Daniel Craig seemed like he would be a sleek or hard-boiled detective, before bringing his Texan-accented fun Benoit Blanc to life. Edward Norton, notoriously difficult to work with, was the perfect self-aware choice for unlikeable Elon-a-like Miles. Janelle Monae is the multifaceted actual protagonist Andi, Dave Bautista as the dumb muscle streamer, Kathryn Hahn as the career woman politician; all of which they were brilliantly cast.

This snapshot moment that Glass Onion is set in, paired with the celebrity version of the closed room mystery, gives this film a much more satirical aspect. The humour and genre keep it light, but there's some razor sharp critique and well-deserved mockery of both certain famous people and their entire out-of-touch celebrity world. The ending, combining the murderer's comeuppance and some political justice, gives the audience a strong gleeful feeling of vengeance and schadenfreude.

However, this isn't just a good murder mystery and satire, it's a really good film. Full use is made of flashbacks, either revealing a more detailed or alternative view of a previous scene or giving you a chance to rewatch a moment with the perspective of new information. Blanc's talk through of the murder is shown, masterfully, with different characters as murderer in each shot. The changed scenes are especially brilliant, the time equivalent of a zoom in on something. Foreshadowing hangs deliberately and obviously in multiple places, keeping the tension high with a "but which of those is it?" for the observant. Things that don't quite seem right are revealed as deliberate clues and as red herrings.

A talented and worthy sequel to the first Knives Out, Glass Onion is an exciting and enjoyable caper. If a third Knives Out is made, and it's as good as this, it could be an iconic series.

In fact, the city's corruption is a huge part of the plot. While the villain is just going after the politicians and officials who are undeniably abusing their power, it's a fun grey area. I wanted the Batman to succeed, but I kind of wanted the Riddler to do enough to make a difference. The Riddler himself is excellently written, and excellently portrayed by Paul Dano. A familiar villain, but not as overplayed as the Joker, he is exaggerated enough to live up to the comic book character people will expect, but still held within real life bounds. Question marks abound, but in a black hunting mask and using Zodiac-like symbols rather than in a bright green bodysuit. His use of codes and unfinished jokes lets him fit the name well.

Zoë Kravitz' Catwoman is yet another brilliant casting, and yet another believable character. Her motives are noble but her methods (and the life surrounding her) are criminal, her cats and bisexuality are portrayed in a positive light, and her costume is realistic. Likewise, the Penguin, Alfred and James Gordon are all well balanced portrayals. The story is engaging, the action is exciting and the visuals are excellent. Whether you're a Batman fan, a Robert Pattinson fan or just a general film fan, The Batman is a great film worth catching at the cinema. It would have been nice to have had one whole film without the Joker, but his last second appearance did show that this is the first film in a series, and that the Joker is not going to be the terrible Jared Leto version.

With the sheer amount of films being made, the hit-and-miss of watching indie films, and all the ways that films can be disappointing, it was truly amazing to see the credits appear and know I was truly thrilled. Picking for flaws left me only with some criticism of the characters' actions. The plot is airtight and the questions the viewer is left with are all intriguing and non-central. Even the casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis as the same person manages to work perfectly.

The blend of genre work well for fans of any. The science fiction elements are easy to understand and grounded in real life. Time travel is here, of course, but it's simple; one way with explained timelines and without any technicalities in the plot at all. The futuristic setting of the present is not too far off, eyeball drugs and flying motorbikes aside, and the further-futuristic setting of the future is brief. There's some telekinetic powers, but as explained and logical as they can be without drawing too much attention from the time travel. The action is interspersed with conversation, exposition and character development: Nobody shoots without motivation, even if they shoot a lot of people. The main character is an assassin and the antagonists are gangsters without feeling like stock characters.

Some interesting questions or just concepts are brought up. The film is set in 2044, but there are only 2 types of gun seemingly in existence and only two new technologies. How did we get there from here? Time travel is invented and immediately banned in 30 years, but the first contact with the past is not explored at all. How did that happen? How were the loopers set up? Sara's past and her sister's death is skirted over when it comes up. What happened? After the end, we don't know if it all ends up okay. What becomes of Joe? A perfect ending to a pretty perfect film.