ba-Ba ba Dook! Dook! Dook!

If it's in a word or it's in a look, you can't get rid of the Babadook.

"I've never seen a more terrifying film than the Babadook, it will scare the hell out of you". Not my words, they're those of William Friedkin, the director of The Exorcist (1973) - a film that is certain to give you a case of urinary incontinence. The Babadook is a special film, indeed. The psychological thriller is directed by Jennifer Kent - a once apprentice of the interesting insular insane infamous Lars von Trier. The film follows Amelia and her six year old son, Sam. His obsession with monsters and increasingly disruptive behaviour both at home and at school forces her to withdraw him, at least until she can deal with the cause of his issues. As she tucks him in one night, he asks his mother to read him a book. The eerie pop-up is a tale about, you guessed it, the Babadook. This rake-thin, Papa Lazarou-like figure is the worst type of monster to be told a story about. He's what you imagine lurking in the darkest corner of your room at night. He's the reason you have those nightmares in which you can't move a single inch of your body. He's everything you fear, and yet he's so much more than that. He's also who Tim Burton hired for his kid's birthday party. As you can imagine, this doesn't do her boy any good. Sam becomes convinced not only of the Babadook's existence, but of his presence in their home - repeatedly shouting "Don't let it in!" The Babadook himself is an embodiment of the fears that children have, and we see how, and to what end, a mother tries to control not only her son's state of mind, but also her own. That's the distinguishing element. That's what makes it different to clichéd, nightcrawlers such as the Boogeyman, where a thing surfaces in the middle of the night and picks them off one by one for no true purpose. What's most appealing about the Babadook is its focus on the relationship between a mother and her child. Her concern for his welfare is what drives her to the edge of insanity, and what makes you wish for her to drive back. Amelia's journey is a long and arduous one; her initial concern slowly becomes frustration, and then manifests into pure, cold, chilling fear. The additional grief and depression and insomnia is what she must endure to ultimately save her son from his trauma. That is the essence of the film.  It is not dependent on moments that give you that brief cardiac arrest sensation, for there actually exists a message within the plot. The viewer is allowed to envisage whatever his/her imagination conjures. Whatever it is that you think, it will leave you aghast, of that there's no doubt. Ultimately, what you take from and understand of Amelia and Sam's experiences is what will really scare you. There are clues in the film's conclusion that suggest the ending you see isn't necessarily the one you should accept. It comes naturally that this interpretation is far less relieving and far more sinister than its alternative.  

A Waste of 91 Minutes.

I spent the final stages of this evening watching a film called The Resident. A few minutes before midnight, BBC One implored me - and all other poor souls watching at that time - to stay with them to watch a thriller featuring Christopher Lee and Hilary Swank.  I should state right off the bat that Christopher Lee has around 2 minutes of screen-time throughout the entire film, and in no way significant either. So that was a touch deceiving. Nevertheless, I was unaware at the time and foolishly decided against switching channels.

We start off with Juliet Devereau, a recently divorced surgeon looking for a new apartment. She goes to view a place which turns out not only having a magnificent view of what I assume is Brooklyn Bridge, but also incredibly cheap rent for a place of that size.

"It's thirty-eight"
"Thousand?"
"Hundred"

That's the voice of the landlord, Max. He has that middle-aged, single, nice-guy look about him, but appears slightly reserved from the outset. After a few seconds I thought to myself 'wow, Javier Bardem has really cracked that authentic American sound, I can't remember him being this good'. I was so taken aback that I quickly popped IMDB open on my iPhone and realised, much to my dismay, that the role of Max was in fact played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Easy mistake to make.

He informs her of the lack of telephone reception and gives her the key, before even checking any references or whatever it is that a prudent landlord is supposed to do.

We fleetingly see Christopher Lee's character (Max's grandfather) in the next few scenes and immediately realise his purpose in the story. He's the creepy old-guy down the hall. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Juliet spends her first few nights in the apartment and we're shown a stalking figure lurking in the shadows on each occasion.

Who could it possibly be?

It doesn't take an astute film-critic to acknowledge that there are only two suspects, and bearing in mind what I said about Christopher Lee 1 minute ago you can perhaps figure out who it is.

We switch back and forth between Juliet at work and Juliet at home. Then we mix it up with Juliet at a social event. It's there that Max 'bumps' into her, and having known him for the best part of 5 minutes, she asks him to walk her home. Cue the guy-walks-girl-back-to-her-apartment scene which culminates, surprisingly, in Max rejecting her advances.

It's around this time that we see Max spying through what seems like a million and one different peep holes scattered creatively around the apartment. Unbeknownst to Juliet, Max is watching her every move.

There's another moment when the two are about to become intimate, and, this time, do. Until, that is, she stops because he's not Jack (her ex) and it feels 'awkward'. He goes into meltdown mode and ends up killing his grandfather for absolutely no reason.

From there, we see Max following Juliet and Jack everywhere they go. His perfect storm of jealousy and rejection cause him to ambush Jack and take his voyeuristic tendencies to the next level.

Max spikes the wine she has each night before sleeping and waits for the effects. He then does the typical creepy-guy thing of smelling her, playing with her hair, and watching her sleep. She wakes up the next morning feeling like someone who has had their wine spiked. Eventually, she becomes suspicious of the late-night creaks coming from the other room and takes steps to install a hidden camera in her bedroom.

The next night, Max enters her bedroom once again but this time with the intention of taking things further. By this stage, Max has the look of a man who's escaped a mental hospital, but returns a couple of hours later because he was always told to 'be home before it gets dark'. He pulls her limp torso up and hugs her, but, as he does, she briefly regains consciousness and catches a blurred glimpse of his face. He panics and injects a needle in the end of her toe before making a quick escape.

Juliet once again wakes up feeling terrible and hurries to get dressed for work. She notices a needle cap on the floor by her bed and takes it into work for analysis. Meanwhile, a battered and broken Jack sends her a text telling her that he'll be ready with a cooked meal when she gets back from work.

Juliet returns from work but Jack isn't there. His shopping is there. His jacket is there. But he's not. She had left him a message as soon as she had found out that there was something seriously suspicious going on in that apartment.

• An apartment with only one neighbour. 
• An apartment which has surprisingly cheap rent considering the location/view.
• An apartment which makes strange noises at night, every night. 
• An apartment which dramatically increases her body's level of Demerol. 

But who was to know?

She checks her computer to see the new recordings and is left in shock upon witnessing what was being done to her as she slept. Max conveniently enters and cracks open a bottle of wine. She doesn't immediately let on that she knows about him sexually abusing her, but Max - being the professional pervert that he is - already knows that she knows.

The final 15 minutes of the film consist entirely of a cat and mouse game wherein Juliet stabs Max, Max stabs Juliet, Juliet shoots Max with a nail gun, Max punches Juliet, Juliet sneaks up on Max and shoots him a whole lot more with that nail gun. Max pretends to be dead but does that final jump up, clichéd 'aaghhhh' scream before Juliet shoots him once more in the head.

Max dies.

Juliet leaves.

That's it.

Compassion

Just under three weeks ago, on August 12, the world was stunned with the news that Robin Williams had taken his own life in his Paradise Cay home. Like many others, this left me in disbelief. How could it be that a person who - as endlessly described by his friends, family and fellow actors - was so compassionate, loving, and full of life, could end his own? The answer will never truly be known but there have been suggestions linking to depression, Parkinson's disease, and the threat of bankruptcy. The reason, to me, is irrelevant. Whatever it was, it caused him to commit an act which left his wife without a husband, his children without a father, and millions of fans without a hero to revere. You may think that it was a selfish act. Perhaps even a thought worthy of fierce admonishment. If so, I cannot say that I'm of the same mind, but I'm not going to begrudge you the state of yours. A suicidal person is, in my honest belief, one who is in a state of extreme mental anguish. The obvious response to anguish is anything to make it stop. It is not only an obvious response, but also the natural one. Regardless, it's a topic which has been, and forever will be, debated, so it's not something I'm going to focus on.

What I do, however, wish to focus on is one of Robin's films, Jack.

If you are not familiar with the story, allow me to give a description.

Robin plays a boy with Werner syndrome, a condition which causes him to age at four times the rate of 'normal' children. By the time he reaches the age of 10, although he speaks, thinks and acts like a boy of his age, his physical appearance reflects that of a fully developed 40-year-old man. His home-schooling tutor suggests that Jack make the transition to state school, and so his life as an 'ordinary' child begins. The film follows his journey from this point until his graduation many years later, covering the difficulties he faced along the way.

This is a film I watched repeatedly when I was much younger, and again following his death. It's one of the few films that triggers a deep sense of happiness within me. The reason being that the theme throughout is one of compassion. From Jack's parents. From his classmates. From his teacher.

His first few days at school are difficult for him. He is not used to being around children, much less children who continually stare and ogle and make fun of what they deem to be someone who ''looks like my dad''. Although Jack's inclusion leaves the children in a quandary, he soon becomes accepted following a game of basketball in which he makes full use of his considerable height advantage. Thereafter, his relationship with the boys slowly blossoms and leads to tree-house sleepovers, the purchase of adult magazines, and him posing as the principle in order to get one of them out of trouble. Most importantly, it gives Jack a sense of belonging.

His confidence gradually grows and he asks his teacher to be his date at the school prom, citing obvious differences between himself and girls his age as the reason. Touched, but remaining professional, she politely tells him why it cannot be. Jack's feeling of rejection manifests into one of devastation, causing him to suffer great strain to what is already a frail heart, crushing all confidence and resulting in his parents withdrawing him from school indefinitely.

For a few weeks, Jack remains locked away in his bedroom. Feeling shamed by his teacher. Distant from his friends. Embarrassed of his condition. Wishing only that he was like everyone else. During this time, he constantly hears shouts of "JACK'S MOM, CAN JACK COME OUT AND PLAY?", but remains hidden behind his curtains.

Jack's tutor is called upon as a last resort in an attempt to circumvent his state of mind. Their dialogue is brief, yet captures the essence of the story beautifully.

Jack:              You can't quit!

Woodruff:   I don't consider myself quitting. 

                        I consider myself losing a student.

                        Do you know why I like to teach children, Jack? 

                        So I don't get so wrapped up in being an adult. 

                        So I can remember that there are other things that are important in life; 

                        like riding a bike, playing in a tree house...

                        You, my friend, were my most special student. 

                        You were a shooting star amongst ordinary stars.

                        Have you ever seen a shooting star? It's wonderful. 

                        It passes quickly, but when it's here it lights up the whole sky. 

                        It's the most beautiful thing you'd ever want to see.

                        So beautiful that the other stars stop and watch.

                        You almost never see one. They're quite rare.

                        But I saw one...I did.

Jack:               I just want to be a regular star.

Woodruff:    Jack, you'll never be regular, you're spectacular. 

The next morning, as his parents are sipping their coffee and reading the Wall Street Journal, Jack surprises them. He appears, clean-shaven, with a radiant smile as he asks if it would be okay to return to school. When he arrives at class, everyone - including his teacher - is overjoyed. One of his friends is reading a homework assignment aloud to the class. The task given was to write what they want to be when they are older, but Jack's friend gives a heartfelt speech about Jack himself, the person who he wishes to be like when he grows up.

The story concludes with a seven-year fast-forward to the graduation ceremony.

Jack's appearance is now similar to that of a man in his late sixties. He's very weak and softly spoken, but delivers a moving speech to his peers, reminding them that life is short and encourages them to "Make your life spectacular".                                                      

I urge you to watch this film for yourselves, and not merely rely on my few paragraphs of summation to convey what I think is a remarkably important message embedded in the narrative. It captures perfectly the innate, good nature of human beings. In this case, predominantly that of children.

The children in this story wasted no time picking on the grown man in the corner of the playground, yet they soon realised that he was one of them. They changed their opinion of him from 'freak' to 'best friend', only by spending time with him. The importance of this is that it transcended Jack's lonely, ignominious life into a life filled with hope, love, and friendship. Of course, there are times when we, ourselves, are quick to judge. Of course, there are times when we form harsh opinions and unfair criticisms based on gut-reactions alone. Of course, many of us on occasion suffer from ignorance. Yet, there is something within every single one of us which assists in distinguishing right from wrong. It allows us to be kind and considerate. It paves the way for Compassion.

For one reason or another, some of us simply don't adhere to this innate kindness consistently, or at all. Some actively eschew it. And it may well stem from our childhood. It may be some extraneous influence that shapes our reactions to people. Whatever it may be, very rarely will you be in a position, so far removed, so as to not be able to do anything about it. Understanding how fragile one's life is, yet how easily you can change another's with simple acts of kindness is a great step forward in our developments. Each of us has this power to exercise, so why don't we do it more often? If you are quick to form a negative opinion regarding anyone or anything, immediately ask yourselves why? Why is it that I think that? It is really necessary to think that? Will there be any difference if I don't think that? Would it be fairer to wait a little longer to see if there's anything to suggest thinking that would be unreasonable? In any case, we must be willing to accept others. We must understand our differences. We must teach first, ourselves, and second, others, the importance of human solidarity. To not do so would be a severe mistake.

I would like to end with a passage from one of my favourite books, which also relates the notion that we are all connected.

Youth, like pristine glass, absorbs the prints of its handlers. Some parents smudge, others crack, a few shatter childhoods completely into jagged little pieces, beyond repair. 

'I'm shutting your butt down!'

The red mist descends

Quentin Tarantino is, without question, one of the most naturally talented film directors in all of cinematic history. Audiences and critics alike were mesmerised by the sheer brilliance of his debut film, Reservoir Dogs, in late 1991.

The film is essentially about an ensemble of criminals who plan a diamond heist only for it to spiral out of control and lead to a indelibly bloody conclusion.
It is still held in the highest regard today and was deservedly labelled "The Greatest Independent Film of all Time" by EMPIRE Magazine.

Some felt that the bar was set at too high a standard, and his directorial career would inevitably decline from there. How wrong they were. Tarantino has gone on to make the highest caliber of films, a list which includes the likes of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Inglourious Basterds and, of course, Django Unchained.

Tarantino was participating in an interview for the latter on Channel 4, the week before last.
The man tasked with interviewing the legendary director was Krishnan Guru-Murthy, and he was doing a pretty good job until he raised the issue of a possible link between violence in cinema and real violence.

It all went downhill from there.

Guru-Murphy asked:

                "...why are you so sure there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real                                 violence?"

Tarantino didn't like that question. In fact, he took offence.

NOTE: I'm not going to provide a full transcript of the interview and everything that was said but I will highlight the 'best bits' of Tarantino's flurry of responses.

        "Don't ask me a question like that, I'm not biting. I refuse             your question"

Guru-Murphy was not expecting a reaction, and made the mistake of persisting.


        "I'm not your slave and you're not my master. You can't                make me dance to your tune, I'm not a monkey"

        "I don't want to (explore my views on violence) because I'm          here to sell my movie. This is a commercial for my movie,             make no mistake"

Tarantino goes on to explain why he doesn't want to discuss the implications of violence. He states that he's already talked about it for 20 years and has nothing more to add as his opinion hasn't changed. Guru-Murphy, who at this stage has made his death wish clear to everyone, continues to try and get something out of him. "But you haven't fleshed it out".

Even before the words finish coming out of his mouth Tarantino, at his most tempestuous, is ready with a response, and an oddly funny one at that:

         "It's not my job to flesh it out...I'm shutting your butt              down!"

He then lets off a psychotic laugh and stares his interviewer down, making sure nothing happens to the uncomfortable atmosphere that has brewed for the past few moments. Thankfully, Guru-Murphy takes his foot off the gas and stops himself just short of the end of the cliff he was so speedily driving towards. 

Was the way in which Tarantino reacted to the question reasonable?

I can understand his frustration about being asked the same question regarding a matter which he openly feels to be irrelevant. However, he could have perhaps dealt with it in a nicer way. Nevertheless, it made for great viewing!

I'll leave you with my two favourite comments, taken from this article in The Guardian.

My take on The Dark Knight Rises

First of all I would like to say that my initial response following my first viewing of the film is very positive. I'm going to give the film (or movie, for my international audience) a strong 9/10 overall. I will give my reasons for this rating below.

This blog will contain 'spoilers', so for those of you who don't like them - 'You have my permission to leave' (in Bane's voice). 

Let me begin with a few things I noticed throughout the film. The fast paced editing was noticeable from the get go and began to annoy me after about 15-20 minutes, especially around the time Selina Kyle snatches Wayne's jewellery. It was too quick at one point when the shot changed a second before Wayne finished speaking to Alfred. I'm not nitpicking here. There was a superfluity of fast editing within the first 20 minutes which made each scene feel as though it was being rushed, for no other purpose than to progress the story. You may feel differently but that's the impression I got. 

Moving on, I acknowledge the argument that too many characters were introduced in the first act of the film - and to some extent agree. I understand that this film is heavily influenced by new characters, yet it felt as though one or two were being thrown in just for fun. A prime example being Holly Robinson (fetch girl). Now correct me if I'm wrong but dear Holly Robinson could be removed from the script and the film would be no worse off without her. She could be invisible in the scenes she is in and funnily enough, her absence would not change a thing. I feel Juno Temple got lucky with this role and her inclusion is unnecessary, but credit to her - at least she's in the credits. It was necessary, however, to introduce Selina Kyle and my word, she did have quite the introduction. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from Anne Hathaway. In fact, I will admit to being so naive as to assume that there would be no way for her to top Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman in Batman Returns. How wrong I was. Although, I suggest that had Burton's Catwoman had a stronger back-story and less of the cheesy one liners, she would have been invincible. Nevertheless, Hathaway's portrayal of a seemingly innocent and unassuming waitress transforms into that of a streetwise cat-burglar who outsmarts the frail Bruce Wayne in their first meeting. This all happens within 10 minutes of being introduced to the character. She manages to find a balance between sexy, sophisticated, sassy and unpredictable - a combination even the almighty Bruce Wayne struggled to deal with. 

Lets move onto the menacing antagonist, Bane. Tom Hardy's performance seems to have been denounced by critics and fans alike. Concerns over his voice being inaudible range back to pre-screenings a few months ago (the overdub was sometimes rather obvious). His fight scenes being 'too soft' for a man who is described by Hardy himself as being "heavy-handed, heavy-footed and just generally nasty." Personally, I think the flaw in Hardy's character was not a result of his performance, rather, it was due to his character not having enough screen time with the other major characters (Batman, Catwoman & even Talia). Admittedly, there were a couple of times I found it difficult to understand Bane's utterances, however for the most part there was no issue, and I even think the voice is fitting for the character he portrayed. Regrettably, Bane was not deployed as effectively as he should have been. The fight scenes with Batman were great but there were only two of them, and they both ended prematurely. Their first encounter was much anticipated and the audience were once again taken by surprise as Catwoman swiftly trapped the dark knight in a sewer with his nemesis. That ended with the heavily apprehended theory that Bane would break the Bat's back, and Nolan doesn't fail to deliver. Nice to see the story staying true to the source material. By this point in the story, we're just under half way through and Bane has already prevailed. 

The final battle between the two takes place in the ultimate act where the police take on Bane's army in a truly astonishing spectacle. Once again, the fight ends early and Batman figures out, after all this time, that the key to stopping the monster is to punch him in the mouth, repeatedly. He does this and voila - Bane's eyes become lifeless and Batman has him where he wants him. Or at least he thinks he does until Talia al Ghul decides to spring a surprise and let Batman know that it was actually her who climbed out of the inescapable prison, whilst simultaneously stabbing him in the ribs (and doing that jerking motion with the blade to really get at Bruce's guts). This happens around 10 minutes prior to the film's conclusion and as Talia toyed with Batman, I came to a conclusion that Marion Cotillard's acting in this film is amongst the worst performances I have ever seen in any film, ever. This opinion was supported further when she rambles on about something after the truck crashes and dies in one of the most laughable and shambolic death scenes in cinematic history. It was just dry. It was even drier than my mouth after 2 hours and 35 minutes without any fluid intake. I think Nolan made a mistake casting her as Talia, but that's just me.

The final scene between Bane and the Bat is short in length and actually quite surprising. I mean, everyone knew Batman would prevail but I doubt too many people saw Catwoman entering on her high-tech bicycle and blasting the poor chap to the other side of the room. Many assume he dies, but there's no final shot of him dying or even a later mention or reference to it, which suggest that it has been left open - either for the audience to decide, or for a future film. I doubt the latter is the case. The way he is dispatched does injustice to the character. Someone as powerful, intimidating and intelligent as Bane has to be killed off by Batman himself, not his girlfriend. One thing's for sure though - he was definitely better than Robert Swenson

As it's now 4:45am and my body is telling me that I am an idiot and I should be asleep, I will try to wrap this up fairly swiftly. 

I cannot end without mentioning John Blake. For me, he portrays Robin from the very beginning. Everything about his character is parallel with the Dick Grayson from the comics, albeit with minor alterations. His character, his role throughout the film is purely to protect the innocent and promote good. He is the shining light in an otherwise war-ridden and apocalyptic Gotham City. The only difference is that he's wearing a cop's uniform instead of a red leotard. Nolan was really intelligent with the way he used John Blake, and a film addict may have been able to spot his character's outcome towards the latter stages of the film. I'm not saying I did, although my initial theory was that he would take up Wayne's throne and become the next Batman. Not too far off. 

In conclusion, I was very impressed with Nolan's third and final film in the legendary trilogy which will no doubt go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever. His unique style, vision and resources allowed for a more modern, a more realistic Batman who we could relate to, understand and grow to love. It's very rare that a director manages to find a balance of a good story, good characters and strong emotional ties to make the whole thing that next level better, yet Nolan does this with ease - especially in the final two films with The Joker and Alfred. Although I'm susceptible to viewing super-hero films in a different way to usual ones (mainly for nostalgic reasons), I still feel that the underdevelopment of Bane as a character was ultimately one of the more prominent flaws in TDKR. Add to that; a miscast of an important role; additional unnecessary characters, and you have yourself a few things to argue about. That's not to say that TDKR has any overwhelming weaknesses, rather a culmination of smaller issues that present themselves more vividly once considered on a broader scale. 

This is by quite a stretch the best film of the year . Far better than The Avengers, and, quite frankly, if you were to compare the two films honestly, it makes The Avengers look like a fairy-tale in comparison to the gritty, realistic and apocalyptic spectacle.
All in all, The Dark Knight Rises was everything that I expected it to be: entertaining, emotionally engaging, action packed and a respectable end to Nolan's Batman.
Warner Brothers trusted him after the money he made from the first two films and let's be honest - who wouldn't give Christopher Nolan $250,000,000 to make a Batman film? 
If one day I save that much, I'll be sure to give him a call.

---------------------------
UPDATE - Second Viewing
---------------------------
Today, I watched the film for a second time and it impressed me just as much as it did following the first viewing. You really have to sit back and admire the work Christopher Nolan and his team produced in this epic final outing. Epic in every sense, from cinematography to narrative - It simply blows its predecessors away (every single one of them including Batman and yes, The Dark Knight). 

After watching it again - Anne Hathaway truly deserves all the praise she receives. The way she switches from Selina Kyle to Catwoman is believable, and for her to do it effectively makes the overall performance commendable.  I stand by my view that Holly Robinson adds nothing to the film as well as Marion Cotillard delivering a milquetoast performance. 
If anything, it was slightly more bearable the second time, simply because I knew I would be disappointed. Michael Caine's touching speeches throughout the film hit the emotional spot in exactly the same manner and with exactly the same effectiveness.
Another person who deserves a lot of credit is Christian Bale. He portrays four or five different characters - going from a broken spirited Bruce Wayne to a weak Batman to a shattered and defeated Bruce Wayne to a recovering Bruce Wayne to a returning and full strength Batman. All of which included vulnerability, frailty, sympathy, hope and intimidation. I have to admire his versatility and must admit that he absolutely cracks both Bruce Wayne and Batman in this film. I didn't like his performance in Batman Begins, I wasn't a huge fan in The Dark Knight (although he was more intimidating) but he has everything spot on in The Dark Knight Rises. Previously, my favourite Batman was Keaton and I believe he does a brilliant job in both Batman and Batman Returns -however Bale just goes that extra gear in this film and that, for me, makes him the best Batman.

I am a supporter of Tom Hardy's portrayal of Bane and I believe his performance was outstanding. You must remember that it is incredibly difficult to only have your eyes and your voice to work with. Fortunately, he is a talented actor who had trained well for this role and created a physical appearance worthy of wearing the mask. Interestingly Tom Hardy is billed at 5"10 tall, whereas Christian Bale stands 2" taller at 6"0. In the comic books Bane is around 6"8 which makes him considerably bigger than Batman - who is supposed to be 6"2.
Christopher Nolan approached this 'issue' as if it was not an issue at all - ensuring that all of the shots of Bane excluded his entire body (unless from a distance and/or him not being stood up) and those which showed him next to others did so in the form of a low angle shot (to give power to the subject). An example of this shot use is seen in the picture above.
Furthermore, this made Bane look much taller and created much more of a presence for the character. In the fight scenes, however, he looks the same height as Bale's Batman - but who cares, right?

After watching the film a second time I noticed a very, very subtle indication that Bane is not the young child who escaped the prison. During the first fight scene with Batman, he says "You merely adopted the darkness....I was born it in. Moulded by it. I didn't see the light until i was already a man." To finish up on Bane - I think Nolan chose the perfect villain to follow up on Ledger's incredible performance as The Joker. There would have been little purpose in using a character even remotely similar to the antagonist in The Dark Knight and Nolan knew that any use of such character would have drawn comparison to Heath Ledger. That's not to say that fans haven't compared Bane to the Joker, but they compare their differences! Bane is pure brute force and anarchy, whereas The Joker was solely about psychology. Bane is a terrorist intent on destroying Gotham, whereas The Joker just wanted to toy with Batman.

The fight scenes in TDKR are incredible and none better than Bane v Batman (both occasions). Fans deserved some unadulterated violence and they definitely got that - especially the part in the first fight scene where Bane repeatedly punches Batman's cowl until it cracks open. Another great part is in the second fight scene were Bane becomes enraged and performs a combination of left and right jabs to Batman and misses a couple which ultimately disfigure the concrete pillar behind them. This is completely different to Batman v The Joker - and is, for me, far more entertaining.

The ending is the final part I'd like to talk about, funnily enough. Originally - having read people's comments on forums - I understood the theory that Alfred seeing Bruce at the end is just a dream or a vision. However the various hints towards the latter stages of the film suggest otherwise. For instance, the part where the Wayne Enterprises' technicians tell Lucius Fox that Bruce Wayne fixed the autopilot. In addition to there being no real purpose or sense of satisfaction or closure in ending the film on something that could be interpreted differently. Remember that this is not Inception, this is Batman. Of course, there are some who believe Bruce Wayne dies in the explosion (which realistically he would have, considering the bomb's blast has a 6 mile radius which means Wayne cheated death) but then that just seems to depict Alfred as an ageing psychotic who suffers from hallucinations. Moreover, the man who is announcing what happens to Bruce Wayne's possessions clearly states that the pearl necklace is still missing - which may mean that Bruce gave it to Selina. I think Wayne lives, and it makes more sense that way but everyone is free to interpret how they want to interpret. 

I don't think this will lead onto a fourth film, nor do I see Joseph Gordon Levitt having his own full-length feature with Catwoman. The only way that we will see all the major characters on screen again is if Christopher Nolan is the director. Anyone other than him and I highly doubt the actors would want to return. 

Whoever is assigned with the task of rebooting this franchise, good luck to you.
What Christopher Nolan has created in these three films is nothing short of a masterpiece, and will be remembered for many years to come. It is the greatest trilogy to date and will stay that way for a long time.