In an interview with the New York Times, Cameron explicitly stated that he has no further interest in producing other people’s films (so that means no more Point Break, Solaris or Volcanoes of the Deep Sea) and makes the fairly bold claim that his hopelessly derivative Na’vi saga has the capacity to express every worthwhile point he could ever want to make.

” Last year I basically completely disbanded my production company’s development arm. So I’m not interested in developing anything. I’m in the “Avatar” business. Period. That’s it. I’m making “Avatar 2,” “Avatar 3,” maybe “Avatar 4,” and I’m not going to produce other people’s movies for them. I’m not interested in taking scripts. And that all sounds I suppose a little bit restricted, but the point is I think within the “Avatar” landscape I can say everything I need to say that I think needs to be said, in terms of the state of the world and what I think we need to be doing about it. And doing it in an entertaining way. And anything I can’t say in that area, I want to say through documentaries…”

Oh yeah, that’s the only other thing he’s going to do – make more underwater documentaries. Brilliant.

Have you learnt nothing from George Lucas, Cameron? Your producing partner Jon Landau had some rather pointed things to say about the Star Wars supremo when we met him earlier this year… perhaps he could help guide you through this dark patch. Surely you have more to offer the world than politically motivated Smurfs and very serious films about fish?

RIP James Cameron being interesting.

Name:

James Cameron

Date of Birth:

16 August, 1954

Place of birth:

Kapuskasing, Canada

Special moves:

Writing, Directing, journeying to the deepest depths of the ocean

Films include:

Titanic, Avatar, Aliens, The Terminator, The Abyss, True Lies

What you probably already know:

At the moment there’s probably only one film James Cameron is talking about, again, and that’s Titanic 3D. Released here on Friday, it’s worth remembering that Cameron not only directed the original 1997 film, but he also wrote the script while on a series of deep-sea dives to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. With 14 Oscar nominations, 11 wins and the joint-title of highest-grossing film ever made (shared with Cameron’s Avatar), it’s no wonder he’s hoping to recreate the film’s original success with some added 3D effects and a well-timed release (hello, 100th anniversay of the actual Titanic!).

The name James Cameron is also synonymous with Avatar; the film may have cost him $300 billion to make, but it certainly reaped the benefits afterwards. it broke the record for highest-grossing film ever, picking up three Oscars along the way for the insanely-good cinematography and revolutionary special effects. Even Steven Spielberg heaped praise upon the flick, calling it “the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars“… high praise indeed from the Lord of cinema himself!

What you probably don’t know:

Cameron is a member of the NASA Advisory Board and is working on the project to help them put cameras on Mars during an unmanned mission. And, as if that weren’t space-heavy enough, he’s also an active campaigner and supporter of the Mars Society. What’s the Mars Society? Why, it’s a non-profit organisation who spend their time lobbying in support of the colonisation of Mars.

What else? How about the fact that he’s the first person to ever successfully attempt a solo mission to the Challenger Deep, the deepest part of the Mariana Ocean Trench. He chilled out on the ocean floor for three hours in a deep-sea submersible before returning to the surface for a little more scriptwriting. How about we all start calling him Captain Nemo?

And one more? How about the fact that, despite his wildly-successful work in the film industry, he’s earned himself a reputation as a nightmare to work with. Kate Winslet, his leading lady on Titanic, admitted to the press that Cameron’s temper made him an unbearable presence on set and that it would take “a lot of money” to make her consider doing it all over again. Orson Scott Card, who worked with Cameron on The Abyss, labelled the director as “hell on wheels” and explained that the two would never collaborate again: “life is too short to collaborate with selfish, cruel people.”

Add all of this to Sam Worthington’s tales of Cameron using a nail gun to attach his crew’s phones to the walls, not to mention his five failed marriages, and you paint a not-so-pretty picture of the director and screenwriter’s personality.

James Cameron quote:

“I don’t look at scripts. I just write them.”

What to say about him at a dinner party:

“James Cameron hs revolutionised the way we look at films; his innovative approach to filmmaking, not to mention his efforts to revolutionise digital 3D projection, is allowing us to enter a new age of cinema. He provides us time and time again with unbelievably stunning visual experiences, allowing audiences to become a part of the film, rather than a mere spectator.”

What not to say about him at a dinner party:

“Yeah, but he’s a money-grabbing asshole, isn’t he? We didn’t need Titanic to happen in 3D. We didn’t need TWO sequels to Avatar. Whatever happened to writing new material?”

Final thought:

Despite his explosive temper, unlikeable personality and penchance for heaping on special effects in place of a good story, there’s no denying that James Cameron is definitely worthy of his star on the Hollywood walk of fame. His tireless efforts to transform the way we view cinema, not to mention his unending ability to fuse genuine scientific theory with fantasy, makes him one of our most imaginative and successful directors to date. No wonder he was named Number 1 in The 2010 Guardian Film Power 100 list.

Pseudonymous Man (Worthington) checks into a swanky New York hotel and turns down a bigger room for one “with a view” (thanks, Department of Foreshadowing!). He orders champagne and lobster for breakfast, as one does, and then scribbles what looks like a very meaningful note on the complimentary stationery. Then he climbs out of the window. Guess what he stands on? You’ve got it, sports fans – a ledge. FLASHBACK! “One month ago”, Nick Cassidy (hang on, that’s not the name he just used in that hotel!) was in prison for something or other that he feels rather bitter about. He’s just been handed down a twenty-five year sentence when his buddy Mike (Anthony Mackie) shows up to tell him that his father’s dying. An armed guard escorts Nick to the funeral, where he promptly gets into a fight with his brother Joey (Bell) and manages to snatch one of his minders’ guns in the ensuing confusion. Nick slips his cuffs, evades the fuzz and disappears.

Returning to the present day, a crowd has gathered beneath Nick’s ledge and negotiators are called in. But Nick will only speak to Lydia Mercer (Banks), a disillusioned detective who recently failed to talk a depressed fellow cop off the Brooklyn Bridge. As Lydia teases details out of Nick, things start to make sense; Nick, himself a former policeman, insists that he was framed for the theft of a $40m diamond from tycoon David Englander (Ed Harris). Englander owns both the hotel Nick’s balancing on the edge of and the building across the street – which contains the vault Nick was accused of robbing. But if the jewel in question is still in the vault, then Nick’s innocence can be proved… and while Nick distracts the city, that’s just what Joey and his girlfriend Angie (Génesis Rodríguez) intend to find out.

There’s nothing new on offer in Man on a Ledge, nothing at all. Most semi-dedicated cinemagoers could write a vault break-in (complete with your choice of inconvenient sensors) in ten minutes, and the prospect of Sam Worthington essentially wasting Elizabeth Banks’ time for an hour and a half whilst Jamie Bell cavorts in a series of air vents doesn’t exactly thrill. But for all its recovering of old ground, the premise is at least fun. The excitement of the heist scenes is heightened by the unavoidably slow pace of what I suppose must be referred to as the ‘ledge scenes’, and although some of the plot twists are just utterly stupid a few of them are really quite clever. (Mustn’t say too much, but keep an eye on the room service chap.)

The trouble with Man on a Ledge is that it never gets beyond that vaguely distasteful blend of ‘quite clever’ and ‘utterly stupid’. Jamie Bell’s performance is quite clever; Sam Worthington’s is utterly stupid. Casting Titus Welliver as a dodgy cop was quite clever; casting Elizabeth Banks as an earnest, incisive negotiator (who wakes up hungover but with artfully messy hair) was utterly stupid. Giving Bell and Rodriguez’ characters such a fiery and dynamic relationship to highlight Worthington and Banks’ tense tiptoeing was quite clever; making Rodriguez strip down to her underwear for literally no reason at all was utterly stupid and really quite sexist. What about the people who wanted to see Jamie Bell in a lacy bra?

Perhaps I was a bit unfair about Sam Worthington earlier. He wasn’t dreadful; he’s rarely dreadful. He was just so uninteresting that his performance is almost worth dismissing out of hand. “How far would you go to take down the man who stole everything from you” (or something), Nick growls at Lydia as the film approaches its nearly-climactic final scenes. If Worthington’s half-arsed frown can be taken as an example of just how far he went, it seems that the last word in revenge is ‘have champagne and lobster for breakfast, and then walk off your acid indigestion on a ledge’. Blah.

That Cameron fellow isn’t half a busy chap. When he’s not creating new technology that will render movie-goers poor forever, making something else blue or seething over the fact that his ex-wife is still technically better than him, he’s plotting ever more world domination in the realm of The Mouse.

Here’s what he had to say about the project:

“Avatar created a world which audiences can discover again and again and now, through this incredible partnership with Disney, we’ll be able to bring Pandora to life like never before. With two new Avatar films currently in development, we’ll have even more locations, characters and stories to explore. I’m chomping at the bit to start work with Disney’s legendary Imagineers to bring our Avatar universe to life. Our goal is to go beyond current boundaries of technical innovation and experiential storytelling, and give park goers the chance to see, hear, and touch the world of Avatar with an unprecedented sense of reality.”

And he’ll do it. You know he will. And with a budget of $400 million, it looks like we can look forward to hearing a lot more about it…

Well, she’ll be back in the sequel. Obviously. Weaver told ComingSoon that according to writer/director James Cameron, “no one ever dies in science fiction” and that Dr Grace Augustine would somehow be returning to Pandora for Avatar 2, due out absolutely no earlier (and probably a bit later) than 2014. No word yet on whether she’ll be appearing in Avatar 3, which will be shot back to back with the sequel; Cameron promised that he’d make Avatar into a trilogy if its box office receipts reached $1bn, although the film eventually rocketed past that modest target to rake in $2.7bn and the title of highest-grossing movie ever. We hope all that money will be enough to stop the next one being so boring…

But firstly, what exactly is performance capture? Put simply, it is a type of software that sensitively translates an individual’s actions, down to the minutest movements and the subtlest expressions, into computer generated imagery (CGI) to add realism and personality to an animated character. The depth of detail available is truly astounding; Giant Studios (the technology providers for LOTR and Avatar) go so far as to map out the skeletal figure, transmitting bone length and density measurements for accurate depictions.

Academy awards exist in the category of Visual Effects, but this only applies to the film in its entirety rather than a specific character. This raises the point of whether it is the actor behind the CGI or the team behind the creation of the CGI who should be credited for the performance. Serkis seems to argue for both, “The first part is capturing the performance. Only later down the line do you start seeing the characters being painted over frame by frame using pixels.” With performance capturing becoming an increasingly common technique used by filmmakers, it seems appropriate that awards should be given to the actors who play these digital parts.

However Serkis doesn’t believe these roles should be given any special treatment, “Personally I’ve never believed there should be a separate category because the essence of the performance is pure acting.” Yet there are film traditionalists who argue that CGI and performance capture should be avoided completely. They believe that using CGI filters out the raw nature of the film; how can you accurately judge the components of a film if they are not real? Take the rumours surrounding Zoe Saldana’s role as Neytiri in Avatar for instance; whilst some claimed she deserved a Best Actress Award, others murmured about the fairness of such a claim, considering her whole performance was altered in post-production.

Yet surely these alterations still require a stupendous amount of hard work? James Cameron, director of Avatar, knows better than anyone how much time, effort and money needs to be invested into performance capture. Cameron desired to create such a perfect world that he actually co-developed a new generation of stereoscopic cameras which mimic the way human eyes view the world in three dimensions. This not only meant that the Avatar world was more realistic, but also gave performance actors one more thing to concentrate on.

So whilst some argue that performance actors have an easy day at work, other evidence suggests that this style of acting requires greater responsibilities than ‘raw’ acting. For example, it requires a substantial leap of the imagination to envisage oneself as someone else, let alone as something entirely inhuman, engaging with an alien world. An actor must believe this before an audience is able to. The actual process involves wearing a ‘mocap’ suit, complete with reflective reference markers to map their exact movements as well as headgear embedded with cameras to map their facial expressions. Easy, huh?

The pressure upon these actors is incredible; whereas in live action films there is usually a wide margin of error with which actors are allowed to play around with almost every aspect of their performance, performance capture characters tend to move in a specific way, with technology occasionally limiting the range of moves available. And of course, time is money in the film industry, but for performance capture films this rule is tantamount. Due to the sheer amount of technology involved, prices tend to spiral out of control, meaning actors have to work to tight timelines. Avatar, for instance, was given a meagre budget of $200 million which ended up snowballing into a whopping $300 million.

Robert Zemeckis, director of performance capture films Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol, argues that the Academy should create a new category of award to acknowledge these achievements. Just “like when Walt Disney made the first animated movie” which was acknowledged by an appropriate new category…62 years later.

However, there is no guarantee that performance capture films will be a success. The most recent total-performance capture title, Mars Needs Moms, (directed by Simon Wells and produced by Zemeckis), reportedly cost $150 million to produce, yet plummeted at the box office, taking only $21 million. One of the rumoured reasons for its failure is the somewhat unsettling way humans are portrayed. Indeed, this seems to be a popular critique of performance capture films in general. Sometimes an actor’s facial expression isn’t translated very realistically, resulting in a strange image of something inhuman trying to be human. This result is familiar to animators; they know how hard it is to recreate human expression in CGI. This is because humans are very sensitive to human expression; the closer an animation comes to imitating human likeness, the higher our expectations are raised. Sometimes, animators accidentally breach the unsettling zone of ‘the uncanny valley’, in which a character possesses so much human likeness, yet the audience knows that they are not human, causing feelings of an uncanny nature to settle.

This may explain why Andy Serkis has been so successful; all of his performance capture roles have featured inhuman characters in an otherwise live-action motion picture. However his next film, The Adventures of Tintin involves playing a human character, so it will be interesting to see if the magic he brings to the audience will remain.

Poor performance capture movies don’t seem to belong anywhere. They are obviously separate from the live-action films, as well as being shunned by the animated films too. The makers of Ratatouille even added “Our Quality Assurance Guarantee: 100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film” to their credit reel. So not only do they fear inclusion into this loner genre, but they also insinuate that performance capturing is a comparatively easier filming technique.

So whilst some argue that performance capture is downright weird, and others insist the unique style is the future of film-making, it appears that performance capturing has an unclear future. What with Disney pulling out of Yellow Submarine due to the colossal amount of money being spent, and Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson’s 3D creation The Adventures of Tintin out this year, the public are being sent mixed messages on the potential success of these films.

Do you think performance capture has a glowing future? And do you think that performance actors should be awarded for their hidden performances behind this new technology? Let us know by attacking the comments section.

It was an arrow to the heart for all of us here at BFF. Why must Broadway continue to destroy our favourite movies? What did we EVER do to warrant such torture? Needless to say, we’re putting our foot down. They can take Fight Club, it’s too late to save it, but they won’t be having any of these…

#10 – Jaws

There are many reasons as to why Speilberg’s Jaws should never be adapted for the West End. Firstly, the majority of the action happens underwater and I’m pretty sure a bit of blue lighting won’t cut the mustard. Secondly, there is the shark itself; Spielberg knew better than anyone that it couldn’t seen for a prolonged amount of time on camera, or everybody in the cinema would split their sides with laughter. Will a rubber shark or, better yet, someone DRESSED as a rubber shark have the same effect? It’d start off with a fun Beach Boys style tune about Amity Bay, a chorus of “There’s Something Fishy Going On”, there’d be a power ballad or two from Brody and we’d end on a lament from the shark itself. Heartwrenching for the audience, solid gold for the box-office, exceedingly sweaty for the chosen sharktor (shark-actor, keep up).

#9 – Schindler’s List

The Holocaust doesn’t belong in the West End; just ask the cast of the deeply suspect Anne Frank: The Musical. The cast would be too huge to handle, the set would be far too bland (black and white gets dull in real life) and the songs would be so completely and utterly depressing that the audience would be forced to remain in their seats long after the curtains close, questioning their rights to life. Oskar Schindler, baritone extraordinaire? A rousing chorus from the workers, maybe reminiscent of ‘Heigh Ho’ from Snow White? Those films are pretty similar, right?

#8 – Jurassic Park

Despite the advances recently made in Dancing Dinosaur technology (yep, we all gazed flabbergasted at Dinosaurs Unleashed too) there’s only so many steps ten foot lizards can master. If we give them a song, they’ll conquer the world. If we don’t, then they’ll just look awkward shuffling in and out of the big numbers. I think it’s okay for you to admit defeat, rather than penning “Come ye, to the park! Jurassic Park! We’ll have a lark!” which, obviously, would be sung by a bright-eyed Richard Hammond. In tap shoes. With a cane. Doing jazz hands. In front of a pathetically small banner which reads “when dinosaurs ruled the stage…”

#7 – Rain Man

I don’t think anybody out there can deny that this is Dustin Hoffman at his finest. It would be utter blasphemy to let anybody else, especially some jumped-up little singer, to take on his iconic role and DESTROY it with a sing-along. Would he still stammer when singing? Probably. Would it be terrible? Definitely. And then there’s the Las Vegas scenario. You just know they’d manage to ruin it with a catchy tune called ‘When The Chips Are Down’.

#6 – Avatar

A paraplegic marine, an out of this world setting and Na’vi people don’t exactly lend themselves well to Broadway. Can you imagine Michael Ball trying to look menacing as the corrupt Colonel Miles Quaritch? Or Elaine Paige bounding around on stilts, perhaps in a blue jumpsuit? Actually…

#5 – Titanic

Personally, I hate Titanic, so I don’t give a flying superior mode of transport what happens to it on Broadway. However, and it’s a HUGE however, I love Kate Winslet and Leonardo Di Caprio. Which means that I feel obliged to defend their characters from an even more tragic end than was dealt when that unsinkable ship bombed its way to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Can you imagine that poignant moment when Kate gasps in delight and belts out “I’m flying (without wings)!” Inexcusable. Not only that but the Great Ship’s eventual demise would invariably be translated into some flashing lights, a few bashes on a cymbal and a sad looking bit of curtain. There’s tragedy, and then there’s just travesty.

#4 – Saw

“I’ve got to break free” anyone? Picture the scene; you’re sitting in a darkened auditorium, watching an actor hack off his own foot with a rudimentary handsaw. He is singing a soulful ballad of righteousness and love as he does so. Perhaps a small fountain of blood shoots out and hits those lucky theatre-goers in the good seats right in the face? Banter with the audience may be a little futile – there’s only so many laughs to be squeezed out of needless devastation, after all. And, lest we forget the majority of the show would be confined to a DIRTY OLD BATHROOM! Sure we could add some sequins, throw in a couple of showgirls (you can always throw in showgirls) but Jigsaw in a tank top? Perhaps not…

#3 – Transformers

We have to be honest here, the songs do sort of write themselves (I really need your concentration, because it’s time for TRANSFORMATION!) and sure, it might be a little like a slightly more poignant West Side Story – but DON’T BE FOOLED. The cold hard truth is that it’s The Transformers. Autobots and Decepticons, despite our fondest dreams, don’t belong in the West End. And neither does Megan Fox, if you don’t already think of her as an Autobot. Perhaps, in the theatrical world, Megatron would become a tragic hero, not unlike the Phantom of The Phantom of The Opera fame: “Why, you ask, must I scour this terrifying world of lakes and parks? Not for any Decepticon sin, but in search of that wondrous and cursed Allspark!”

#2 – The Lord Of The Rings

Don’t worry, it will never, ever, ever….wait.

#1 – The Godfather

“You talk about vengeance. Is vengeance going to bring your son back to you? Or my boy to me?” I ask you; would these words have the same power if let loose through the medium of song? You know it, I know it, the Godfather knows it. NO! Imagine the crescendo we’d have our ears split with when they find that horse’s head knocking about. Let Bugsy Malone have the mafia musical territory and leave these bad boys to go to the mattresses solely on the silver screen. Please, please, let’s just pray that when the offer comes, it’s one they can refuse.

Avatar is set on a ‘lush, inhabitable moon’. But even lush, inhabitable moons face the terrors of deforestation and human greed. Not to mention that the place is overrun with monsters who engage in sexual endeavours with their tails. They use these same tails for a disconcerting number of other activities including for flying dragons. With an organ so versatile I imagine there is a wrong end of the stick or two to be had.

#9 – Jaws gets gash

In Moonraker, Bond discovers a plot to commit global genocide, and a mission to stop it takes him in to outer-space. After having alluded the death-grip of the Bond films’ best ever henchman, Jaws, on a plane to Africa, in a cable car in Brazil and on a canoe on the Amazon river, he manages to persuade Jaws to join allegiances with him on the moon and they save the planet. Jaws becoming a good guy wins over Dolly. Dolly and Jaws get it on. End.

#8 – Mental illness

The moon has always been associated with madness. The word ‘lunatic’ comes from ‘luna’ (moon), and werewolves are sent into unrelenting, bloody rages at the sight of it. Duncan Jones’ dark and lonely lunar thriller Moon proves that being on the moon makes you all the more vulnerable to its maniacal grasp. You would have thought Kevin Spacey as a computerised pal would be all the company you’d need in outer space, but it’s not enough for Sam Bell who begins to hallucinate a second self aboard the lunar station…or does he?

#7 – Dr. Evil fornicating with Frau Farbissina

In Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me Dr. Evil not only steals Austin’s mojo but turns the moon into a “Death Star” equipped with “giant laser”. In order to stop him, Austin’s lady Felicity Shagwell must, well, shag Fat Bastard. As if one irksome sexual encounter weren’t enough for this sequel, when Dr. Evil drinks some of Austin’s mojo he is compelled to get it on with Frau Farbissina. We don’t know what’s worse about this moon-related movie, Dr. Evil’s plans for world domination or the two most gruesome moments of copulation in cinema?

#6 – Snack-related havoc

When NASA’s TV channel starts losing viewers, they decide to hire a “ordinary shmoe” to launch into space alongside Buzz Aldrin and Race Banyon. Homer wins by default and is sent on a catastrophic space mission. Smuggling a packet of chips on board, he manages to break the on-board ant farm with his head and opens the shuttle door to help them out. Journeys to the moon always incur disaster, one way or another.

#5 -”You’ll share man’s greatest thrill as you rocket through space to the lost moon city of alluring, ferocious cat-women.” -Cat Women of the Moon

We’ve reached the half-way point and if ‘blue phallus’ and ‘lasers’ weren’t enough to halt your lunar-landing desires, then the cat women of the moon “Flaming into a wild lust to destory man and conquer the world” should. According to this 1953 film, on the moon you will be “goaded into a den of blood-thirsty moon-monsters” and tempted into the “deadly cave of moon gold.” So not only is the moon infested with lecherous she-cats but full of tacky moon related paraphernalia to boot.

#4 – Monoliths

Stanley Kubrick is the master of the bizarre and the terrifying, and his 1968 take on 2001: A Space Odyssey just had to be mentioned here, even though the link to the moon is tenuous at best. But here is the reason not to visit the moon that transpires…
You may find a monolith on the moon which beams a powerful radio signal to Jupiter, and (bear with us here), whilst on your way to Jupiter you will discover that the AI system aboard your shuttle is psychotic and will try to kill you. So don’t land on the moon – please – lest this unlikely but unfortunate series of events should follow.

#3 – The man in the moon

All you have to do is look at the terrifying images from 1902′s A Trip to the Moon, one of the first films in which the moon starred (what a scientifically inaccurate pun), and the terrifying face of the man in the moon will be enough to warn you off outer-space adventures for good. In this silent movie, the astronauts’ shuttle is launched from a cannon, they are captured by a race of moon-men, and despite the fact that the running time is barely fourteen minutes, it has taught us a valuable lesson about moon based escapades. A ‘trip’ to the moon indeed.

#2 – It is likely to be made of cheese

You may, like Wallace and Gromit, in their Grand Day Out have illusions of a delicious moon entirely made of your favourite coagulation of milk protein. But think of the smell! Imagine an object of 3500km diameter and the powerful stench it would emit. Repugnant.

#1 – Apollo 18 never made it back

You’ll have to go and see this decades-old lost footage from NASA’s abandoned Apollo 18 mission for yourself to discover why after two American astronauts were sent on a secret expedition, the U.S. has never returned to the moon…

Now that you have made your way through a brief cinematic history of all films that have ever featured the moon, ever, even just for a brief moment, perhaps even just in speech, do let us know if there are any more movie moon mishaps we have missed. Go on, try me.

As Deathly Hallows Part 1 drew to a close, audiences still recovering from the body blow of Dobby the House Elf’s sudden death were left on an extraordinary cliff-hanger; Harry (Radcliffe), Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson) were wounded, drained and stranded God knows where, whilst Voldemort (Fiennes) stole the all-powerful Elder Wand from the tomb of Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). This film picks up just minutes later, as Harry marshals his strength and prepares to continue his search for the remaining Horcruxes – obscure artefacts which are imbued with fragments of Voldemort’s soul, prolonging his unnatural life.

Harry, Ron and Hermione’s quest leads them first to Gringotts Wizarding Bank, where they must outwit the cunning goblin bankers and evade a dragon, and then back to Hogsmeade – now swarming with Voldemort’s Death Eaters. However, it is to Hogwarts, which is now controlled by Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and surrounded by Dementors, that the trio must inevitably return. As Voldemort masses his army outside the school, the remnants of the Order of the Phoenix prepare themselves to fight a battle they cannot win in the hope of giving Harry enough time to finish his mission and return the Dark Lord to mortality; but as he edges closer to success, Harry finally realises the gravity of the sacrifice he may have to make.

Deathly Hallows Part 2 is many things – on a narrative level it is both climax and resolution, and after the stripped-down road movie motif which characterised the last film it represents a return to the spectacular bombast and taut melodrama which have been the backbone of the series. On no count does it disappoint. The stand-out performance is, of course, from Daniel Radcliffe; for the first time, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are very much written into the background to emphasise the loneliness of the path Harry must walk, and Radcliffe rises to the challenge with an energy and grace which bely his years and utterly dismiss his shaky performances in the earliest Potter films. He is superbly paired with Ralph Fiennes, who is finally given the freedom to bring Voldemort fully to life – Fiennes’ moments of sheer agony as each successive Horcrux is destroyed are excruciating and compelling in equal measure.

As usual, the supporting cast is faultless – Alan Rickman continues to do extraordinary, delicious things with pauses, whilst Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall is magnificent as she duels Snape and rallies the statuary of Hogwarts to its defence. It’s also a real pleasure to see so many actors from the previous films return, if only for one line – I shan’t list them, but you’ll spot plenty of familiar faces. The script is sensitively and engagingly adapted, with most of your favourite lines making it from the book unscathed, and (as in the last film) freedom from the strictures of the school year have improved the pacing no end. Whereas previous Potter exploits have been forced to plod relentlessly towards the big climax in the penultimate chapter, splitting the last book meant that the Battle of Hogwarts could instead adorn the second act of Part 2 and leave the way clear for Harry to build up to his own personal Waterloo.

There are moments which jar – of course there are – and the 19 Years Later epilogue is still dreadful, but on the whole this is an enormously sensitive and well-managed adaptation of a very exciting book. It’s also a pleasure to – possibly for the first time – see a film which was actually enhanced by the use of 3D. The visual effects are truly spectacular and bring to life even the most insane of J.K. Rowling’s set pieces, without detracting from the story or replacing it à la Avatar.

It’s obviously a given that this film will be an enormous commercial success, and the unprecedented emotional investment which Harry Potter fans have had in both the books and films will doubtless have thousands deciding they love the final instalment long before they see it. Nevertheless, it’s hard to imagine even the most incoherent Pottermaniac heaping undeserved plaudits on Deathly Hallows Part 2 – it really is an astonishing achievement, and (in conjunction with its immediate predecessor) lifts the quality of the entire series by miles. I know I don’t need to tell you to see it as soon as you can.

The film, as any devout fan should know, is based on three of the famous Tintin books by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. The stories featured in the film will see Tintin and Snowy meet drunken Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) and investigate the good-for-nothings who are trying to uncover the whereabouts of the Unicorn – a treasure ship sunk by the devious Red Rackham (Daniel Craig) centuries before.

Produced by Peter Jackson, and also starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Daniel Mays, this Tintin extravaganza is thought to have an Avatar look and feel to it. But judging by the picture, we think it just looks damn creepy.