1. Lawless (The Weinstein Company, 2,565 Theaters, 115 Minutes, Rated R): Usually, when Hollywood does a crime story set in Prohibition-era America, it’s usually focused on the Al Capone-type figures who were the face of the opposition in big cities. This film takes a look at the rural bootleggers that did the grunt work on the back roads of the country during this period.

The film has an intriguing cast, including The Dark Knight Rises‘ Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman, Oscar Nominee Jessica Chastain, and, sticking out like a sore thumb, Shia LeBeouf.  Okay, that was a bit cruel. LeBeouf has done good work in films other than the big-budget blockbusters, so he’s not that awkward of a fit.

This film was adapted by rock star Nick Cave, whose last screenplay was for The Proposition, which was also directed by John Hillcoat and starred Guy Pearce.

2. The Oogieloves In The BIG Balloon Adventure (Kenn Viselman Presents, 2,160 Theaters, Rated G): Good lord, where to begin with this utterly bizarre movie.

As the father of a three-year old, I have seen a lot of entertainment aimed at kids. A lot. And the prevalent theme in a lot of this entertainment is its sheer stupidity. Not “simplified so kids can understand it” stupid but “kids aren’t worth it so why even bother trying” stupid.  For every Sesame Street there’s a Teletubbies, the creator of which, coincidentally, is the creative force behind this film. That should tell you something.

I saw the trailer for this film before Brave, and I was saddened about what so many of my favorite actors have to stoop to. Christopher Lloyd was Doc Brown! Cary Elwes was Westley! Chazz Palminteri has an Oscar nomination for goodness sakes! And yet, on the other hand, these are the biggest names the producers could afford to make a fool of themselves on the films paltry budget.

The core of The Dark Knight Rises is a fairly sloppy movie. Large chunks of dialogue are devoted to exposition. Plot points in the first half of the film clearly telegraph the “surprise” plot twists in the second half. And the plot itself, while loaded with twists and turns, is fairly simplistic.

But, even while taking all of this into consideration, The Dark Knight Rises is a great movie and fitting end to the trilogy Christopher Nolan started in 2005. This is due to Nolan’s direction, the stellar acting by the wonderful cast, the great editing by Lee Smith, and the powerful score by Hans Zimmer.

The film takes place exactly eight years after the end of The Dark Knight, and Harvey Dent’s death on that night has become a citywide holiday. Crime is at an all time low, yet all is not well in Gotham. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has retired his Batman identity, but, without a purpose to his life, he has become a virtual recluse. Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is wrestling with his conscious over glorifying Dent, a man who tried to kill his son, and demonizing Batman, the man who saved his son’s life.

Things take a turn for the worse for Gotham with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy). Bane is a dangerous and bestial mercenary who at first appears to be a soldier in a corporate war between Wayne and an evil business rival by the name of Daggett (Ben Mendelsohn). But things aren’t what they seem with Bane, and his true intentions will have dire consequences for both Gotham and Batman, consequences not even Bruce/Batman’s new allies–honest cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), eco-friendly business woman Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway)–can help Batman stop from coming.

This film is more a sequel to 2005′s Batman Begins than 2008′s The Dark Knight. While the latter was one of the most successful films in movie history, only two plot points–the death of Harvey Dent and the cover up afterwards, and the death of Rachel Dawes–are mentioned yet the Joker isn’t. Of course, there would few actors able, or willing, to follow in Heath Ledger’s shoes in that particular role, and to recast the part would be sign of disrespect, but his storyline in that film has interesting parallels and contrasts to the plot of this film. It would be a stronger film is these comparisons were addressed or even acknowledged. But as it stands, the film closes the circle and makes the series a true trilogy, telling one wide-reaching story arc.

The film is almost three hours long, yet nothing is wasted. There is no fat or gristle here, just meat. Every scene serves a purpose. And while this means that, yes, there are a lot of Chekovian guns being introduced that many savvy film goers will be able to figure out how they will be used by the third act, that is not necessarily a bad thing. In a summer where there are films that barely introduce plot points and often forget to follow up on them, it’s refreshing to see so much forethought and planning put into a script. And the long running time allows moments for all the characters, and there are a lot of them, to grow and become fleshed out. Even minor characters get juicy character moments.

Editing and score are vital parts of any film, yet are often overlooked by audiences. They say the only time you notice editing was when it is bad. Not so, as I noticed Lee Smith editing and how good it was. When there is a lengthy patch of exposition-laden dialogue, he inserts a beautifully shot (by cinematographer Wally Pfister, once again in top form) scene that shows what the actor is describing. During action scenes, the narrative shifts back and forth from character to character, location to location seamlessly and at just the right time building tension along the way.

Hans Zimmer is an old pro at scoring and naturally his score here is top notch. It adds layers and dimension to the story, evoking the perfect mood at the ideal moment in a great compliment to what is going on on the screen.

Trying to single out an actor in the cast for special acclaim is like trying to pick just one player from the 1927 New York Yankees to be on your All-Star team. When a cast has 15 Oscar Nominations and five Oscar wins between them, there is little doubt that there will be a plethora of great performances to choose from. But if I had to pick one cast member to give an Oscar nod out of only one member of the cast, I’d choose Anne Hathaway.

Her Selina Kyle, the character comic book fans know as Catwoman, is a multi-layered, complex character. Hathaway’s Selina is a woman who must wear a number of different masks, a tricky thing for any actress to play. But Hathaway knocks it out of the park. I can’t say that I’ve been overwhelmed by anything I’ve seen Hathaway do in the past, but I was overwhelmed here. Hathaway plays Selina as bold and naive, strong and insecure, coquettish and earnest, usually within the span of a one scene. The other characters are kept guessing as to what persona Kyle is presenting, but the audience is always kept in the loop. Hathaway puts a more realistic stamp on the “bad girl with a heart of gold” archetype. It’s a brilliant piece of acting.

Tom Hardy’s Bane will be unfairly compared to Ledger’s Joker, so I am not going to compare the two (if I was going to compare Bane to any film villain, it would Darth Vader, if only for the breathing apparatus dialogue). Hardy plays Bane with the gusto of a Shakespearean actor playing Hamlet for the 49th time. He owns the role with confidence and bravery. In a world where every superhero movie can’t wait to remove the masks from their characters, you have to give credit to Hardy for working with half his face covered. Hardy will also be unfairly criticized for having his words swallowed by the mask. But, in truth, I didn’t find him any harder to understand than I did Gary Oldman, and all Oldman had blocking his dialogue was a mustache.

If there was one weak link in the cast, it was Mendelsohn as Daggett. It might be just me, but his performance annoyed me so much that I had to mention it here. He played the role more like a caricature than a character, chewing scenery and employing body ticks in lieu of developing any form of true characterization. Thankfully, he’s not in the movie for long, but whenever he’s on screen, I found it painful to watch.

As for the other cast members, you can expect your typical excellence. Michael Caine doesn’t have a lot of screen time this time around, but he makes the most of it. Gordon-Levitt plays what could be a boring role–the honest cop–with nuances and facets that makes John Blake interesting.

Christopher Nolan combines all of these elements in such a way that makes for a satisfying film. You willingly overlook its flaws because the trip Nolan is taking you on is so interesting. He sets an epic tone for the film while keeping it grounded in reality.

This supposedly is Nolan’s last time directing Batman, although he does leave an obvious opening to continue this story (albeit in a way that I doubt Warner Brothers would be interested it). But if this is Nolan’s last time at “Bat,” then he went out in a grand fashion. This film is a fitting end to an era.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, the Bat-franchise goes back to the beginning with Batman Begins and to the Academy Awards with The Dark Knight.

After the debacle that was Batman & Robin, Warner Brothers was looking to start over at square one. Joel Schumacher thought that was an excellent idea, and said as much in a 1998 interview with Entertainment Weekly:

It’s unlikely the studio will stick with the shticky tone of Batman & Robin. But if it does, count Schumacher out. ”The only way I would do another Batfilm is if we went back to the basics,” says Schumacher. His ideal Batman movie would be based on Miller’s Batman: Year One, a prequel to The Dark Knight Returns, a no-frills account of Batman’s first year of crime fighting. ”It would be nice to take the bigger-is-better concept out of it,” he says, ”and just go pure.”

Schumacher had originally wanted to adapt Frank Miller’s legendary origin redo when he signed on for Batman Forever, but Warners’ executives, wanting a more kid accessible piece, ignored his wishes. They would ignore his wishes again. But this time, it would be with him doing a reboot based on Batman: Year One.  The studio thought that was a good idea, but were looking to Miller and director Darren Aronofsky to handle it.

While this seemed like a comic fans’ dream—Miller co-writing a script with a hot, up-and-coming director in Aronofsky—it was not meant to be. The version of Miller’s script I read had more in common with his Sin City comics than his 1987 storyline that the film was named after. This version found Bruce Wayne living on the streets, working as a mechanic at a garage in the bad part of town, directly across the street from a whorehouse. It was heavy on violence and adult themes, something that would have been perfect for the Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro pairing in the 1970s but ill fitting for a 2000 Warner Brothers studio looking for a PG-13 film to bring in the teens.

The studio, after briefly considering a Batman vs. Superman film, would turn to Christopher Nolan next. Nolan gained much acclaim for co-writing and directing the inventive indie drama, Memento. He was still a relatively unproven director—this film would only be his third big studio film he directed—but Warners made an excellent choice. The film Nolan made, Batman Begins, ranks up there with the best comic book films ever made.

Nolan paired with David S. Goyer, a Hollywood screenwriter with comic book writing experience, to create a film that while wasn’t  directly adapted from any one particular comic book, drew pieces from the overall Batman comic book history to create their narrative. The plot involves Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne’s training to become Gotham City’s protector, eventually saving it from destruction by his former mentor, Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson).

The entire cast of the film is the best cast any comic book film has had or likely will have. It was chock full of Oscar winners (Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and, eventually, Bale), Oscar nominees (Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, Neeson) and quality actors like Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman. Oldman, who would eventually get an Oscar nod too, was especially good as the film’s moral center, James Gordon. Playing against type as a decent, honest man, Oldman gives one of his best, if somewhat underrated,performances of his illustrious career.

It seemed like it would be almost impossible for Nolan to top what he did with Batman Begins, but he did it on The Dark Knight with the help of a spectacular addition to the cast—Heath Ledger.

Heath Ledger’s untimely death of an accidental prescription drug overdose has added a mythic quality to his performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight, that his deep immersion in the character scarred his psyche in a manner that led to his overdose (the drugs found in Ledger’s system are commonly used to treat anxiety and insomnia). It feels unseemly even to bring it up, but I do so to make the point that the performance would have been mythic even if Ledger survived.  His Joker is the defining Joker. And I am saying that while having the utmost respect for the work Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill have done with the character.

The Joker is written in the movie as a force of nature, an agent of chaos. He exists to destroy the fabric of society. He is a cipher—his history is unknown and his motives are unclear.  This is not an easy role to play. It could be the perfect opportunity make it hammy or give a portrayal that was out of place with the film as a whole. Ledger gave a scary, realistic performance that was totally believable. All the posthumous accolades that Ledger received, including becoming the first star from a comic book movie to win an Oscar, are all well deserved.

However, all the accolades that Ledger receives takes away from a great film and the solid performances of the other new additions to the cast—Aaron Eckhart as the tragic figure of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes (a vast improvement, I must say).

The Dark Knight set yet another impossible task for the next sequel to try and top it. That task begins in a few weeks when The Dark Knight Rises is released.

This film promises to be the last in the series, introducing Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and Bane (Tom Hardy) into the mix. It looks like Ra’s Al Ghul will be returning as well, either in a flashback or, well, if you knew the comics, you’ll know of another way he could come back. The plot is timely too, supposedly tying into the disenfranchised poor versus the entitled rich that was the basis for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Where the franchise goes from here is anyone’s guess. While Nolan is staying on to produce the next phase of the Batman film life cycle, it looks like whatever comes next will be a fresh start.

Next time, we look at a time when everything Marvel touched cinematically did not turn to gold. In fact, movies were made that we never seen at all.

1. This Means War (FOX, 3,189 Theaters, 98 Minutes, Rated PG-13): The casting for this film is unique. Not so much for Chris Pine. He’s done action, he done romantic comedies, so being in a romantic action/comedy isn’t that unique. But Tom Hardy has been building a reputation for being in serious action films. And lest we forget, Reese Witherspoon is an Oscar winner, and here she is playing the object of Hardy’s and Pine’s affections. I’d call that a step down.

Yes, Pine and Hardy play C.I.A. agents who find out they are dating the same woman–Witherspoon. Each man uses the government agency’s equipment and resources to spy on the other and sabotage their dates whenever they can. Now you know why it took so long to find Bin Laden.

It is a unique take on the romantic comedy. Still a step down for Witherspoon, but it could be fun.

2. Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance (Sony/Columbia, 3,174 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated PG-13): And now, a sequel that no one asked for and the original film doesn’t deserve.

Just so it be known that as a comic book fan I can be objective about comic book movies, the first Ghost Rider was awful. It did transport most of the great elements of the comic book character to the screen, but it inserted them in a plot that was incredibly stupid and nonsensical.

Considering the most memorable part about this film’s trailer is the fact that Ghost Rider pisses fire, I can’t say I have much hope that this will be all that better. The action moves to Europe (why? probably because it was cheaper to shoot there) and find Nicolas Cage returning to play Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider. He is ine Eastern Europe trying to stop the devil from taking a human form. This must be a different devil that made him Ghost Rider in the last film, who form looked like a human–Peter Fonda to be exact.

I’ll be seeing this film tomorrow so check back here for my review of it.

3. The Secret World Of Arrietty (Disney, 1,522 Theaters, 94 Minutes, Rated G): If the plot, a bunch of little people who share a house with humans find their existence threatened when they are discovered by the much larger humans, it probably because you experienced The Borrowers in one of it’s many forms, be it books, BBC TV series, or even film versions.

However, this time the story is not being told with an Anglo-centric point of view. It is being directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who has worked as an animator on a number of films helmed by “Japan’s Walt Disney,” Hayao Miyazaki, including Spirited Away and Princess Monoke.

This should be a fresh take on a time-honored favorite and a change of pace from a lot of other kiddie fare out there. .

It’s that time of year again. Tomorrow, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce the nominees for the 84st Annual Academy Awards.

Every year there are snubs and surprises, thrills and controversies. There is no way of knowing who will be nominated, especially in a year when the Best Picture nominees could be 5 films, or ten films, or any number in between.  We here at FilmBuffOnLine, who believe the day nominations are announced should be a National holiday, are going to try and handicap the process for you.

We will try to tell you, in the most non-committal way possible, who we think are Almost Certain to get a nomination, who Definite May Be nominated, and whose nomination is a Outside Shot in the major categories (the four acting categories, Best Director, and Best Picture). We are trying to cover all bases, but don’t come to us if you lose money on your Oscar Nomination pool.

Best Actor:

Almost Certain:

George Clooney, The Descendants; Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Definite Maybe:

Michael Fassbender, Jane Eyre, X-Men: First Class, A Dangerous Method or Shame; Leonardo DiCaprio, J Edgar; Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Outside Shot:

Demián Bichir, A Better Life; Ryan Gosling, Crazy, Stupid Love, Drive, or The Ides of March; Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Clooney and Dujardin have won the most hardware this year, which not only make them a lock to be nominated, but also likely one of them will be taking home the award.

Fassbender has been great in a lot of films (listing X-Men: First Class was a bit of a joke, he’ll most likely get the nod for Shame, but I think he gave an Oscar worthy performance in that film) so he is practically a lock for a nomination. The next two are about 50/50 of getting in. The Academy seems to have something against DiCaprio, and his performance as J. Edgar Hoover while not horrible (he got a lot of nods for other awards for it), was not amazing enough to overcome that film’s lackluster performance critically or financially. Brad Pitt eked out a couple of wins along the way (most notably, the New York and Boston critics), and while Moneyball was well received, I don’t see it as 100% Oscar material.

If DiCaprio and Pitt don’t get nominated, there are worthy choices waiting to take a spot. Bichir was great in a small film with a limited release that opened over the summer. These all work against him, but he is deserving of a nod. Gosling, like Fassbender, was great in a lot of films this year, and has been nominated before, but none of the films he was in seem to pass Oscar muster. Oldman was flat out amazing in Tinker Tailor, but his subtle performance might be lost on Oscar voters.

Best Actress

Almost Certain:

Viola Davis, The Help;  Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady; Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin; Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn

Definite Maybe:

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs

Outside Shot:

Bérénice Bejo, The Artist; Elizabeth Olsen, Martha Marcy May Marlene; Charlize Theron, Young Adult

On paper, this seems to be the category that seems to have the least wiggle room. Davis, Streep, Close, Swinton and Williams are all in the type of roles that Oscar voters seem to trip over giving nominations to. But in every round of nominations, there are bound to be surprises, and this category is ripe for one.

Bejo and Olsen have the best chance of breaking in, in my opinion. But Bejo is getting pushed for Best Supporting Actress instead of Lead, even though she essentially had a lead role. Olsen got good notices in her role, but suffers from the same “too early/too small handicap” that Bichir has. Theron has received nods for Best Actress in the Golden Globes (where there are nominations for comedy and drama) and the Critic’ Choice Awards (where there are six nominees). She has an Oscar pedigree, but Young Adult could very well be seen as less than Oscar worthy.

Best Supporting Actor:

Almost Certain:

Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn; Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Definite Maybe:

Albert Brooks, Drive; Jonah Hill, Moneyball

Outside Shot:

Nick Nolte, Warrior; Viggo Mortensen, A Dangerous Method; Andy Serkis, Rise of the Planet of the Apes or The Adventures of Tintin; Armie Hammer, J Edgar; Tom Hardy, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Plummer has won the Golden Globe and Critic’s Choice award Supporting Actor, making him a lock for an  Oscar nomination, if not the actual award. Branagh has been consistently nominated for his apt portrayal of Laurence Olivier, so he could get the nod as well. Slightly less certain but highly possible are nomination of two actors best known for comedy, Brooks and Hill, for playing against type. After that, place your bets. Will Nolte’s “sports mentor” role make the grade? Will Mortensen’s change of pace role as Sigmund Freud catch the Academy’s attention? Will the Academy make a statement and move towards the future by giving Serkis the nod for his superior motion-capture work? Does the Academy like J Edgar more than the critics and the general public do, thereby swing the nod to Hammer? Will Hardy represent Tinker Tailor‘s stellar cast with a nomination? Will it be another cast member? Or will the film be ignored?

Best Supporting Actress

Almost Certain:

Octavia Spencer, The Help; Bérénice Bejo, The Artist

Definite Maybe:

Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

Outside Shot:

Jessica Chastain, The Help or Take Shelter; Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs; Carey Mulligan, Shame; Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

What I said for Christopher Plummer above also applies to Spencer. The only chance Bejo doesn’t get nominated here is if she gets nominated for Best Actress. But that race is crowded so I think she’ll land here. She is deserving.

The only thing keeping me from making McCarthy almost certain is the Academy’s apparent hatred of the comedy. They do not like to give nominations from comedies, no matter how good the role or film is. This time, though, I think they’ll make an exception.

After that, pick two. Chastain and Woodley might have a slight advantage, but McTeer has a good chance and Mulligan could sneak in.

Best Director:

Almost Certain:

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist; Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Definite Maybe:

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris;  Alexander Payne, The Descendants

Outside Shot:

David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life; Bennett Miller, Moneyball; Steven Spielberg, War Horse or The Adventures of Tintin; Tate Taylor, The Help

Hazanavicius is definitely most deserving and Scorsese won the Golden Globe, so they should both be nominated. After that, Payne is almost a lock, as is Allen, due to the number of nominations they received. After that, well, ot depends. Fincher got a Directors Guild nomination, Malick has been on a lot of west coast critics awards list, which might be a barometer of how the Academy will go. Miller might ride the surprising accolades Moneyball is getting this award season with a nomination. And months ago, it looked like it wouldn’t be a question if Spielberg would be nominated, but for which film. Now, here he is, a long shot for any nomination at all. Weird. And Taylor has to be consider taking into account the number of great performance that came from that film.

Best Picture:

Almost Certain:

The Artist; The Descendants

Definite Maybe:

Hugo; The Help ; Midnight in Paris

Outside Chance:

The Tree of Life; War Horse; Moneyball; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; The Adventures of Tintin; Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or just about any other film out there that has a miniscule amount of buzz.

Not having a definite number of nominees beforehand really plays havoc with the prognosticating business. I tried to pick out the five most likely films to get nominated, but with the possibility of five more, well, it could be any film of a certain stature.

So, what do you think? Am I on to something, or totally wrong? I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.

When you think of the spy thriller, you think of handsome men driving fancy cars, bedding beautiful women, and having shoot outs in exotic foreign locales. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy shows that the real world of espionage is filled with frumpy, middle-aged men in cheap suits, to whom romance is awkward and often heartbreaking, whose work is most often done in windowless offices and when there is shooting to be done, it typically is done at a distance or through subordinates.

This is the more realistic portrait of the spy life that John le Carré wrote about in the 1974 novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy, based on his experiences in the British intelligent services during the 1950s and 1960s. And in this adaptation of that novel, we see that real life can be just as exciting, if not more exciting, than the fantasy.

It’s the early 1970s and there is a Russian mole in the upper echelons of the British intelligence office known as the “Circus.” A covert operation in Hungary to discover the name of the mole ends in disaster, forcing the leader of the Circus and his right hand man, George Smiley, out on the street. However, the Ministry of Defense still believes that the mole is one of the remaining men in the Circus hierarchy, and, with a information exchange agreement with American intelligence in the works, calls on Smiley to root out the mole from the outside.

The movie lives or dies on the role of George Smiley, and this film has an excellent one in Gary Oldman. Oldman is arguably the best actor of his generation and definitely the most unappreciated.  His Smiley has at most eight lines in the first hour, yet, every time Oldman appears on screen, you are captivated. His performance is not a showy one, but a nuanced one. He plays Smiley with a trademark British reserve with a spy’s way of masking their true feelings. It is an awesome performance, the kind where more is said by a particular facial expression than could ever be said by a hundred words of dialogue. Since it is not the flashy type of performance that the Academy notices most, Oldman runs risk of being ignored when nominations come around. This will be a grievous error if it happens because Oldman definitely gives one of the best performances of the year.

With a solid center in Oldman, director Tomas Alfredson fills out the rest of the cast with a strong group of international actors. Great performances abound, as is expected with a cast that includes Colin Firth, John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong and Toby Jones. There is not a bad performance in all of the cast and it all goes to creating an immersed reality for the viewer to sink into.

Alfredson also does well in setting the mood. The film develops at a languid pace. This might seem like a criticism, but it’s not. This technique works with le Carré’s plot to give us a glimpse of what the life of a real life spy must be like. It is periods of mundane routine with occasional explosions of chaotic excitement. There is still danger and lives are on the line, but our spies have to battle bureaucracy as well as the Russians and and some of their most important work is done on a telephone or teletype machines, speaking to agents in the field. It is an eye-opener to anyone who grew up with Hollywood’s version of the spy game.

While this description my lead you to believe that the film would be boring, it’s anything but. Credit should go to Alfredson and screenwriters Peter Straughan and the late Bridget O’Connor for building tension throughout the whole movie and paying keen attention to the mystery behind the mole’s identity.  You may guess the identity of the mole before the end of the film, but you’ll still be on the edge of your seat during the climax when the trap has finally been sprung.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was a novel that revolutionized the spy thriller for years to come. It’s film adaptation does it justice and then some. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a great film on many levels. It is well worth your time and movie-going dollar.

Overnight Warner Brothers released their first official image of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, aka, Catwoman, from Christopher Nolan’s currently in production The Dark Knight Rises. In the comics Kyle is a cat burglar and jewel-thief but in this photo it looks more like she’s engaging in a bit of grand theft auto. Or perhaps that should be grand theft Batpod?

Given that we got our first good look at Batman (Christian Bale) and the film’s villain Bane (Tom Hardy) courtesy of a number of paparazzi photos from last weekend’s location filming in Pittsburgh, I have to wonder if Hathaway will be doing  shooting this weekend in costume and Warner Brothers publicists are trying to head off a similar revelation of the character.

If you click on the picture for a high res-view, you’ll notice that her costume is textured in a way similar to the new Superman costume we got our first look at yesterday and the costume for the upcoming Spider-Man reboot. Much like leather was the de facto choice for movie superhero costumes in the 1990s and the early 2000s, it’s looking like textured is the current way to go.

The Dark Knight Rises hits theaters next June.

Warner Brothers released the first official image from their highly anticipated final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises which has started production this week.

The image is of Tom Hardy as Batman villain Bane and has been revealed through the first of what will undoubtedly be a number of online viral games that made up a large amount of the advance buzz for t hat film. And since The Dark Knight pulled in just over a billion dollars at the world wide box office, I suppose we can expect that Warners will take the same publicity track as before. I suppose we’ll have to keep an eye on the film’s website for more viral puzzles in the weeks and months to come. In the meantime, you can click on the picture below for a larger look.

French actress Marion Cotillard is currently in talks to star in Christopher Nolan’s upcoming The Dark Knight Rises. Although no deal is set in place, if Cotillard joins The Dark Knight sequel, she’ll be reunited with former Inception castmates Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt already hired for the film.

The Hollywood Reporter is quoting an spokesperson for the French actress as saying that Cotillard is “in discussions, but nothing has been confirmed yet.”

The news that Cotillard was up for a role in the film was first broken by the French paper Le Figaro is reporting that the actress will only be working on one film for the rest of the year due to her pregnancy and that film will be Nolan’s third Batman movie.

Marion Cotillard in “Batman 3″. The actress, who is expecting a child in the spring with Guillaume Canet, will be scarce this year. She’ll do a single film and her choice fell on Batman 3. This blockbuster produced by Warner Bros. enables her to work with the director Christopher Nolan, with whom she had turned very successful sci-fi Inception. Marion Cotillard will join the filming this summer in Los Angeles. She will share the bill with Anne Hathaway.

If Cotillard takes the role, she’ll report to work in London in mid-June, and work on location in Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and New York through until Mid-November.

Reportedly, the part is for a romantic role opposite lead Christian Bale and that Nolan had already met and talked with everal actresses, including Kate Winslet, Rachel Weisz and Naomi Watts before choosing Cotillard. Some folks are speculating that the part me that of Talia Al Ghul, the daughter of Liam Neeson’s villainous R’ahs Al Ghul from Nolan’s first Batman film, Batman Begins. I remind skeptical of that speculation as it seems like an easy choice for Nolan to make and Nolan doesn’t necessarily make easy choices.

Today was a big day for reveals concerning Christopher Nolan’s Latest entry in the Batman opus, The Dark Knight Rises. Anne Hathaway, long rumored for a role in he film, has been cast as Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman. And it has also been announced that the previously cast Tom Hardy will be playing Batman villain, Bane.

Catwoman is arguably Batman’s third most popular and third most well known villain, behind the Joker and the Penguin. Hathaway will be the fifth woman to portray the character, after Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt, and Lee Merriweather, all of whom played the character in the 1960s version of Batman (Newmar and Kitt in the TV show, Merriweather in the 1966 motion picture). Michelle Pfeiffer played the character in 1992′s Batman Returns. Hallie Berry played Catwoman in the 2004 film Catwoman, but that character was not Selina Kyle and was quite a ways removed from the Batman mythic.

Hathaway’s casting raises interesting questions as to in what direction Nolan will be going with the character. Since her debut in 1940′s Batman #1, the character has been portrayed as bored socialite who turns to crime for a cheap thrill, a woman driven to crime due to her unhealthy obsession with cats, a prostitute who dons a costume to protect her fellow streetwalkers, and an anti-hero who steals to support quasi-heroic endeavors.

The socialite who turns to crime would be an interesting take, considering that Batman is now a wanted criminal in the franchise. There would be an interesting dichotomy created there. But whichever way the choose to go down, the Oscar nominated Hathaway should have the chops to pull it off.

Tom Hardy playing Bane is a bit puzzling. Bane is a recent creation in the Batman universe. Debuting in 1993, the character in the comics is a savvy South American crime lord who undergoes an experiment that gives him superhuman strength. He is most remembered for the storyline in the comics where he broke Batman’s back.

Bane is usually drawn as a hulking brute, and was portrayed as such when he appeared in 1997′s Batman and Robin. The character was portrayed by a former professional wrestler, Robert “Jeep” Swenson, as a monosyllabic,”Hulk”-like character, much to the disdain of the fans of the more intelligent comic book character.

Hardy should bring more intelligence to the role, but he does seem as physically imposing as role would require. Perhaps Nolan is breaking from the comic book version of the character.