focuses on a very small number of characters in the one setting from start to finish. Also, Allen's main idea is to film in the style of a play as much as possible, using long, un-broken shots and keeping any unnecessary camera movements like close-ups to a minimum. The fusion of these two mediums is an extremely interesting idea, and is appropriate for the material. So far, so interesting. But unfortunately, that still leaves the rest of the film to look at.

Pretension is the word of the day in September, and as interesting as its premise is, everything else about it feels forcedly unglamorous and so unnecessarily bland, almost as if Allen was curious as to just how independent and how anti-Hollywood he could make a film. But as great an idea as that sounds, there's a huge difference between making a film that's genuinely different and non-mainstream, and making a film that's just trying to be different for the sake of being different and rubbing it in the faces of mainstream films and film-watchers everywhere, and to me that's all September is. Nothing feels natural about this film, and it doesn't feel like it was made to be good, it just seems like Allen's attempt to be as different and as "indie" as possible, with no effort at actually making it good.

What doesn't help is that an experienced and talented cast turn in drab and lifeless performances, though one of the main reasons for this is that they all find themselves stuck with boring, one-dimensional and frankly whiny characters that spend the entire film upset or sad about their lives, but lacking any real emotional depth or personality, instead just doing it because Allen wants the film to be as bleak and dramatic as possible. Taking the lead role, Mia Farrow as Lane begins as probably the most human of all the characters, and the one that seems most real, but by the end has become the most boring and whiny of them all, with a pretty lacklustre performance. Sam Waterston as Peter is diabolical, delivering a totally flat and ridiculously wooden performance, almost like an acting student performing in front of his peers for the first time. On a par with Waterston's awful performance is that of Dianne Wiest as Stephanie who is about as interesting and emotionally engaging as a doorknob, and whose story of her failing marriage is as short on depth and insightfulness as her head is of hair.

Luckily there are a few worthwhile performances, notably Denholm Elliott who gives a very interesting and subtle performance as Howard, the man in love with Lane, who is one of the only characters with any real appeal or feeling in the whole film, but who unfortunately is barely used. Another god performance comes from Elaine Stritch as Lane's mother Diane, who although gives a convincing and at times genuinely emotionally engrossing performance, is also saddled with an uninteresting and unengaging character. Strong support comes also from Jack Warner as Lane's stepfather Lloyd, an enjoyable and interesting character with intelligent and intriguing insights into life.

As regards the poor performances, it would be unfair to say that it's totally the actors' fault, as they were dealing with a director who was after nothing more than ponderous melodrama and banal story-telling, and although conceived an unusual and interesting idea, was incapable of avoiding pretentiousness and one-dimension. Woody Allen has been responsible for many intelligent, engaging and extremely moving films. Go and watch those instead, as this is not one of them.

Watchmen is big. Really big. From the time –span the story follows, to the issues it deals with, the amount of characters and the sheer scope of the whole thing. It's just massive, (note that this is a review of the Director's Cut. The Theatrical Cut is a 9/10). But that's only to be expected, considering it's an adaptation of one the biggest, and one of the most critically acclaimed comic books of all time- which was one of the first to define the graphic novel genre and remains one of its great masterpieces-, so being stingy with its scale and the care taken to craft the film adaptation was never an option. Now, people will look down on me for saying this, and truth be told I do feel a twinge of guilt saying this, but I really do feel that the film lives up to it's source work, and personally, I think it surpasses it. I'm sure that's something that no fan of the graphic novel will want to hear, but I truly believe that the film takes all of its best elements and adds its own great touches, and manages to create an incredibly sharp and hugely intelligent experience.

This is easier said than done, which is evident from the amount of time the project spent in development Hell, waiting for someone crazy enough to make it, attracting names like Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam and others, before finally landing into the brave and talented hands of Zack Snyder, an already established pleaser of fan-boys and non-comic fans alike, with hits like 300 and Dawn of the Dead. But with Watchmen, Snyder cements himself as not only being capable of crafting a hugely faithful and worthy adaptation of an acclaimed work, but an incredibly talented and tactful director who isn't afraid to do his own thing. Big as the film is, there's not doubt its everything Hollywood hates, with a running time of over 3 hours, a slow-moving and complex plot, razor sharp satirical undertones and some extremely graphic scenes, it's frankly a miracle it was ever allowed to be made. But Snyder and his creative team, with writers David Hayter and Alex Tse and a team of producers, stuck by their guns, and have crafted a film that even Alan Moore, a notoriously harsh critic of adaptations of his work, would have to admit is pretty good.

The story is gigantic and spans over 40 years of history, and reaches far off to the red planet Mars, dealing with any topic, be they political, social or personal, in between. It takes place in an alternate 1985, where the world teeters on the brink of nuclear war, and where superheroes have been outlawed. When one of them is killed, Rorschach, the last hero still in operation, unknowingly stumbles on a plot that will change the entire world, leading to the re-emergence of other heroes that had previously retired, including Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and others, who must do what they can to prevent a global catastrophe in a world quickly falling apart.

Handling the material with great enthusiasm, and showing huge skill with the slow-moving story and character/theme driven plot, Snyder uses the aspects the graphic novel couldn't to great effect, with striking visuals and incredible colour use, breathtaking cinematography from Larry Fong and a fantastic soundtrack, (opening with one of the best montages ever made), and boasts some incredibly well-made scenes that leads to amazing story development, with not a dull moment in sight, despite an epic and sprawling plot that deals with themes like political totalitarianism, society, humanity, morality and the relevance of existence and life itself. But, believe it or not, at its heart, Watchmen is extremely satirical. True, it's a bleak, razor sharp satire, and its uncomfortable humour is mostly earned through shock value rather than broad comedy. But underneath all the heavy themes and some truly disturbing sequences, Watchmen is a sharply-observed and pitch-black comic satire that delights in deconstructing the entire superhero genre, and cast a glaring eye at what it would be like to actually be a costumed hero, asking questions like what would make real people actually become heroes, how the world would react to them, the impact they would have on society and the impact a real superhero with god-like powers would have on the world if they existed.

But one of the greatest strengths of Watchmen is its 3-dimensional and multi-layered characters that are thought-provoking and keenly satirical of other superhero characters, brought to life by a great cast that all really seem to understand their characters, and who succeed in nailing their performances of them to the wall. Jackie Earle Haley gives a fantastic performance as Rorschach, and depicts his unflinching brutality and expert superhero skills with his paranoid naivety brilliantly. Patrick Wilson is perfect as Dan Dreiberg, and gives a down-to-earth portrayal of a man lost in the mediocrity of normality, and together with Malin Akerman as Laurie Jupiter, who's Silk Spectre is spot-on and powerful, the two convey perfectly the vital theme of people who once lived lifestyles of excitement and thrills, but are now hollow shells of their former selves, desperate and driven by their need to don their costumes once again. Billy Crudup gives a perfect performance as Doctor Manhattan with his cold, calculating personality and his emotionless mind, and Matthew Goode is spot-on as the dignified yet seedy Ozymandias, but the stand-out performance for me, perhaps just for the sheer strength of his character alone, is Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian, who is so gloriously twisted and sadistic you may cringe every time he comes on-screen.

Watchmen is definitely not for everyone. Its 3-hour length, unusual story/themes and moments of extreme nastiness, probably means that most people won't care for it. But if you want to see a film that really puts a twist on superhero movies, then this is a film you should definitely experience.

Whether you love or hate it, Bonnie and Clyde was, and remains to this day, a ground-breaking film in the history of American cinema, and should be praised hugely for that alone. Aside from the re-defining techniques of showing violence on-screen and the depiction of main characters who are far from typical heroes, it contains career-boosting roles for many actors, and comes from a very talented director of the time, Arthur Penn.

The story follows the titular real-life bandit couple of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. The story traces them from first meeting, and follows their crime-spree throughout a Depression-era America with their gang, robbing banks, evading police and creating a notorious reputation for themselves. The film is slightly romanticised, depicting the couple as young, foolish kids who don't really seem to realise what they're getting into, but the violent and unpredictable undertone and the impressive period detail ensures an edge that lifts it above typical gangster movies, and always assures us that what's happening isn't remotely romantic, while granting the characters and events gritty depth.

Penn is on fine form from the beginning, and handles a range of different scenes with ease and a huge amount of skill, from thrilling banks-robberies and shootouts, to the more intimate character scenes, in particular those between Bonnie and Clyde, which depict one of the most interesting and unusual screen couples to date. The cinematography and editing are used to huge effect, and resulted in some of the most ground-breaking scenes of the 60's, while the folk-style soundtrack gives an air of humour.

The film tends to play a bit fast-and-loose with the facts- like condensing several real-life members of the gang into the single character C.W. Moss, and neglecting the fact that for nearly a year, Bonnie was almost unable to walk due to a car crash, but writers David Newman and Robert Benton can be forgiven for these inaccuracies considering they succeeded in crafting a story that is both thrilling and exciting as well as tragic and thought-provoking.

But the story would be nothing without first-rate cast it boasts. Warren Beatty as Clyde excels in the multi-layered, dramatic role that he had sought after for so long, and more than succeeded in his attempt to be taken seriously as an actor. Beatty's depiction of a confident, intelligent, but naive young man looking to make his name and fortune is spot-on, and while romanticised to a certain degree, is never glorified. His Clyde is more than matched by Faye Dunaway's Bonnie, who gives a hugely convincing portrayal of an everyday girl getting caught up in something she should never have become part of. The two have an excellent and very unusual chemistry, even by today's standards, and work together brilliantly as a man not used to such intimacy and a woman desperate to live the romantic life of an outlaw with him.

The supporting players may not be quite as strong as the leads, but hold their own quite well, particularly Gene Hackman as Buck. In my opinion one of the greatest actors of all time, Hackman gives a brilliant performance that's both spirited and grounded as Clyde's brother, expressing the same wide-eyed desire for the life of an outlaw as the others and maintains a hugely convincing brotherly relationship with Beatty throughout. Michael Pollard also performs well as gang member C.W, whose quiet demeanour assures his character stands out, despite being relatively small. Estelle Parsons suffers with Blanche, a supremely annoying character that personally I found too irritating. But in fairness, that's precisely the intention behind the character, and Parsons certainly manages to convey it. Throw in one of Gene Wilder's first screen performances and you have an extremely talented and interesting cast.

But aside from the great cast and direction, the truly ground-breaking, incredibly influential aspect of the film is much simpler and much more important- the depiction of on-screen violence and the impact it makes. For the first time, when people were shot or killed, it looked like it hurt. Bad. Penn and his crew pushed boundaries that before, hadn't even been considered. Suddenly, violence was being portrayed in a gritty, shocking and unsettling way. For the first time, screen violence was truly violent. This is what made the story of a group of young and naive people deciding to become criminals so powerful- the fact that we really saw what that really meant. We see what it's like to be shot, and this helps to drive home their story with such impact and power. This was the first step taken that shaped the entire future of motion-picture, and inspired other films to follow it's example, such as The Wild Bunch, and later films like MASH and Jaws that continued to push the limits of what could be done on screen.

Now, I am definitely NOT a fan of gore or extreme violence. Give me E.T and Toy Story before all the Saws and Texas Chainsaw Massacres in the world. But that doesn't mean violence in films is wrong. Violence can be a means of driving home a point, or setting a film's atmosphere, or at times it can even just be pretty damn satisfying. But whether you're a pacifist or a gore-hound, it can't be denied that violence in films is prominent, and many times it's done well, while other times it's not. This film revolutionised it. And more than that, it gave film-makers the influence to do other new things, and was the perfect film to kick-start the revolutionary era of the late 60's and 70's, and inspired them to use their own ideas rather than what would make money.

This is a very special film. Personally, not one of my favourites, but it deserves a good 8 out of 10 purely for its historical relevance and powerhouse cast. It may not be perfect, but if you haven't seen it, see it, and know that you're watching history being made.

Take everything you've ever believed about Blockbusters, action movies, or indeed the genre of comic-book films- that they're just big, noisy and expensive means of leaving your brain at the door- and forget it. All of it. Because this film has defied it all, and proved us all wrong. To say that this is the Godfather of comic-book films is an understatement- it's more the Godfather of the 00's, and it's all down to an extremely talented and dedicated cast and crew working towards a goal that they all seem to understand and admire.

Taking inspiration mainly from acclaimed graphic novels "The Long Halloween", "The Killing Joke" and others, director Christopher Nolan and his creative team waste no time in creating a Batman story that even the most veteran of comic-book writers would admire. After one of the most effective openings in history that totally grips the attention, the story begins with an experienced Batman taking on Gotham's criminal underworld together with Lieutenant Gordon and new DA Harvey Dent. Things are going smoothly, until the emergence of a sinister new foe, the Joker, whose reign of anarchy and terror brings Gotham to its knees, forcing Batman into a twisted game unlike anything he's ever imagined.

Sticking closer to the source material than any other live-action Batman film to date, the film maintains a dark and murky atmosphere throughout, conveying a constant feeling of threat and intensity, and immersing itself in the absolute utmost of realism and down-to-earth grit. In Nolan's vision, there are no batwings on the Batmobile, or over-the-top villains, and for the first time, the Joker is portrayed as wearing warpaint, rather than having bleached skin and hair. Any fantasy or flamboyance is rejected, and the film thrives because of it. Add this to the moody atmosphere and the perfect music score by Hans Zimmer, both menacing and triumphant- and always excellent- and the perfect Batman experience has been created.

The incredible tone and ingenious story is easily matched by the quality of the cast. Bale gives a spot-on depiction of both Bruce Wayne and Batman- a hero desperately trying to save a city that doesn't want to be saved, and a man torn between doing what he should do and what he must do, while risking loosing himself in the process. Eckhart delivers a perfect depiction of Harvey Dent, a good man thrown into an insane situation, giving himself to his cause just as much as Batman, and also risks reaching breaking point, while Oldman's Gordon makes an essential and incredibly effective addition as a normal, every-day man trying his best to cope with what the city throws at him. Great support is given from other characters- Caine is an excellent Alfred- the most notable difference from the comics, but an improvement in my opinion from his source character. Freeman is the perfect Lucius Fox, matching charm and wit with cleverness and thoughtfulness. Maggie Gyllenhaal surpasses Katie Holmes easily as Rachel, an original part that could have been pointless but is made completely believable thanks to great acting and tremendous writing.

But brilliant as all of these performances are, along with other terrific ones, there is one performance that shines through more than anything, and sets a milestone for screen villains. Heath Ledger as the Joker. To write a review of the actor's performance with such little space is purely unkind, but I'll do my best. Ledger gives an astonishing, mesmerising and earth-shattering performance as the Joker. His ingenious games and sadistic humour are matched only by his bone-chilling realism, gritty brutality and anarchic, frightening and constant threat. At times totally laid-back and sickly funny, other times impossibly intense, Ledger creates and expertly maintains a raw, breath-taking unpredictability. You are never, EVER sure what he will do next, and he constantly grips even when not on screen. But the beauty of the film is that even when this force of nature is on screen, we still appreciate everything else that's happening, and he never allows himself to drown out what's happening around him and never overshadows any other character. Through months of preparation and staggering dedication, Ledger crafted a performance so real, so rich and so utterly convincing, that in my opinion, and of course everyone's will differ, but for me, not only is this the best performance of a villain ever in a film, but the greatest performance ever given in general, and one that Ledger should have been proud of.

However, the real stars of the film are Nolan and his creative team, in particular his brother Jonathon, with whom he wrote the script. Here are two guys who really and truly know their Batman, and know how to shape a film in their own vision but also stay incredibly faithful to the source material, which is undoubtedly what makes this film what it is. Together, they have crafted not just a comic-book action film, but a film that examines morality and humanity with power and conviction. The plot and themes of the film are downright Shakespearean, and are both truly fascinating. The idea of Batman and the Joker almost playing a game of chess, with Dent as a pawn and Gotham their board, in order to inspire the city as a whole, is ground-breaking for a "superhero movie", and indeed, for films of any kind. This film looks at the world and asks whether humanity is good or bad, whether people are really decent, or whether they're just pure evil, how strong we all are and how easy it is for us to lose ourselves, and what it means to be a true hero.

This film is a psychological and philosophical masterpiece, expertly examining incredibly deep and meaningful themes and ideas with incredible insight and thoughtfulness, and is not a mere action thriller, but a work of art of incredible depth and power. Oh… and the voice is not hard to understand.