As Christopher Nolan prepares to commence shooting on his third and final Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, news has arrived (courtesy of Deadline, via a Warner Bros press release), of a particularly significant bit of casting.

Anne Hathaway has reportedly beaten Keira Knightley, Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively and Natalie Portman to the role of Selina Kyle, also known as the slinky Catwoman.

Hathaway joins the esteemed company of Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, Eartha Kitt, Michelle Pfieffer and Halle Berry as the latest screen incarnation of Catwoman.

"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to work with Anne Hathaway, who will be a fantastic addition to our ensemble as we complete our story," Nolan enthused in a statement.

Meanwhile, Warner has confirmed too exactly what Tom Hardy's role will be. Once linked with The Riddler, he'll actually be playing Bane. The last time we saw Bane on screen was in Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin. We trust Christopher Nolan will do a better job.

Anne Hathaway is Catwoman - hear her roar. The Dark Knight Rises is due for release in July.

Deadline

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Having conquered the world of politics and left Sacramento smouldering in his wake, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s making a welcome to acting, no doubt with a triumphant cry of “I’ll be back.”

In an interview with an Austrian newspaper, Schwarzenegger revealed he was “Reading three scripts”, one of which appears to be With Wings As Eagles, an adaptation of a World War II-set novel written by James J Cullen.

The big question is, what are the other two scripts that Schwarzenegger has under consideration? While he appears to have ruled out returning to the action movie genre that made him famous (“Throwing myself around the room and shooting people is no longer in there,” he said, to our extreme disappointment), we’re still hoping that, given enough encouragement, he might return to one or two of his earlier movies for one last adventure.

Schwarzenegger may be heading for his sixty-fourth birthday, but advancing years haven’t stopped Sylvester Stallone from shooting dozens of anonymous bad guys in such films as Rambo and The Expendables, and Clint Eastwood was in his 60s when he saved the president in In The Line Of Fire.

With this in mind, we take a rather optimistic look back at Arnie’s acting career, and attempt to determine which, if any, of his past roles he’s most likely to reprise…

Hercules – Hercules In New York

Schwarzenegger was just 22 when he made his movie debut (credited as Arnold Strong) in the stunning low-budget fantasy adventure, Hercules In New York. The young Arnold hasn’t quite got his acting chops together yet (his thick Austrian accent was originally dubbed by an American actor, but has since been restored), while much of the film appears to have been shot in a park.

Likelihood of a sequel
Given that Schwarzenegger has often expressed his regret at appearing in Hercules In New York, the chances of his reprising the role are, we’d say, minimal. To get an idea of just how bad the film is, take a look at the astonishing moment where the future governor of California punches a bear in the face for what feels like hours…

Howard Langston – Jingle All The Way

Probably Arnold’s least convincing comedy performance, this festive family movie was subjected to an even greater critical drubbing than Junior. Schwarzenegger played a harassed father prepared to go to any length to acquire a Turbo Man toy for his son. Any potential comment about the materialism and greed of a typical Christmas was drowned out by lots of pratfalls, signposted laughs and a distracting performance by someone called Sinbad.

Likelihood of a sequel
One of Schwarzenegger's least successful films (it clawed back its $60 million budget, but only just), the mere thought of a sequel to Jingle All The Way would probably make some Hollywood executives shudder.

Mr Freeze – Batman & Robin

Schwarzenegger made the ill-advised decision to appear as the villain Mr Freeze in the ill-advised Batman & Robin. Even Arnie's one-liners seemed a little off the mark in Joel Schumacher's camp sequel. "Ice to see you" and "Cool party" were but two examples.

Likelihood of a sequel
Christopher Nolan's in the process of concluding his trilogy of darker Batman movies, and Darren Aronofsky has hinted that he'd like to take up the director's mantle with a caped crusader movie of his own. Is Schwarzenegger likely to reprise his role as Mr Freeze? Given that the critical reception that greeted Batman & Robin prompted Warner to cancel its proposed fifth instalment, Batman Triumphant, it’s doubtful that either the actor or the studio would want to revisit the character.

Jericho Cane – End Of Days

Schwarzenegger’s first and last foray into the horror genre, End Of Days sees the Oak face off against his biggest opponent yet, the Devil himself, played with oily charm by Gabriel Byrne. Because this is an Arnie film, there’s still a scene where his character, depressed alcoholic retired cop, Jericho Cane, arms himself to the teeth with machine guns and a grenade launcher, even though the Devil is, in theory, immortal.

I think I’m perhaps the only person on the planet who quite liked End Of Days. Critics hated it, but I enjoyed Schwarzenegger’s turn as a booze-sodden, miserable ex-cop, which was at least a bit of a departure from the various versions of the same persona he’d played in almost every film since the early-80s. Plus, there’s something endearingly daft about having Arnie appear in a reiteration of Rosemary’s Baby or The Omen, but with added guns.

Likelihood of a sequel
Given the events that occur at the film’s conclusion (which I won’t spoil for those who haven’t yet seen a repeat of End Of Days on ITV4 or Channel 5), the odds are against Schwarzenegger returning to the role of Jericho Cane.

Adam Gibson – The 6th Day

Schwarzenegger's first film of the new millennium was this futuristic thriller, where he played a family man who returns home one day to discover he's been cloned ("There's someone in my house, eating my birthday cake, with my family, and it's not me!”, Arnold raves). A strong script ("I might be back.") was let down by tepid direction and generic action scenes, and the film was a flop, earning back less than half of its budget.

Likelihood of a sequel
By the new millennium, audiences were engrossed by fast-paced wire-fu, as seen in movies like The Matrix. Once a name guaranteed to garner huge audiences, Schwarzenegger's box office success began to dwindle. It's, therefore, unlikely the actor would choose to return to The 6th Day, a film from the latter stages of his acting career.

Gordy Brewer – Collateral Damage

Aside from one or two brief cameo roles, Collateral Damage was Schwarzenegger's penultimate feature before he began his new job as Governor of California in 2003. A return to the straight action/revenge flicks of his 80s career, Collateral Damage saw Arnie play firefighter Gordy Brewer, whose family is killed in an LA bombing. Enraged, Arnold (sorry, Gordy) heads to northern Columbia and slaughters everyone involved in the attack, and averts another terrorist bombing in the process.

Likelihood of a sequel
Another box office disappointment, Collateral Damage was delayed and re-edited following 9/11. The chances of Schwarzenegger averting further terrorist atrocities as an all-American firefighter are, therefore, minimal.

Trench – The Expendables

It’s been a long haul, but we’re finally back up to the present day with The Expendables, Arnold’s most recent big-screen appearance. You can count the number of minutes he appeared in Sly Stallone’s action epic on one hand, but it was a significant moment, nevertheless, and one that elicited wild cheers of excitement in the screening I attended.

Likelihood of a sequel
Having written thousands of words about Arnold’s film roles and his likelihood of reprising them, I’ll come out and admit the obvious. There’s little chance that he’ll revisit a single one. That is, apart from the part of Trench, which provoked so many whoops and cheers in cinemas last year.

Arnold hasn’t officially signed up for Expendables 2 yet, but such paperwork is surely a formality. A sequel simply wouldn't be complete without him. We just hope he gets a more prominent role this time, instead of a brief cameo. Roaming around with a machine gun is what Arnold does best, after all, and it would be a pleasure to see the big man back in action, offing bad guys and muttering witticisms. "Let off some steam, Bennett!"

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Cards on the table, I loved the fact that Ron Howard is back doing comedy. Parenthood remains, for me, a terrific ensemble film, and I've a lot of time for The Paper, Splash and EDtv, too. The Dilemma, then, stars Vince Vaughn and Kevin James, and as it arrives in UK cinemas, Mr Howard spared us a little time for a chat...

Slight spoiler warning: we don't discuss the actual ending of The Dilemma here, but we do touch on it. If you want to see it cold, then it's best to revisit this interview once you've watched the movie.

It's been a long time for you since you were in the comedy genre on the big screen. The last time you were making comedy movies, EDtv and The Paper, they were good films that never really found a big audience. So, what drew you back now?

A little bit of it was people were in my ear, saying wouldn't you like to find a comedy. And even some of the people from the contemporary comedy scenes - directors, writers and actors. Being around Arrested Development, as an exec producer on that, reminded me just how much fun it was creatively to spend time in rooms with people who were that funny, and generating those kind of laughs.

I do really like serio-comic movies that treat real difficulties in a real way. And so, when I found this story, I thought it was contemporary, it was a little thought-provoking, it wasn't providing any answers, but it stimulated conversation, I felt. Great performance opportunities. And a story that, tone aside, propelled itself along in a way that left you wondering what was going to happen next. And I thought that that was an entertaining collection of qualities.

You didn't take some of the obvious choices with this one. I thought it was a little bit dark, and I don't think there's a nice, tidy ribbon wrapping everything up in the way people may think.

One of the things I also liked about it that it is messy. It's a little uneven. I've lived enough to see that things tend to work this way. But it's also not the end of the world. People have horrible disappointment, and yet there are other aspects of their lives that they can hang on to that allow them to navigate that turbulence.

The other thing is that I really like that it's all from Ronny Valentine's [Vince Vaughn's character] point of view. He's in everything from one little sliver of a scene, and so we don't know any more than he knows. And that's vital.

To my mind, yes, it deals with all these relationships, and it deals with them rather seriously in places. But it really is a kind of serio-comic, although a psychological thriller. This guy's running kind of a gauntlet. A very vulnerable guy, he's not your rock solid guy on both feet. He's a reformed gambler, he's had a tough time with women, business has been difficult. And he's Vince Vaughn. He's that kind of a guy.

I thought Vince Vaughn's character's journey could almost be the grounding for a stage play. It also struck me that, for long periods, you hold back the comedy for him. He's left to do a lot of dramatic heavy lifting as the film heads to the end of its second act, and into its third.

He's a very good actor. And one of the things I really enjoyed, and this is partly what I signed on for, was the excitement of the improvisation. So, we had a strong story, good script, it kept getting better during the rehearsal process. Vince was a big part of that.

Other actors joined us in rehearsals, and contributed to a lot of it. But I was excited by the fact that, not only did the comedy highs get higher, but I felt that the more honest moments became truer. And it was very contagious.

Vince has that ability, but everyone picked up on it. It's basically a story of these friends being tested, but particularly some of the stuff that Jennifer Connelly's character said really came out of rehearsals, and reflects her point of view in ways that are interesting.

A lot of women have said that I like those scenes. There were laughs in those scenes, but they really paid off, they added up. So, I hope that the movie entertains on a lot of different levels. And I hope it doesn't confuse people, because in the marketing, of course, they've really tried to sell it as a full-on comedy, because that's the simplest marketing idea to follow. And the movie gets plenty of big laughs.

I wouldn't call it a comedy with drama, but I hope people have an appetite for that kind of a ride.

You've made a fundamental error I think in your collaborations with Jennifer Connelly, in that you've never had a scene with David Bowie singing in her bedroom.

[Laughs] Yeah!

Obviously, you've got a strong background in television comedy, right up to your work on Arrested Development. What I'm curious about, though, is how you, as a director, go about protecting a joke? And whether that works differently in television and film?

Well, television, particularly as it becomes more and more serialised, comedies no longer have to tie the stories up neatly within 20-plus minutes. Arrested Development had evolving storylines, as did both versions of The Office. We're seeing that more and more.

That allows it to be really, whatever the tone, almost literary. You're just really exploring what these characters have to say, and if it's a comedy, how they can make you laugh. And the narrative is not so much the key.

Whereas in a movie, whichever way you slice it, you do really have to have the audience wondering what's going to happen next. This is one of the things that I liked about this story. Whatever the tone, I like the fact that you get to go on a ride with this guy before he realises what's going on.

The Hollywood trend at the moment is to go back 20, 30 years, and you're seeing original directors revisiting projects that they've done before. Is there any temptation to revisit any of those earlier films in any form?

None. None whatsoever!

You're not a sequel guy, really.

I'm not really a sequel guy. I did Angels & Demons after The Da Vinci Code, because I like working with Hanks, and I felt it was a really different sort of world that we were visiting. That was, of itself, interesting.

If I get involved with these Dark Tower projects with Stephen King, that could be as many as three movies, and hours of TV. But oddly, I don't even look at that project as a movie and a series of sequels I see it as a really fascinating epic tale, and I wouldn't want to miss any of it as a storyteller, if I had the opportunity.

Ron Howard, thank you very much!

The Dilemma arrives in UK cinemas on Friday 21st January.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Every now and again, a trailer will arrive that's so great, and so bizarre, that you wonder how the feature it's advertising could possibly live up to its promise.

The trailer for director Quentin Dupieux's forthcoming Rubber is a prime example, a promo so strange that it almost seems like a hoax.

Rubber tells the story of Robert, a tyre abandoned in the desert. Suddenly coming to life, Robert discovers he has telekinetic powers, and sets about destroying things with his newfound abilities.

The film's due out in the US on 1 April, appropriately enough, though there's no UK release confirmed as yet. As soon as a date appears, we'll let you know.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

For the last 20 years, Roger Michell has been directing for both television and cinema, working on both sides of the Atlantic on projects such as Notting Hill, Changing Lanes, The Mother, Enduring Love and Venus.

Out this week is his new film, Morning Glory, the ‘rom-job-com' which stars Rachel McAdams as an ambitious young television producer who is tasked with turning around the performance of morning news show, Daybreak, and features strong support from the likes of Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton and Jeff Goldblum.

We had the chance to chat with Michell about the art of directing, the trouble with genres, and the best way to treat Hollywood movie stars...

As a director, you've helmed films in a variety of genres: dramas, thrillers and comedies. Is that all part of the plan, is that by design, or is it just how the projects have come along?

I don't think there's a plan at work. I don't have a plan, ‘I must cover all these genres before I die'. I'm never quite sure why I'm particularly attracted to projects. Quite often it's only a year or two after a film that I realise why I was particularly interested in that subject matter or that story.

And you have to learn to be kind of bitten by the material, because the process of making a film takes so long. It's so arduous and draining that you have to be very curious and interested in the subject when you embark on it.

And I suppose that puts a lot of weight on the work of the writer and the scripts coming through your door?

Yeah, it's all to do with the script. Initially, it's all to do with the script. I mean, it depends on whether it's something that comes through the door, or, generally speaking, the stuff I do, I've developed with a writer. Or it's a book that I've wanted to do or I've discussed with somebody who'd gone off and made it into a script.

In that sense, you've collaborated with a handful of ‘name' writers, such as Hanif Kureishi. How does that relationship work out?

It's very collaborative, and we spend long periods between films developing. What starts as a little idea... we started on a project the day Peter O' Toole was nominated for a Golden Globe, which is four years ago, I think, which is just coming to fruition now. So, it takes a long time.

And, otherwise, something's come through the letterbox, like this script. It came through the letterbox about three years ago in an early draft, and I for some reason, was grabbed by it.

So, what's your take on the creative role of the director, then? A lot of the popular discourse is very much influenced by the concept of the auteur, with the director as the sole creator. But you're working with writers, such as Richard Curtis, who contribute just as much to the public's view of the finished work. Morning Glory, for example, is billed as "from the writer of The Devil Wears Prada".

No, I think writers are crucial to film. I mean, I think the most important things about a film are the script, the script and the script. And I think that the auteur theory should really only apply to writers who also direct, or directors who also write their own material.

I think the idea that it's your film, that it's the director who owns the film, is preposterous. It's such a collaborative art. It's the director's role to marshal everyone else's creativity and to try and evoke the best of everyone in the same world, if you like. To keep everyone making the same film, which is more difficult than it sounds.

But for that, then, to become 'authored' by the director, I think, is a wrong emphasis. It's simply a historical error.

With some of your films, that emphasis can be applied to the writer, especially when you're working with literary figures, such as Kureishi, or adapting an Ian McEwan novel, or working with Richard Curtis, who has almost become a romcom auteur. Does that change things at all?

I think if you're any good, you'll make the material your own somehow. And I think that you have to feel very personally connected to the material to make the film sing. So, I don't think that the author then becomes the ‘author' of the film at all, no.

On my English films, I don't take a possessory credit. On the last three English films I've made, it doesn't say ‘A film by...' at the beginning of the film. That just feels idiotic and arrogant. I do on American films, but that's for different reasons.

Is that the convention over there?

It's more of a courtesy. It's sort of a complex, contractual thing.

You've been working on both sides of the Atlantic throughout your career. What is the difference? Budget, I suppose?

I go to America to make big budget films, but people make wonderful low budget films in America, which I imagine are very similar in structure to the little films that we make here. So, what we're talking about is the difference between studio films and independent films, and studio films are good because it's a one-stop shop. Because one organisation pushes the button, and pays for the whole thing.

But they're bad, because the films are so expensive to make, it means that the process is sometimes more complicated by lots of people having a view and lots of people wanting their voice to be heard, certainly in the post-production phase of things.

But when you take on a big-budget American film, a commercial film, I think you'd be foolish if you thought that you didn't have to take some responsibility for that setup. You have to listen to what people say.

And how did that process work out with Morning Glory? The script came through your letterbox, then what?

A draft came through my letterbox about three years ago, and then we spent about a year developing the script, and then started to put the film together. Most of the director's job takes place during the prep. As David Mamet says, "All mistakes happen in prep." Because in prep, you make your film, really.

You don't have time to make your film while you're shooting. You've got to have it all sorted out. Choosing all your locations, discussing with your DP how you're going to start each day, and mapping out a schedule which will account for every hour of every day of your shoot, and rehearsing with your actors, and casting all your actors. All the myriad, literally millions of choices that you have to make as a director before you start shooting.

I'm sure people think that directing is hanging around on set with a canvas chair, being creative. And it really is nothing like that at all. There's no hanging around. There's no "Oh, where shall we go today?" Or "Why don't we put the camera there?" There's no time for that.

It's like a terrible war being prosecuted by a chaotic army. And you have to be so prepared, so organised, otherwise you don't get through the day.

So, all the creative stuff happens - I'm exaggerating - before. Your really great creative thoughts happen when you're sitting and reading the script and working out in your mind how you might shoot it, and how you might light it, and what the side choices might be. That's the fun part. And then the post is the fun part, where you do the final rewrite of the film.

The shoot is process, that's the tough bit.

So, is it not fun?

The shoot is a nightmare. It's absolutely horrible. I wouldn't recommend it.

But you say rehearsals are important for the actors.

That's something that I do, but my background's in theatre. So, I choose to rehearse the actors on all my films.

With this film, you're working with some very big Hollywood names - Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams. Was it different from working with Peter O'Toole or Leslie Phillips?

Well, they were younger. [laughs] That's for sure. No, they're actors. They're film stars, but they're also actors. And I think they like being treated like actors.

I've never met an actor yet who doesn't like the process of rehearsal, even though they might blanch at it to begin with - "Oh, I've never done that before!" But it's reassuring. It's creative. It's a space where actors can work with each other without the pressure of hundreds of technicians staring at them and the sun going down or up, or time ticking away.

When working with that class of star, do egos come into it? In Adventures In The Screen Trade, William Goldman recounts anecdotes of directors and writers having to tiptoe around their actors, not necessarily because of personality issues, but simply the machinations of stardom. Is that part of the nightmare of shooting?

No, no. I think that there are people who present those difficulties, but none of this lot were at all like that.

I've been lucky so far, in that I haven't had any kind of hissy fit actors, who would have sat in their trailers, or who would continually arrive late or the usual horror stories.

I think people respond to how they're treated, and I think if you treat them properly, and you make them feel secure, and you respect them and treat them like actors as opposed to film stars, they'll behave like actors. People like Harrison Ford are always early on set, always ultra-prepared. They're very collegiate. They like sets, they like crews, they like being around. They like work. So, I think they enjoy themselves.

That's something that's said about Harrison Ford. They talk about his background working in manual trade as influencing his very professional approach to acting.

I think that's right.

One of the draws, for me, for the film was definitely to see these actors whom I've not seen in many comedic roles for some time, like Diane Keaton, Harrison Ford, and especially Jeff Goldblum. Was that a reason to get them on board?

Well, you aim high. You go for the top of the list. When you're casting, you have a list of ten people, and you go for the top one first. And usually you end up with number seven.

On this occasion, we ended up with all our number ones. Jeff was in New York anyway. He's been doing Law And Order, and he's been producing it as all.

He was over here last year, as well.

He did a play, didn't he? But he had a week, so we got him for a week and he was wonderful.

The film is almost like a rom-job-com.

You've got to come up with a better way of saying it. Rom-job-com sounds slightly weird.

It's a bit of a mouthful. How would you term it?

It's a workplace comedy, and it's not, strictly speaking, a romcom, because Patrick [Wilson]'s the girl in the film, in a way.

Traditionally -

He would be the girl! I think it's absolutely fair that the tables are eventually turned in respect to gender. But the key relationship is -  the spine of the film is the relationship between Rachel and her dad/mentor.

Whatever the relationship is, that's the ‘romantic' thing that the audience yearns to be resolved, I suppose. And for Rachel to find a family. She starts the film effectively an orphan, with this ghastly mother. And he starts the film effectively a widow, a childless widow. And they both end up forming this strange but vaguely functioning family. I suppose that's the spine of the film.

I like the fact that the work world is so detailed, and so interesting. I found it really interesting to go and see how these films are made, and talk to people who make them.

Because, in this country, it's different. Our Daybreak hasn't been doing so well on ITV. But morning news programming must still be a huge institution in America.

It's enormous. It's much bigger than it is in Europe. Morning TV shows in America are the cash cows who support the rest of the networks, and there are three / four of them. And they're incredibly competitive and they are incredibly successful, and they constantly try to gazump each other and scoop each other. It's a very, very vibrant, weird, interesting world.

There's also the conflict in the film between 'boring old' news and the more light entertainment approach. Do you see a resonance there with cinema, perhaps? A conflict between populism and inscrutable preciousness?

I didn't feel that. I can see how you could extrapolate that from the film, but I didn't feel that making the film.

The film is particularly about morning television. It's not about news. It's not trying to say that news is being dumbed down, or has been dumbed down. I think there are all kinds of issues with news, particularly in America, which are not actually to do with dumbing down. They are much more serious than that.

They're to do with the vitriolic extremism which some people would say was a component of the shooting of the senator last week. But always, in morning broadcasting, there's going to be this debate about the balance between hard news and fluff. And the film doesn't attempt to answer exactly what that balance should be, but it tries to raise the debate about what people really want, what they think is the right diet for them.

I suppose it comes back to doing your job, and that's what Harrison Ford's character is hired to do, to anchor this show. He's not presenting a news show.

But ironically, it's his action of going in, doing this piece of hard-nosed reporting that saves the day.

So, if you had to give a title for the genre, what would it be? ‘Workplace comedy-drama'?

I think it would be workplace comedy drama, yeah. Boring, but accurate.

Mr Michell, thank you for your time!

Morning Glory is released this week.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

This review may contain spoilers.

2. Cakewalk

Lights Out got off to a poor start in ratings terms last week, attracting fewer viewers  for the first episode than for the premiere Terriers, a show which had gained a devoted fanbase and become rather a cause celebre amongst critics, yet was cancelled by FX after one season, due to vastly inadequate viewing figures.

It's a shame that Lights Out hasn't met with enthusiasm in these early stages, and it's hard to pinpoint why it might be the case. It's certainly not due a lack of marketing on FX's part, and the show's timeslot in the US is a pretty good one.

Perhaps there just isn't a market for sporting television dramas. One of the very best television shows of the past decade, American football drama, Friday Night Lights, continues to be watched by almost nobody in its home country, and didn't even make it past the first series when shown on British channel ITV2 (although regularly programming it against The Apprentice and Champions League football probably didn't help).

Lights Out's poor showing certainly shouldn't be blamed on a lack of quality from the show itself. These first two episodes have been solidly entertaining stuff and a promising beginning to the season ahead.

This week our hero Lights finds himself having to deal with the fallout and consequences from some of the more violent and reckless acts he committed in the pilot. The dentist paid a visit by Lights has a broken arm, and some of the more conscientious attendees of the dinner party where it got broken have decided to report him to the police, leading to Lights being dragged off in the back of a police car in front of his terrified family.

Meanwhile, Lights'schildhood friend turned boxing reporter, Mike Fumosa (Ben Shenkman), is sniffing around both the dentist story and Lights' potential rematch with Richard "Death Row" Reynolds, the man he lost his belt to in controversial fashion five years previously. Like most situations, Lights dismisses this problem as one he can charm his way out of, particularly as he used to protect him from bullies as a kid. Lights overestimates his loyalty and underestimates his desperation. However, as Fumosa puts it, "You think boxing's bad? Try being a boxing reporter for a newspaper."

Lights also comes face to face with Brennan, the mysterious figure who paid him to visit the dentist. Brennan offers to help out with Lights' law trouble if he drops off a ‘cake' at a government official's house. It's reassuring to see that they're not averse to dropping some terrible puns into the episode titles, even if they're not boxing related (yet).

What struck me about this episode was how comfortable Lights was, firstly, lying to his family, and then, secondly, drawing them deeper into his web of deceit until they effectively become accessories after the fact. Literally, in the case of wife, Theresa, who offers up a fake alibi to give to the police regarding the dentist beating, before Lights even has to ask her. It's interesting that she seems so eager to take part in the deception, particularly as it is hinted at that she knows Lights isn't telling the truth about the assault, and also that he has a history of deceit that somehow ties in with his previous boxing career.

However, it's not just his wife he persuaded to play along with his deceptions. After his studious daughter discovers his diagnosis of pugilistic dementia, he asks her to keep it a secret from his wife. Later, he tells his youngest daughter how much he enjoyed her ballet performance, despite turning up after it had finished, as his disgusted family look on.

Lights is attempting to juggle his criminal life, his family life, and his professional life all at once, never once facing up to the true challenges inherent in each one.

Cakewalk features an excellent boxing scene between Lights and Omar, the new up-and-coming star of the gym, as a sparring bout arranged by Lights' dad escalates into a tense war of egos. The fight is wonderfully shot, giving the fighting a really gritty vitality that bodes well for the in-ring action that will inevitably be coming later in the series.

One criticism I could level at Lights Out so far is that its production values aren't quite up to the standards of other cable dramas. Certainly, after Boardwalk Empire it's a particularly noticeable step down. I wouldn't go as far as to say it looks cheap, but in the scenes where, for example, a press conference or a faux TV show is shown, the lack of glitz and detail breaks the immersion in a way that's a little distracting.

Otherwise, this is good stuff, and the shocking coda opens up a whole range of possibilities, setting up the next few episodes nicely. If you're not on board with Lights Out yet, you should give it a go. Please, don't let it become another Terriers.

Read our review of the series premiere here.

Follow Paul Martinovic on Twitter @paulmartinovic, or for more babble check out his blog here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Speculation over who the next set of Bat-villains would be has been going on since the moment everyone stepped out of the cinemas following The Dark Knight and asked themselves, "Wow, how are they going to follow up Heath Ledger's Joker?" Yesterday, we got our answer: with Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and Bane (Tom Hardy).

With the possibilities for Batman villains so wide and varied, it's perhaps understandable that the announcement didn't quite set the fans' enthusiasm alight. After all, it's inevitable that most people's top choices wouldn't make the grade.

The Riddler was easily the bookies' favourite, but some argued (myself included) that his particular brand of insanity might position him a little too close to the Joker in the eyes of the general public. Comparisons to Heath Ledger would have been inevitable, and doubtlessly unfavourable.

Other candidates like Hush, Hugo Strange, Mr. Zsasz and even Harley Quinn might have seemed a good fit for Nolan and Bale's brand of dark realism, so the elimination of any of those choices was bound to bring a certain disappointment, whoever Nolan chose.

But on the other hand, I don't think anyone was expecting him to choose Bane over any of those.

Last seen in Batman And Robin being portrayed by a wrestler (always a mark of quality) and delivering such lines as "Bomb!" "Exit!" and "Get my agent on the phone, immediately!", Bane's appearance was so universally mocked that the odds of a revival surely couldn't have been lower.

But hang on a second. In the comics, Bane was invented for one specific purpose, the storyline Knightfall, in which Bane, an ultra-intelligent, superhumanly strong, expert strategist managed to best Batman on every level, breaking his back and forcing him to quit superheroics (for a while, at least). That version of Bane sounds like a threat that might legitimately test Nolan's Batman. And with Tom Hardy in the role, it's safe to say they probably won't be going the monosyllabic, muscle-bound henchman route.

As a one-man crimewave, the anti-Batman, Bane's inclusion almost makes sense. Give him a slightly more realistic muscle mass and he becomes an easy fit for Nolan's world in both tone and appearance. The real confusion comes from the knowledge that he's going to be teamed up (narratively) with Catwoman. Apparently, one poisonous property wasn't enough for Nolan.

Last seen being played by Halle Berry (who, lest we forget, promoted her role in X-Men by claiming she was "reduced" to playing a superhero), the Catwoman film was so bad, most people were sure she was also out of circulation until the next series reboot at least. Although interestingly, the specific announcement itself purposefully avoids mentioning Catwoman, naming only her civilian identity, Selina Kyle.

Is that because Hathaway won't be suiting up in this film? Or is it because they're trying to sneak Catwoman under the PR radar? Then again, the initial announcement of Harvey Dent didn't mention Two-Face, and we know how that turned out.

If Bane is the anti-Batman, Catwoman is more like a reverse-Batman, carefree, self-interested and more about the thrill of the chase than the satisfaction of the kill. Given that in Nolan's last two Batman films, only two characters have managed to crack a smile (and one of those was insane), it's hard to see what role she might play in the film. Certainly, it seems unlikely we'll see much of the upbeat, flirty and sexually tense relationship Kyle and Wayne have in the comics. Particularly not if Bane is around to given Batman hell.

The casting of Anne Hathaway isn't necessarily a bad idea. If Nolan could see the Joker in the guy from A Knight's Tale and Brokeback Mountain, there's no specific reason to question his judgement in choosing Anne Hathaway. We just need to hope he remembers this time to give his female characters something to do in this film (except die). The real question - the real uncertainty - is about what sort of story could tie together Bane and Catwoman, two characters so vastly different in tone and scope.

Has Nolan found a way to make it work? Honestly, I struggle to see how it can be done. But, if anyone can...

Maybe in the end, the truth is that Nolan genuinely finds these characters more interesting than any of the other options. Or maybe he just likes the challenge of rehabilitating characters whose last screen outings were so terrible, in much the same way he rehabilitated Batman.

All we can do now is sit, wait, and try not to be too judgemental about the most baffling superhero movie developments to come out of Hollywood since, er, the X-Men: First Class teaser image.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Following the appearance of the first image of the X-Men: First Class line-up in their respective costumes yesterday, today we've got more treats from Matthew Vaughn's upcoming movie.

This time, we've got the first official poster from the film, as well as a trio of new images from the movie. These give a real sense of the 60s feel of the movie, and we get to see Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, too.

The film arrives on 3rd June 2011. And click on any of the images that you want to make bigger.

AintItCoolNews

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

There's few of you out there, we've worked out, who are particularly enjoying the Hollywood reboot gravy train right now. Appreciating that occasionally things can turn out well (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Star Trek), the general consensus appears to tie in with our own.

Because we know, increasingly, what a reboot is shorthand for. It can mean that a franchise is being concreted over, so that we can all theoretically conveniently forget about early crappy entries in a franchise, and start from scratch.

Or it's about filling an ideas vacuum in a franchise-dominated market, where it's cheaper, easier, and less risk to revive the name of an older movie franchise, as opposed to launching something fresh and new.

Which brings us, friends, to Lethal Weapon.

Over the past few years, Warner Bros has, if you believe the assorted tales, looked quite hard at bringing Lethal Weapon 5 together. But, for whatever reason, it didn't come to fruition. And given Mel Gibson's standing in the movie community right now, there's absolutely no chance of him and Danny Glover getting together for a fifth film.

Plan B, then. For Warner Bros is now considering the reboot option. The news arose over at Deadline, which reports that a change in personnel at Warner Bros has resulted in a series of potential projects being assigned around the studio. Those projects include the aforementioned Lethal Weapon, as well as reboots of Westworld (which has been on the cards for some time) and The Wild Bunch (given fresh impetus by the stunning success of the Coen Brothers' new take on True Grit).

The upshot of them being given to different people within the studio to oversee is that they're in the hands of a different set of eager executives, and it's expected that they'll bring a new injection of enthusiasm for the assorted projects.

There's no guarantee at this stage that any of these films will happen, and Warner Bros may yet decide that the likes of Lethal Weapon are best left as they are. But we suspect that there's a real temptation at the studio to find a new combination of actors for a new take on the franchise.

Our thoughts? If Shane Black were to come back and write and direct, then we're in. If he doesn't, then we're out.

Our biggest fear? A new Lethal Weapon, starring Freddie Prinze Jr and Chris Tucker. If you can come up with a more fearful casting combination, then do leave it in the comments...

The Hollywood Reporter

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

"What big eyes you have."

Here's hoping this one matches its potential. Giving a leading role to the terrific Amanda Seyfried, Red Riding Hood is directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who's most famed thus far for helming the first Twilight movie.

But this looks like a different beast, and is likely to be all the better for it. It's loosely based on the Little Red Riding Hood story, and this take on the tale involves a werewolf, lots of snow, and Gary Oldman.

We're not convinced that this new trailer does the film too many favours. The backing music seems to jar with the tone of what we've seen of the film, and seems to be playing harder for a Twilight-audience. But we've not convinced that the film is going to pan out quite that way.

We've got real hopes for this one, anyway. And we've not got long to wait for it. Red Riding Hood is due on 11th March 2011.

Syfy has fallen off the Christmas card lists of many people, it seems, following its decision to cancel both Caprica and Stargate Universe over the past few months.

But while the fate of Caprica is sealed, with no chance of a reprieve in the offing, there might just be an olive branch for fans of Stargate Universe.

We're only talking slight chances here, but one of the show's producers, Joseph Mallozzi, has been talking about the cancellation of the show on his blog.

Specifically, after chatting about working with visual effects supervisor, Mark Savela, Mallozzi wrote:

"I was in the office yesterday to watch the Day 1 Mix of The Hunt. Great stuff!  Anyway, while there, I talked to Brad [Wright, executive producer]. Needless to say, he's been working hard to ensure we all get the opportunity to work with Mark in 2011. Nothing definite as of yet to report but a minor hurdle was cleared. Quite a few hurdles still lie ahead and there's always the chance it might all be for naught - but right now, things are looking positive."

This is clearly a long way from anything concrete, but there are solid hints there that work is ongoing to try and earn Stargate Universe a third season. We wonder if that means shopping the show to more science fiction friendly networks than Syfy, perhaps someone like Starz?

It's all speculation at this point, clearly, but it does seem that there's at least a sliver of hope for a Stargate reprieve. We'll keep you posted of any further news.

Joseph Mallozzi blog

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

This review contains spoilers.

13. No Ordinary Detention

After the shambles of last week, I was actually not looking forward to No Ordinary Detention, like I'd actually been given one.

The story is actually three entirely unconnected subplots, one where Jim's actions come back to haunt him at his workplace, another where Joshua's withdrawal symptoms from the super-serum drive Katie to take him to see Stephanie in the lab, and the detention story, where both JJ and Daphne get on the wrong side of their loveable and rational teacher.

Probably the best was element was the Jim story, where a bad guy that he stops ends up taking over the precinct, and it's Jim's job to play John McClane in this reworking of Die Hard. It's so close to its film inspiration that the characters actually comment on both the movie and the events in it.

The added spice in this narrative burrito is that one of the hostages is a city prosecutor intent on finding the vigilante who's been fighting crime in her jurisdiction. It's a by-the-numbers script, but it had a few entertaining sequences along the way.

Of more relevance to the greater story arc was the Joshua part (and yes, that is his name, apparently). I'd predicted that Victoria the shapeshifter and Joshua the watcher would have a fight at some point, and one week later it came to be. What slightly let this down was that they didn't really play with the notion of shapeshifting, other than to have two Katie's at one point, and frankly, one is more than enough.

Where it was interesting is that the bad guy's now know that Stephanie has powers, and probably through association, the rest of the Powells. Stephanie also gets the award as the dumbest smart person of the week, when she works out who is the real Katie only to turn her back on the fake! She should hand back her PhD.

I can't see this is the last fight between Victoria and Joshua, because I'd be amazed if they both survive the season.

The kids' plot was a bonding exercise where everyone gets to be slightly more than they started out. It was harmless enough, although it's certainly about time that the younger Powells took on Mr. Litchfield, instead of taking the abuse he deals out arbitrarily.

Though, with the positive things that each subplot brought, they each also delivered the exceptionally sloppy writing that has become the hallmark of this show. The 'she's disappeared' ending of the lab standoff was bad enough, but the one that concluded the hostage situation was beyond stupid. "You should get going. SWAT will be here any minute" was the line that got me.

They'll be here any minute? They're in a police precinct where there's been a hostage situation! Surely they'd have appeared once the sound of gunfire was heard? Or did they go to some local eatery and order the special? And surely all the exits from the building would be covered?

The laziness in not being able to solve problems like this is a major issue for the show, because it hints to me that those writing it don't take their characters and situations remotely seriously, and that type of thinking won't sell them to the viewer.

This show could be so much better than it is. There were small parts of this story that worked, but unfortunately, they're outnumbered by the bits that didn't, currently.

Read our review of episode 12, No Ordinary Brother, here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

The guest stars for the series finale is the Swiss experimental performance art troupe, Mummenschanz. Formed in 1972, Mummenschanz have performed for over thirty years and have seen various numbers join the troupe during that time. The first act of its kind to perform on The Muppet Show, they also appeared on an episode of Sesame Street.

Mummenschanz weren't the original choice for the guest stars for the closing episode. They were approached when planned guest Gina Lollobrigida pulled out. Henson had seen Mummenschanz's show in Switzerland and suggested that they would be an ideal replacement. This turned out to be a very good suggestion.

The show opens with a fantastic musical number as Scooter and The Electric Mayhem perform Mr. Bassman. Upbeat and relentlessly entertaining, there's more entertainment in this short musical number than the entire two episodes that preceded this finale.

Other notable musical numbers include the UK exclusive of an Eel singing When I'm Not Near The Girl I Love, from the musical Finian's Rainbow and a library attendant conducting a chorus of noisy readers in a rendition of Strauss' The Blue Danube. Both are solid, but don't touch the quality of the episode's opening number or that of the eccentric guest stars.

I found Mummenschanz's contributions to be fantastic, full of charm, wit and a sense of playfulness that has been absent of late. The performers contort their bodies to adopt the roles of animals and use notepads and clay masks to alter their expressions, delivering interesting and highly entertaining sketches as a result. They remain masked throughout, even through their talk spot with Kermit, until they unmask at the end of the show.

Other than the aforementioned material, there's backstage shenanigans as Gonzo declares his love for Miss Piggy, and Kermit encouraging it, despite Piggy being repulsed by the big-nosed blue menace and declaring her love for Kermit.

The episode would also be one of firsts and lasts, as it would mark the debut of Gonzo's whoosh action, which would feature prominently in future episodes. It is also the last episode to be written by Jack Burns and the last to feature the talents of John Lovelady and Eren Ozker.

This episode is more of an interesting oddity than a classic episode, but still thoroughly entertaining nonetheless. It will be one that's perhaps not to everyone's tastes, but Mummenschanz's brand of physical performance art that often borders on puppetry is an interesting contrast to the Muppet material contained in the episode. It's certainly a step up from the two episodes that preceded it, and proves a strong closing episode.

Whilst there have been some poor episodes in the series, the hits outnumbered the misses, making the series as a whole very enjoyable.

The show would go on to attract bigger names throughout its five series run, as its profile raised considerably. Future episodes would also see guest stars utilised to their full potential. Sure, there would be slip-ups along the way, but very few long running series are without the odd bad episode.

After sitting through the series for review, I'm convinced that a new team of writers could take the show's format and characters and deliver a highly entertaining primetime show that could attract big name guest stars. Sadly, I doubt this will happen, but we'll wait and see how the forthcoming movie fares in relaunching the Muppet brand following some disappointing straight-to-video productions.

You can read our remembrance of episode 23 here.

And find reviews of the entire first season of The Muppet Show here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

I've concluded, over the past few years, that it's not just the Academy Awards that tend to look down on a comedy a little. There's also a collection of talented comedic actors that appear to have given the genre a pretty wide berth. And that's been brought to the front of my mind by Morning Glory, which finally arrives in UK cinemas this week.

Back when I first watched Mike Nichols' Working Girl, it struck me that Ford is a gifted comedy actor. Not a comedian, note. Rather someone who can deliver a deadpan line with laser accuracy. We saw it when he played against Sean Connery in Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, too. But we've barely seen it since, as Ford's choices have been away from the genre.

That was, until Morning Glory came along. On the promotional treadmill for the film, Ford admitted that he'd not done comedies for some time, because the genre itself had basically got a reputation for low-brow movies. Yet, Ford, for my money, is an actor with the clout to get a more grown-up comedy off the ground.

It got me thinking, too: it's not just Harrison Ford that's in this camp. There are lots of maturer comedy performers who haven't really done much in the genre for some time. Look at gifted comedy actors such as Steve Martin, Johnny Depp, Brendan Fraser and Will Smith. When was the last time they headlined a comedy film that wasn't skewed at a younger demographic?

Plus, Hugh Jackman surely has a good comedy in him, as do Ewan McGregor and Brad Pitt. They're just off the top of my head, and there must be plenty more relatively untapped comedy talents, put off by the fact that they have to deliver material that serves current trends alone.

To be fair, the likes of Robert Downey Jr and George Clooney aren't afraid of comedies, but it does seem that Hollywood has ring-fenced the genre somewhat. Thus, you can't make a comedy unless it's edgy/teen-skewed/gross-out/dark/nasty. And while this gives us gems such as World's Greatest Dad, there's still room, surely, in the market for a mainstream, grown-up comedy from time to time.

By that, I don't mean stunt casting-driven comedies, either. It used to be Arnold Schwarzenegger who did this, playing against type in the likes of Twins, Kindergarten Cop, and the male pregnancy documentary that was Junior.

Now? Sheesh, it's Robert De Niro doing it, just as badly, in the increasingly depressing Fockers movies. It's films like Little Fockers, which I maintain has all the qualities of a Police Academy sequel, that draw a stark divide between a one-joke, high-concept comedy, and a genuinely well-written comedy movie, with funny jokes in it.

It's perhaps with that in mind that I enjoyed Morning Glory a lot. For three reasons. Firstly, it was a broad, well-written comedy, that didn't rely on cheap gags for its laughs (and I'm no snob when it comes to cheap gags, I should point out). Secondly, it was actually funny, and the humour was in the writing as well as the performances. And thirdly, there was Harrison Ford, cast perfectly in a role that suits his comedy talents, and making me dearly wish he'd spent more time in the genre in the past 25 years.

It's been the kind of film that's been missing from Hollywood's comedy output in recent times, only occasionally appearing when a director such as James L Brooks, or someone of his ilk, fancies another stab at it.

I'm happy that the comedy genre has evolved, and I'm happy that there's a mix of comedy movies, the ilk of which we weren't getting a decade or two back. But that's no reason to abandon the mainstream, and to look down on the idea of a well-written comedy film that relies on funny lines as much as it does a particular concept.

That, coupled with actors such as Harrison Ford being given space to flesh out a comedy performance, would, for me, fill in the currently existing gap in Hollywood's output right now.

Morning Glory is released in UK cinemas today.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Television is scary. If you don't believe this, you're either in denial or it's already succeeded in conditioning and taking control of your mind. Realise the disturbing truth about that devil box you invited into your home. It's a domestic terrorist that hypnotises you, has you attentive in its hold and assaults you on a daily basis.

We're all helpless consumers held captive by screens and I fear for humanity, especially when the screens are dominated by karaoke contests, shock-docs, toxic soap operas and news programmes that turn current affairs into a circus. I'm freaking out at the idea that the Pleasantville scenario could occur and that some of us will get sucked into one of these awful TV shows and have to eat maggots or sing tunes from Dreamgirls through tears of fake grief in order to escape.

I'm struck by the eerie similarities to the visions of Network and Videodrome and also suspect that subliminal messages are being disseminated, most likely by Rupert Murdoch and his satanic minions. In total, we're paying for an A Clockwork Orange-style brainwashing experience, with Phillip Schofield and irritating adverts featuring meerkats.

Overly affected as I am by David Cronenberg movies, I also worry that television's influence transcends the set and has more biological power than the way it stimulates (or de-stimulates) the brain. Broadcast waves could be physically penetrating us, corrupting us from inside and, consequently, I live in dread that one day I'll flick on the tube and find my torso has blasted open and turned into a bloody Blu-ray player.

Frankly, the terror and torment of Beelzebox has gone on long enough. I don't want the human race to have their minds warped by manipulative media moguls and I don't to witness mass tech-chestburster incidents.

To quote Howard Beale of Network: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more!" I'm going to take a thick red pen, a machete (to skin and execute the meerkat) and the drums of revolution to TV.

I had high hopes for this struggle when I saw Harrison Ford on posters for new film, Morning Glory. The image promises Ford, a solid and reliable figure of action and common sense, behind a desk for a movie exposing the madness of the morning news magazine show. Sadly, Morning Glory appears to have more in common with Anchorman than Network, and isn't inclined towards biting satire.

As veteran news hack Mike Pomeroy, our great hope Harrison is the butt of the jokes and the old uncomfortable grouch berated by the chirpier likes of Diane Keaton and Rachael McAdams. This is a travesty, considering that Ford is the man who played two of the coolest characters in cinema history, and Han Solo and Indiana Jones shouldn't be disrespected like this.

It's too late now for Morning Glory, but not too late for real-world television, and it's on the characters of Indy and Han Solo that the rebellion's progress rests. If we took a handy blaster and a bullwhip to the schedules (after opening the Ark of the Covenant on Mr Murdoch to gloriously obliterate him in sublime face-melting style), then television and the human race could be saved.

If every programme broadcast featured one of the heroes as a power for good, then the forces of darkness would be diminished and, protected by Harrison's Ford's charismatic aura, the audience would be safe from televisual evil.

Here's the rebel plot. With the help of Chewbacca, Han destroys all the evil Empire's defence shields and blows Darth Murdoch's Death Star. The pair then park up the Millennium Falcon and take residence behind the news desk to host current affairs programming that is incisive, honest and cuts through all the bullshit.

Because you won't actually be able to understand the Wookiee's growled bulletins, you'll have no concerns about false reporting and misleading stories. On the other end of the sofa, in Han I picture potentially the greatest investigative journalist the galaxy has ever known. Imagine Jeremy Paxman if he was more charismatic, better looking and could fly the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs and you'll get some grasp of just how brilliant Newsnight would be under the guidance of Solo.

Meanwhile, Indiana Jones is sweeping up the rest of the telly realms, clearing ancient cobwebs and whipping things into shape. His tomb raiding experience will revolutionise daytime TV as he launches himself into all the antiques programmes and fantasy home hunting shows. The pet rescue, mystery inheritance and cooking shows are all pretty dull and could do with a blast of excitement. Adding Indy's Holy Grail-aided healing abilities, archaeological expertise and eager desire to nuke the fridge, respectively, would deliver that.

I'd also aim to make sure, in this warped Harrisonfordified media utopia, that any show with a panel of judges would get a touch of the Temple Of Doom. Indiana Jones, Willie Scott and Short Round make up the authoritative trio and would take it turns to shout "You have offended Shiva!" at attention-seeking fame whores before casting them into the fiery pits of Kali. It's cruel but, in truth, Thuggee cult sacrifice is more humane than humiliation on live national television.

The right judgemental attitude is on display in the scene where Indy shoots the fancy swordsman of  the Cairo marketplace in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Think of the hours of pain and suffering this approach would save if you take into consideration every single singing/dancing/variety act 'talent' show out there.

In conclusion, weekend primetime needs Dr. Jones.

Revolutionising television as the Channel Ford experience strikes me as a good idea and the rebel scheme needs to be instigated before Rupert Murdoch completely monopolises the British media and begins his mind-control experiments. If Harrison Ford gets undermined by his colleagues on Morning Glory, is too crabby and apathetic, or loses the iconic fedora forever to Shia LaBeouf, then we're doomed.

If that's the case, to protect myself from brainwashing and Videodrome-style body horror, I'm following my hero, Han, going into carbon freeze and getting exported far off to the Outer Rim territories. The fatal mind-skewering signals won't be able to penetrate the alloy and I won't be able to hear the meerkat adverts out there in the wilderness.

One day I'll return, reignite the rebellion afresh, and in doing so, crush the Dark Side. You cannot win, Darth Murdoch, and all you karaoke crazies and dance show gerbils. Long live my new carbon frozen flesh!

James' previous column can be found here.

You can reach James on his Twitter feed here, see his film cartoons here and more sketches here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

On 11th May 2012, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest attempt to win friends and influence people will be released in cinemas. And if you were wondering how he could top the mayhem he caused with Bruno and Borat, then wonder no more.

He's going to be starring in a loose adaptation of the book Zabibah And The King, with the film - a comedy - going by the name of The Dictator.

And here's the thing: the book that was written by Saddam Hussein (although that said, there's some contention as to whether the former Iraqi dictator did indeed write said book). The story? About a ruler of medieval Iraq, who falls in love with a common girl. It should go down a treat.

The film will unite him with his Borat and Bruno director, Larry Charles, and Paramount Pictures will be distributing, following a reported four-way bidding way for the project.

We're sure it will cause no controversy whatsoever. Gulp.

Deadline

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Last month, we uploaded the first of our two interviews with legendary Disney animator, Glen Keane. You can read the first here, and what you're about to read is what happened when we sat down with him face to face, to chat about his work on Tangled, and animation as a whole...

Just walking along the corridor before we started chatting, I saw a terrific Tangled painting, the one that appears in the film. Is it your daughter who's painted that?

Yes.

That's a lovely piece of work.

Isn't that cool?

So, you've got three generations of Keanes in the same film, effectively. You told us before that you based the baby Rapunzel in the film on drawings of your granddaughter, you've got your daughter's painting, and your own work?

As a matter of fact, there are four generations, because my father, everything that he taught me was constantly passed onto those animators. For me, I think of my dad all the time, and his instruction, and use that constantly for teaching the other animators, encouraging them. Yeah, it's amazing. What a blessing.

Somewhere in the painting she's hidden Matisse, the name of our granddaughter. She hid it in some leaves in the painting in the movie.

Alan Menken says that he's hidden one or two things in the film too. And, with it being the 50th Disney animated film, it was lovely to see tips of the hat to The Little Mermaid, to Hunchback, a bit of Beauty And The Beast. There seems to be a lot of fun and reverence in the movie. Was that always there, when putting Tangled together?

You know, no. I did not try to do something special for the fiftieth film, because I didn't even know it was the fiftieth film until publicity came along and said this is the fiftieth. I was like, "Oh, that's kind of cool."

These things are bigger than any of us when you look at the landscape of timing of big films. New eras in animation happen with a big fairytale. Snow White launched the golden era of animation, Little Mermaid launched this renaissance, and I really hope that with Tangled, we can step into a new era of animation.

I remember talking to Don Hahn about producing Beauty And The Beast and he was very open about how the Disney ‘sweatbox' worked [where everyone gathered together in a room for some dissections of work]. He said on that film that you had an outgoing generation of animators, as well as two comparably young directors, and a lot of new talent coming through. And he said that the sweatbox had to fuse all that together. He described it as "brutal". Were you working with similar practices here, and how has your perspective on the process changed since then?

Well, on this film, there was an extreme honesty that was happening in our dailies room. That's where this film just rose to such an extraordinary level, in that room. You could call it like the sweatbox, but I wouldn't call it that. It was more like a therapy session.

The directors would act out moments from scenes, and the animators would be there. I would be there. The directors would sit behind me, and I'm at a Cintiq, where I could draw. The animators were around me.

So, there was a scene, and you would issue that scene to the animators, and the directors would perform. And sometimes I would do a drawing of what they were doing. And sometimes they would talk very personally about their own lives, opening up their heart. At times there would be tears.

I was amazed at their honesty. They were not just doing a job as animator directors. They were really expressing intimate, personal moments in their life, for people to understand what they were going for. Constantly, I was encouraging the animators to take this as a moment in their life. This is your time as an artist. Take something personal in your life and put it into the screen. And the animators, everybody could speak openly about each other's work, and critique it.

It was sometimes a dog pile mentality. Nobody wanted to be the weak link. Everybody wanted that thing to succeed. Everybody always wanted you to be encouraged to keep going. So, it was - brutal, I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say it was brutal. I'd say it was very honest, and that's where our film got so much better.

You talked before about how you sat at a computer at one point during the production of this film, and tried to animate a single moment. And even The Princess Of The Frog started off with tablets, trying to put images through a computer.

They ended up animating it on paper, and then scanning it. They did try in the beginning to do the whole thing on computer. That was the original approach. Then the rough animation would be cleaned up by CG.

The thing that struck me about it is that computers, if you going to the core of what they're supposed to do, are tools. They're designed to shortcut. Do you think, now, that they're becoming too much of a mental obstacle, though? Especially if a modern animator now has to have two disciplines: to be able to draw, and to be able to operate a computer?

I see it as a viable tool. There are different kinds of artists, and the computer has allowed there to be more kinds, because of their assistance.

But one of our very top animators, a guy named Tony Smeed, he animated the very first scene you see of Rapunzel, where she opens the window, and you see it's all fresh. That guy, he doesn't draw. He would not be an animator if it was not for the computer.

Before this, before he was an animator on a computer, he was a plumber!

That's better paid, isn't it?

[Laughs] Yeah! I hope he's better paid now, though!

But that was so striking to me that, in his hands, he could manipulate and use that computer effortlessly. So, I don't see the computer as being in the way at all. I see it as an opportunity for new artists today to express themselves, just like I can.

But there are limitations. There are things that I cannot do with this pencil here. If I do 24 drawings a second and I put shading on there, it just kind of boils. But with the computer, you can control that. We could do so much more.

There's another whole approach to animation if you respect the line using the computer. And that doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue down the path of Tangled. I'm just seeing two different lines, I think.

The subtle challenge, I thought, with Tangled was keeping the consistency of the length of Rapunzel's hair. I'm no expert, but it strikes me as something that's much easier when the hair is tumbling down the tower. Yet, when it's all bunched up, it has to keep that feeling of length. Was that the most difficult challenge here?

If we could show you the outtakes! It's shocking. We had moment s- If the hair doesn't work, the film doesn't work. And we had moments where we thought that this is never going to work. How in the world - ?

And at moments like that, I would look at these guys, Steve Goldberg, and Eric Daniels, who were technical guys overseeing hair. And I would look at them and say, "Are they scared? No, they didn't seem scared. Okay, good!"

Because what I saw was when Rapunzel turned her head, instead of her going in this beautiful little arc, it went spring, all over the place, like you dropped a bunch of marbles on a stone floor, and it scattered everywhere. How are we going to control this? 140,000 hairs, and each one is like a cat with its own mind, going its own way?

And there's a collected weight to consider, presumably?

Yeah, it's 40 pounds. That's what we figured. It was really important to create just the right weight. We broke that 140,000 down into 47 tubes, to control that. The animators animated those things sometimes, and other times we would use a simulation, to be able to control it.

But it was always with principals of animation. You realise that the only way we could solve this problem of bringing hand-drawn into CG was to identify the problem. You can't just say hand-drawn looks better, make it like hand-drawn. It's like, specifically, exactly, what are you talking about?

And that's what I was getting from people. The CG folks, the software people, they were saying, "I don't understand, what's different. What do you want? What are you looking for?"

Okay, these are the principals. We've got to have, in the hair, we've got to have rhythm, number one. I did a drawing of what I saw as rhythm, and suddenly they got it. It's got to have twist, so that the front side turns to the back side. Oh, okay. It's got to have weight, volume, so that it curves out and down, like it's got a heaviness to it. And you see the little light bulbs going. As soon as you gave them specific problems, they were solving them.

Asymmetry is the key to beauty, and the computer does everything symmetrical. It's dead and lifeless. We have to find ways to put asymmetry in that, and suddenly, everything was becoming really clear.

Problems were like a game where the little head would pop up, and you'd fire it and shoot it down.

I have to ask, is there any hope for The Snow Queen at all, do you think?

Oh, yeah, oh yeah. I believe that there is. I believe that our future has to include great, classic fairytales. The Snow Queen is a wonderful story. Its root goes way, way deep, Frighteningly deep.

It's interesting. The stories that Walt solved were the more solvable ones. The more difficult ones.

Beauty And The Beast?

Beauty And The Beast and Rapunzel. I remember Joe Grant, head of story at Snow White, he was still alive at Disney and I was asking him, "Did you ever work on Rapunzel?" He said, "Yeah, we did. But we couldn't figure it.  We just set it aside. "

So, the ones that have not been done, it's not because they're not better, it's they're deeper. There's something profound. And maybe the time for those stories is a new generation, with new messages to tell.

It's interesting. The assumption on something like Rapunzel is that it's a technological problem that it's not been made before.

No, we could have done it hand-drawn, too. I really do believe that these films have these moments in history.

Finally, you're working with a group of people now, and urging them to find their own identity. And yet, you're there with the wonderful characters you've brought to the screen in the past. You're the person, I'd imagine, why many of them took the course at CalArts at one point and ended up in front of you. How do you manage any reverence coming your way from that? Because, from where I sit, that must be a consideration in the making of the film, that they look at you, in the same way you looked up at the Ollie Johnstons?

Well, there's the management in my own ego that my wife seems to manage really well. [laughs] I go home and realise that anything anyone has said to me at work means absolutely nothing to her! The fact is do I love her? Am I willing to give up what's important to me in order to care for her?

Every day, I take a walk, about an hour walk. And I try to remember as much as I can that what I'm given was given. I didn't plan on being born in a family with a dad who's an artist. I was given that. I didn't plan on becoming an animator. My portfolio was sent by accident. I was given that. I didn't plan on getting to Disney at just the moment that old men who had worked with Walt were looking for some blank slate artist to come in, like me, and teach. I was given that. All these characters, I was given so much.

I have to remind myself that I have this one verse in my mind that I always remember, and it's "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father of heavenly lights." And that is the drop at the beginning of this movie. It's that source, and I'm not the source of that. He is. I keep remembering that.

I take a walk each day, and think about those things. That keeps it in perspective for me, because I'm like anybody else. You can get a really huge ego and start thinking you're something wonderful, but like I said, my wife is really great at popping bubbles!

Glen Keane, thank you very much.

Tangled arrives in UK cinemas on Friday 28th January.

See Also:

• Don Hahn interview
• Glen Keane interview
• Alan Menken interview

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Vincent Cassel is one smooth operator. Back in October, at the London Film Festival, all the journalists gathered at the roundtable interview we attended were thoroughly charmed by his suave manner and gently frank sense of humour. It's these positive qualities that resound even in Cassel's darkest, most complex roles, from the volatile Parisian street punk Vinz in La Haine, to the international criminal Jacques Mesrine.

In Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky's psycho-thriller of obsession, madness and ballet, Cassel stars as the manipulative, yet still dashing, director who pushes Natalie Portman's dancer towards perfection. With this in mind, we asked Cassel about his relationship with directors, his background in dancing and the experience of working in both French and American film industries.

Did you train as a dancer for the part?

I trained as a dancer when I was much younger, for a large amount of time, like 6 or 7 years. Not to be a ballet dancer, actually, but I thought it was a complement for an actor. I thought that actors should know how to move, should know how to juggle, should know how to do acrobatics.

So, I started my career by being involved in a lot of physical things, and the core activity was ballet. Because when you have a consciousness of your body through ballet, they say that you can do anything else. So, I believed it, and that's why I trained.

Then, for that movie in particular, I went back to the studio for a while to stretch, to have a sense of that physicality again. But it's nothing compared to Natalie, for example, who really transformed the body, and naturally fitted.

Have you ever been manipulated by a director in the way that your character manipulates Natalie's?

I would never let that happen! I mean, if I'm not aware at first, then I might be surprised, but if I start to understand what's going on - I'm too old for that.

The only time I've been, not manipulated, but tricked around, I reacted very badly and it ended up that I will never work with that person again, and he knows it. [laughs]

And he was?

Luc Besson, of course. We call him the 'dark feather' of French cinema. The dark side of the force.

Is he that bad, then?

I don't know. No, it's just an image.

In this film, but also in Mesrine and Eastern Promises, you excel at playing very driven, obsessed characters. Does that come easily to you? Do you find yourself becoming lost in that person?

No, I don't feel like I'm losing myself. I'm losing myself in the moment. So, it's more about letting yourself go, and experiencing that moment.

But when it's cut, and I'm going back to the trailer, I don't keep on walking like the character. I'm not like that, no. I used to, but it seems like it's something you do when you're younger, because you feel like you have to. Otherwise you're not going to be real.

Then once you get, I guess, a little older, and you get more in touch with your emotions, and less worried about the way you look, or blah blah blah, you know that you can get the same result without being a jerk to everybody else as well.

How much did it matter to you to break through in Hollywood?

First of all, I'm not sure that I've really broken through, but how did I manage to have gigs coming from the States?

Was that important to you? Because a lot of French actors quite happily spend their entire career in the French film industry.

And they say they're glad, but it's not true. [laughs] Because the best thing is to be able to work everywhere, to be called and then you just pick what you want.

It's not a question of language or market any more. That's the ideal. But what I think it is, I'm not sure, but from the conversation I've had with the English-speaking directors who've called me, it's because of the movies that I made in France.

I've been pretty spoiled, first of all, because I only worked - you know, we were like a bunch of angry kids, in a way. It's like, fuck la Nouvelle Vague, and we're going to do something new. That's the attitude we had with Mathieu Kassovitz, Jan Kounen, Gaspar Noe, all those guys, you know.

And so, we came up with those movies that were not huge box office things, but they've been traveling a lot. They went to a lot of festivals and stuff. And I guess the directors saw them, and I know that's why Soderbergh called me, and that's why Cronenberg called me, and that's why Darren called me. So, I guess it's because of the choices, really.

So, it wasn't simply doing Ocean's Twelve and then becoming more noticeable?

No, no, no. What came out of Ocean's Twelve is actually great, because you do one Ocean's Twelve and you're more known around the world than if you did 20 years in the French cinema industry.

Do you feel the need to do a balancing act, between American and French cinema?

Well, I did Ocean's Twelve. I didn't do Fast And Furious. You know, it's not the same at all.

Soderbergh is a very respectable director that manages to have an incredible amount of freedom in a system that doesn't allow anybody to be free as he is on a set. And he will jump from Solaris to Ocean's Twelve and Thirteen.

So, it's like, to tell the truth, I don't really have the sense that I have really worked on a Hollywood movie, because Ocean's Twelve is not a real Hollywood movie. It's a bunch of guys that know each other, that stick together; they have total control over the product. So, it's not really a Hollywood movie. It's Hollywood people having fun in a very expensive indie movie, let's say. [laughs]

Who else would you like to work with in America?

There are so many. Oh, man, that's a complicated, complicated question. Because, you know what? The truth is that I don't have a fantasy director, somebody I would love to work with. Martin Scorsese, you know. That's what I kept saying to Mathieu Kassovitz back in the day. He'd say, "You're going to go to America. You're going to have a career." "Why do you want me to go to America? We can work together."

It's not about integrating something else. It's about doing something that people want to see, and you don't have to work with known directors for that.

For example, a bunch of projects that I have, the one that excites me the most is with a young director and it's a movie I'm producing. So, it's not going to be the biggest one, but that's what keeps me alive. Excited, you know? I think it's very important to be excited.

What dead filmmaker would you want to work with, then?

Fellini. And Buñuel.

Good choices!

Yeah, you bet it is!

Your character very much pushes Natalie's to bring her personal experience into her performance. What's your opinion on Method acting?

I think people have a misinterpretation of Method acting, because Method acting is a wonderful thing. The thing is, if you take it too seriously, it's like religion. You start to think it's the truth. But it's not the truth. It's just a way to get somewhere.

And plus, it's been associated to suffering. It's like Method actors are like serious people who stay in their trailers and they don't wash and things like that. But it's not what it is.

What it's talking about is that you should use your emotion to act, instead of portraying your emotions. But you could be a very happy character and it's still Method acting.

Did that help when immersing yourself in the character of Mesrine?

But I had a lot of fun. A lot of fun. Every day on it was long. Nine months is a long shoot, honestly. And the weight, blah blah blah. Every day, I'm not kidding. Because I would debrief the day of shooting. On set, you don't have time to talk, so at night, my director was on MSN. And every day we would talk, and more or less every day it was, "Wasn't it fucking great, today?"

I don't know, but that's the way I live my days of shooting. You have to be happy to be there. It's important. Because if you're bored, it really shows.

Monsieur Cassel, thank you for your time!

Black Swan is released this week.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Get Low's concept is simple, rich, and immediately intriguing. In 1930s Tennessee, a small town is surprised when an old hermit (Robert Duvall) breaks his 40 year self-imposed exile to announce, quite oddly, that he is planning to hold his own funeral party while still alive. Everyone from the surrounding area is invited, and they are encouraged to share their various stories of this near-mythical local figure.

This setup alone speaks volumes, and hints at a narrative of some resonance, picking up on the transition between old and new America, the quirky, homespun folklore that made up its oral history, and the founding legends which define its identity. After all, that 40 year time period brought with it the popular rise of electricity, motor cars, telephones and radio, tools which would supplant the old traditions, and serve the United States well on its ascent to world power.

It's, sadly, an anticipation that Get Low, directed by debut feature filmmaker, Aaron Schneider, does not satisfy. Instead of playing on the stage of folk epic, like There Will Be Blood, we get a tale of tragedy and mystery.

Robert Duvall imbues the reclusive Felix Bush with a wonderful idiosyncrasy, as he at first revels in the hearsay that permeates the town. Yet, his manner belies deep-set emotional scars. The initial interest in the various stories and tall tales that have sprung up around his life (some say he killed a whole family, young children included. Some know no details, but are certain it was a horrible crime he committed), is soon replaced by the film pursuing the truth behind his mournful stare, giving the film a sort of gentle inevitability, replacing a larger sense of poetry with a more literal approach.

It is surprising how total this shift is, and how deeply it affects the movie's tone and scope. Characters, initially all with potential viewpoints and nuance of their own, soon become dim reflections of the central figure. Mattie Darrow (Sissy Spacek), an old flame from Bush's past, remains just that, and young Buddy Robinson (Lucas Black), who offers to help the old man arrange the funeral, only half develops into a surrogate son.

Robinson's boss, Frank Quinn, fares better, but that is mostly because the role is filled by Bill Murray, who plays the funeral parlour owner as he does a ghost buster, television producer, or ageing movie star. That is, with a knowing dry wit and scene-stealing bravado. With his John Waters-style moustache, fashionable homburg, and fur-lined overcoat, he is a huckster extraordinaire, eyes gleaming at the sight of Bush's unkempt, but sizable wad of cash.

For a time, they make a charming comic pair, with Bush cheerily undercutting convention with a sly grin or grunt, as Quinn chases the dollar signs in the preparation and promotion of the funeral. In one scene, the ex-hermit appears on the local radio station, answering the perky presenter's questions with straightforward gruffness, but causing a stir with a surprise announcement: at the funeral, he'll be raffling off his land, consisting of 300 acres of untouched timbre.

In one perfect moment, we see Quinn perk up at the promise of yet more profit, although we also glance something canny beneath the old man's coarse exterior, an inkling of a mastery of PR, spin and gossip.

However, the film seems just as unconcerned about who Bush is, as it is about the culture of rumour that festered in his absence. Instead, it is merely satisfied in asking why. Why did he leave?

It leaves the conclusion a little hollow, and a little one-dimensional, as the complexity of subtexts suggested by its concept are omitted in favour of one man's tale of grief and guilt. A sad, minor mystery which lies at the heart of this whimsical, sometimes beautiful, yet underwhelming tale of folksy Americana.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

I'll come right out and say it, Black Swan is a masterpiece. It's a masterpiece of obsession and what that obsession ultimately does to a person. It's also a perfect summation of Darren Aronofsky's career to date, a cap on his independent work, and one which, if he does, indeed, depart to the land of Hollywood blockbusters for good, will serve as a dazzling tribute to his early craft.

I imagine most people are aware of the premise behind Black Swan. Natalie Portman is Nina, a talented but reserved ballerina, who is chosen as the lead in a new production of Swan Lake.

Although she is a perfect White Swan, she is also required to play the twin Black Swan, and to do so, must unlock a more seductive and unrestrained part of her nature. Added to this is the pressure from her mother, a failed ballerina, and the threat from Mila Kunis' Lily, a new dancer who appears to have everything Nina lacks for the role.

Black Swan is an intense experience, and one which stays with you long afterwards. From the relatively simple setup explained above, it explores complex territory of obsession, psychosis, replacement anxiety and unchecked ambition, all filtered through a combination of what seems, at first, to be a ballet movie, but ultimately reveals itself to be a horror film.

Obsession is an overriding thematic concern of Aronofsky. Pi deals with a brilliant young mathematician, who becomes unhinged after discovering and then losing a 216 digit number which unlocks the stock market. Requiem For A Dream is about addiction, whether to drugs or TV, or to each other.

The Fountain, which I believe is his most personal work so far, is about how one man's love for his wife leads to an obsession with cheating death, which spans centuries and ultimately leads him to lose sight of his love. The Wrestler follows an ageing pro's attempts to keep his career alive and his eventual breaking of ties to anyone who can offer him redemption in order to pursue his obsession to its bitter end.

Quite clearly, Aronofsky is a director with a need to explore this theme, and always show the brutal and often lonely consequences of addiction and singular purpose. Here he showcases this again, but with paradoxically subtler and broader brushstrokes.

How far will someone go to achieve their ambitions? How can you create a new star? These are the questions that Black Swan poses, and Nina is at the centre of this, and is the fulcrum of every conscious and unconscious desire expressed throughout the film.

Black Swan's 'reality' responds to her state of mind. The viewer is forced to experience what is real for her, as if it were real for us. It is this which leads to the intensity of the movie, and creates for us a measure of sympathy and empathy for Nina, which resides, even as we see her literally become the 'monstrous feminine'.

Portman is the key to this believable transformation, and is worth every single line of praise written about her. She is incredible in the role and inhabits Nina in a way that I have rarely seen from a well-known actor or actress in a long time.

At no time did I think I was watching Portman ‘act' her way through a scene. She instead breathes Nina with every fibre of her being. The physical pain she puts herself through in pursuit of perfection is incredibly viscera. Every cracked joint and stretched sinew is testament to the preparation she reportedly put herself through, yet is nothing compared to the depths of psychological pain she begins to experience. And no matter how accomplished you are physically are as an actor, it takes something very special to create a breakdown that real.

However, every character is after their personal grail, not just Nina. While hers is the story we follow, and whose immersion into the psyche of the Black Swan character becomes all consuming, time is set aside to delve into the inner workings of her mother, Erica, played by the excellent Barbara Hershey, ex-prima ballerina, Beth (Winona Ryder), and ballet director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel).

Lily, too, has her own ambitions, but they are tied in closely to those of Nina, as the lines between the two characters become intentionally blurred.

Erica and Beth have a similar role and similar obsessions, like much of this film. They can be seen to represent two sides of the same coin. They are the voice of supposed experience, and show a corrupted maternal nature. Erica wants what she views as best for her daughter, Nina, and hopes she can achieve the success that eluded her, and which she partly blames her daughter for. However, her love for her has turned into a need for control over every aspect of Nina, and a desire to own her which is absolute.

Beth, on the other hand, represents the fear of replacement by her 'daughter', a younger and more alluring competitor, who has now taken her place by the ‘father's side, in this case, Thomas. Her increasingly unhinged behaviour disturbs Nina, but only points the way she will go, as shown by Nina's desire to become Beth, whether through taking her position as lead dancer, or through wearing her cosmetics.

Both women display an effective madness inherent in their characters. Ryder is tasked with providing a far more theatrical nature to hers, while Hershey manages to combine a mother's protective instinct, together with an unhealthy interest in her daughter which borders on the extreme.

Then there is Cassel. Almost floating above the fray, he is a simmering and powerful presence, and one which you may come away from the film believing is responsible for everything. He is the catalyst for unleashing Nina's dark side, with a seemingly clichéd attempt to take advantage of her sexually, which ,upon further reflection, is all part of his ambition and obsession to create a production of Swan Lake which is genuinely new, passionate and compelling to the audience.

The applause is what he lives for, and it is clear in his discarding of Beth and his almost careless treatment of her (with regards to her mindset beyond the show). He can only accept those who conform to how he envisages a role, which is why the sensuality of Lily inherently appeals to him, and why he realises he can use that to push Nina into becoming the dancer he wants her to be.

The film craft exhibited by Aronofsky and his crew is also exquisite and integral to the action. The increasingly dreamlike and fragmentary aesthetic perfectly captures Nina's descent and keeps the audience constantly guessing as to what is real and what is illusionary, often within the same frame.

The film retains the same loose one camera setup of The Wrestler, giving the action a naturalistic, semi-documentary feel at times. But, unlike his previous film, Aronofsky has welded this technique with occasional flashes of the hyper-reality evidenced in Requiem, but instead of the preparation of a heroin shot, it is instead the preparation of ballet shoes for practice.

To those familiar with Aronofsky's previous work, the connection and meaning is clear, and once again ties back into his thematic concerns. However, the documentary feel of the piece slowly unravels until the incredible ending, where the threads running throughout the film are suddenly unleashed, in spectacular style.

For a director noted for powerful endings, this is possibly his best, combing both the power of Requiem and the cathartic release of The Fountain, as well elements of The Wrestler which are best left unsaid for fear of going too much into spoiler territory.

Suffice it to say, Black Swan will be a contender for film of the year, and is one of the finest I have seen in a long time. It is a concise, multi-faceted, and compelling insight into the breakdown of a woman striving to become the ultimate embodiment of her art, and serves equally well as a psychological study, a thriller, and a good old fashioned body horror.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.