JayDee's Movie Musings [Archive] - Page 7

JayDee

11-23-13, 03:34 PM

Well I had a think about SC's comments about my reviews being too showy and with too much pomp. And I've decided....

to dedicate this review to Sexy Celebrity!!! This review of course is #201!!!! Which is just 1 review after my landmark 200th review!!!!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Fireworks-05-june_zpse16c1c64.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Fireworks-05-june_zpse16c1c64.gif.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Fireworks-02-june_zps464ca607.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Fireworks-02-june_zps464ca607.gif.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Fireworks-03-june_zps7ba52f37.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Fireworks-03-june_zps7ba52f37.gif.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Fireworks-01-june_zps04770689.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Fireworks-01-june_zps04770689.gif.html) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Fireworks-06-june_zps2e1be90a.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Fireworks-06-june_zps2e1be90a.gif.html)

So everyone roll up, roll up and contribute your rep!!!! :D

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Robert Zemeckis

Written by
John Gatins

Starring
Denzel Washington
Kelly Reilly
Don Cheadle
Bruce Greenwood
John Goodman
Melissa Leo

Flight

3.5 +

Plot - Captain Whip Whitaker (Washington) is a commuter airline pilot. During a flight from Orlando to Atlanta something goes terribly wrong and the plane begins to plummet to the ground. In an attempt to counter the problem Whip makes the apparently insane decision to invert the plane and fly it upside down. By doing so however he is able to save just about every person on board. When he wakes up in his hospital bed he sees that he is being hailed as a hero on TV, but at the same time a representative from the airline union is introducing him to a lawyer who explains that Whip may face criminal charges because blood tests have revealed that during the flight he was intoxicated with alcohol and cocaine. Whip strenuously denies that his abilities were impaired, claiming he was not at fault in the slightest. While the investigation is ongoing into the crash he is advised to stay completely clean and sober. However this proves a lot more difficult for Whip than he cares to admit.

Welcome back to the real world Robert Zemeckis! After having lost him to the world of motion capture for more than a decade, film audiences should rejoice at his return to live action. Zemeckis is a fine storyteller and in my eyes one of the most underrated directors working today. And while Flight may not prove to be as timelessly popular a movie as much of his other work (Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump etc) it's still a very welcome return to the big screen for Zemeckis. Compared to many of his previous films it marks a bit of a shift being a much smaller, more dramatic and more personal film than just about any that he has previously delivered. His direction in Flight too is really quite understated (other than in one amazing sequence which we'll come on to later) but as such is quite commendable. In sports it's quite often said that a referee has done a good job if he isn't noticed, and it's rather a similar case here I feel. Such a project doesn't require flashy, 'look at me' direction; it requires a steady hand who knows how to tell the story and who is able to put his trust in the actors, who just allows them to perform.

And Zemeckis' trust proves to be justified by his impressive cast. This is of course especially true in the case of the film's lead, Denzel Washington. Portraying Captain William 'Whip' Whitaker it is Washington's best performance in a number of years, reflected by his first Academy Award nomination since 2001's Training Day. The film really is a character study of a man whose life is falling apart under the strains of addiction, and on these terms Washington ensures that the film succeeds with flying colours. His performance is terrifically powerful throughout with countless scenes and moments that could happily sit alongside his work in the likes of Philadelphia, Malcolm X, Hurricane, Glory etc as being amongst the best stuff he has ever done. Especially impressive scenes are those in the hospital following the crash where he excellently portrays how traumatised the character is, and any time where he succumbs to his addictive weakness and you just see the sheer amount of pain and torture written all over his face. Powerful stuff. His powerhouse showing also helps to make the ending more believable than would otherwise be the case. Flight's conclusion is rather big and Hollywood-ised, as if it's trying to give Denzel his 'Jimmy Stewart holding Congress in Mr Smith Goes to Washington moment'. The honesty that Denzel imbues the scene with however makes sure that we buy into it.

While it may be Washington who is in the spotlight the film features strong support throughout its ensemble, with Don Cheadle proving very impressive as Whip's lawyer. And a real highlight of the film is John Goodman. Even though he only appears on two occasions really, he makes such an impression that you would swear he had featured much more prominently. Goodman, one of the great actors around, plays Harling Mays; a friend of Whip and his drug dealer. In prison films there's always a character who can 'get you stuff.' And his character here is a lot like that, except on the outside. As well as supplying Whip with drugs, when he is in hospital Harling visits him and delivers unto him a stash of cigarettes, alcohol and porn magazines. Now that's a good friend! Goodman's inclusion adds a welcome dose of comic relief to the film.

Film Trivia Snippets - The spectacular crash sequence in the film was actually inspired by a real life disaster, though one that had a much more tragic conclusion; the crash of Alaksa Airlines flight 261. As in the film the plane suffered a catastrophic failure which caused the film to nose dive at a rate exceeding 13,300 feet per minute. Also like the film, the pilots rolled the airplane to an inverted position in an attempt to stabilise it. Sadly the outcome was not successful in real life however, with all 88 people on board perishing. /// The plane that crashes in the film is flight number 227. This plays into a superstition about planes crashing whose digits add up to 11. A number of spectacular airline crashes have been examples of this - American Airlines flight 191, Pacific Southwest Airlines flight 182, Delta Airlines flight 191, Flight 11 on September 11th etc. /// In order to get the film made within the studio's very modest, take-it-or-leave-it budget of $28m both Denzel Washington and Robert Zemeckis accepted massive pay cuts, taking just a tenth of their normal salaries. I also found Kelly Reilly to be very affecting and engaging as Nicole Maggen, a fellow addict who develops a relationship with Whip. I seem to remember some reviews mentioning how they felt the romance that features in Flight to be unnecessary and forced. And while I will concede that the film could probably have survived, perhaps even thrived, without it I do feel that it has a point that makes it worthwhile. In addition to the obvious angle of physical attraction, when they first meet Nicole is an absolute mess, in hospital following an overdose. And in her I think Whip perhaps sees the opportunity to be the strong one in the relationship; to make his problems appear lesser by comparison, and to be the hero. He protects her from her angry, potentially violent landlord, pays off her debt and gives her a place to live. As the film goes along however their roles are reversed and it reveals just how troubled Whip is. Nicole is able to turn her life around and make positive progress while Whip just continues on a drastically downward spiral.

Back at the time of its release, the one aspect of Flight that was mentioned in every review and provided the money shot for every trailer and TV spot was its plane crash. At the time there was also a story going around about how every airline would decline to show it during flights. My initial reaction was that it was a bit of a namby-pamby reaction spurred on by our heavily PC, health and safety obsessed society. Having now seen the film and the scene in question however, to even consider showing the film on planes for a single second would be madness. Its a bravura scene; a truly astonishing and terrifying experience that is vividly realistic. I didn't actually realise it at that time but during the sequence I had obviously found it so intense that I had been holding my breath, something I only became aware of at its conclusion when I let out a large breath. So even though I was sitting comfortably in my room, my feet resting on a table only a foot or two off the ground the scene managed to get to me. I can't imagine what it would have been like watching it onboard a plane with some 30,000 feet of nothingness between my feet and the ground below. Certainly one of the stand-out scenes of 2012.

If like Bonnie Tyler you're holding out for a hero, you've come to the wrong place. And I apologise for that dreadfully cheesy line! :D You'll struggle to find anyone with redeeming features amongst the film's ensemble. Although one of the issues throughout the film is whether Whip is a hero for saving all those lives, or whether he is the villain for causing the crash in the first place. While the film does resolve that question it still leaves it rather in the balance as to how you see him, leaving it up to the viewer to question and decide whether they see Whip as a hero or not. A man who has been self-medicating on alcohol and drugs for a long time, the film doesn't shy away from showing him in a very negative light. He is a real loose cannon who does some despicable things such as the moment he manipulates a member of the cabin crew into covering for him by invoking what it would be like if she had died and it was her son at the funeral. Oh yeah I forgot to mention, he does this at a funeral!!! :eek: And yet at the same time he does save 96 lives which would otherwise have perished where it not for his actions, as is highlighted by the fact that the airline had ten pilots attempt the same move in a simulation and on every occasion they failed. At least he has the excuse of sorts of being an addict, but alongside the obviously damaged Whip you also have some really horrible characters who are always attempting to cover their own ass, most notably Don Cheadle's scumbag lawyer who manipulates everything and everyone he can to get the desired result.

The film does have the odd fault. The most notable of which is perhaps a slightly overlong running time. To cut it down I think they could have trimmed some of Whip's relapses. Numerous times throughout the film he seems to be fine and then self-destructs. While it may be an accurate depiction of the lives of an addict it may not be ideal for a piece of film. Oh and just as a little aside, while it's a thread that is dropped as the film enters its final act, Flight does also feature an interesting theme about religion, faith and destiny. When Whip and Nicole meet there is talk of it being fate that brought the two together in that spot, and then following the plane crash there seems to be just as many people praising God for saving all those lives as Whip himself. It's something that's always irritated me; following a tragedy or accident or whatever when someone survives they tend to thank God for it, not the EMTs, nurses, doctors etc who trained for years to gain the expertise required to save them. It also irritates me that it's ok to praise God for saving people in a tragedy, but to not blame God for the tragedy in the first place and all the people who did die. And while it's not uttered during Flight is there a more annoying phrase in all of humanity than “God works in mysterious ways” to explain it all away?

Conclusion - Flight is a film that soars on the back of an exceptional performance from Denzel Washington. While he may not have earned an Oscar for his performance, he certainly earned his wings. Perhaps the film does have the occasional tendency to go into auto pilot mode, and in terms of its runtime it could maybe have done with losing a little luggage. So it may not be all plane sailing but a fine cabin crew of actors ensure that it makes it through any turbulence without stalling or any potential crash landing. And with Zemeckis at the controls piloting the film admirably right from take off all the way through to its destination, this is a grounded piece of work which is able to fly high during its tremendous crash landing sequence. It's a journey that is well worth being a passenger for. And yes I'm pretty sure I just set a new record for puns featured in a conclusion! :D

The Gunslinger45

11-23-13, 03:55 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I agee it is nice to see Zemekis doing live action again, and I thought that Flight was one of the best movies of that year. The Avengers being the best of course :D.

John Goodman was also one of the best parts of the flick even though he is barely in it. That is because he is one of the best supporting actors of all time, and why this man has not won an Oscar yet is beyond me. He leaves a bigger impression on me then Cheadle does, and Don Cheadle is in much more of the damn movie!

rauldc14

11-23-13, 04:12 PM

I like that you liked the film. However, Denzel did plenty well in between this andTraining Day. Inside Man, Man on Fire, Déjà Vu and. The brilliantly directed Antwone Fisher are the standouts.

Daniel M

11-23-13, 04:24 PM

While he may not have earned an Oscar for his performance, he certainly earned his wings.

I'm leaving this thread, forever.

Edit: I liked Flight by the way, very good review again and I agree with you about how his character was inconsistent at times, this was the main fault for me, the script seemed to take his character from one direction to another and back again, and I was never actually sure what to think or feel for him, I didn't really like the ending either, like the very last season, I thought it was too cliché/easy after what had at least attempted to be a challenging character study beforehand. But yeh, overall, I did like it.

Sexy Celebrity

11-23-13, 09:19 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11780&stc=1&d=1385255832

seanc

11-23-13, 09:29 PM

I always love Denzel but Flight just didn't do it for me. Some of the moments felt ridiculous, especially his last binge before the hearing. Also hated Goodman's character and the love interest.

I agree with rauld that Denzel has been doing plenty of good work since Training Day. All those films he mentioned are better than Flight in my opinion.

gandalf26

11-24-13, 07:31 AM

Fantastic start including the crash, good middle but a little overlong and disappointing ending. You could say a film that never lives up to the brilliant crash sequence for the 90 minutes after.

As you say JD the crash sequence is a terrifying 10 minute masterpiece that leaves you white knuckled and tense and I quite agree that showing Flight on an in flight movie would perhaps be a bit much for the more nervous passengers (like me:)).

The great question that I came away with was would he have saved all those lives if he wasn't high?? Would he have kept his nerve if he were completely sober?

6/10

JayDee

11-24-13, 02:30 PM

you got a massager!?! all i got was a pair of fluffy slippers - but, hey, they're REALLY REALLY comfy slippers, and winter's a-coming, so . . . :)

Well you're still fairly new to the thread and the gifts go on seniority. So Mark's getting an iPad and for honeykid I'm trying to arrange a night with Drew Barrymore. Oh and don't worry, Sexy's been downgraded to a lump of coal.

If you want more Kurosawa I suggest Ikiru. But if you want more of his samurai movies (which I love) go with either The Hidden Fortress, Ran, or Kagemusha.

It was actually in my mind to watch Hidden Fortress a few weeks back when I watched through all 6 Star Wars films. Thought I would continue with the theme and watch one of the inspirations for Lucas.

My write-up for Quills was an exception, though I still don't know how I managed to come up with that much to say about it (which is still far shorter than your typical reviews). I bet if I tried to do the same for Gladiator I'd come up short.

Well you should perhaps give it a go someday. You might surprise yourself or you might improve over time if you kept going. Or at the very least you could give us a good laugh at your expense. :D

In other news -- sorry, JayDee. I seem to be hijacking your thread here.

:eek: Wow, did I actually just get an apology from Sexy for his behaviour?! Those are pretty rare are they not? :p

I thought that Flight was one of the best movies of that year. The Avengers being the best of course :D.

:highfive: You know that's right!!! :D

JayDee

11-25-13, 08:44 PM

Several times when I've been writing a review for a superhero flick (most recently with Thor: The Dark World) I've posted a disclaimer of sorts outlining how big a fan I am and how my views may not reflect those of 'normal' people. :D

Well I think I've come up with a little something that I can post before I embark on one of my fanboy raves/rants :p -

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg.html)

Sexy Celebrity

11-25-13, 10:43 PM

I need some warning signs myself.

JayDee

11-26-13, 08:16 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
Andrei Konchalovsky

Written by
Djordje Milicevic
Paul Zindel
Edward Bunker
Akira Kurosawa (based on a screenplay by)

Starring
Jon Voight
Eric Roberts
Rebecca De Mornay
Kyle T. Heffner
John P. Ryan

Runaway Train

4 ++

Plot - Oscar 'Manny' Manheim (Voight) is a ruthless bank robber and a skilled escapist of prisons. He is also a hero to all his fellow inmates at the Stonehaven Maximum Security Prison in Alaska. Not everyone loves him however. The prison's brutal warden, Ranken (Ryan), wants him dead and will do whatever he has to in his bid to accomplish this. Realising this, Manny decides to once again break out of the prison, this time with a young prisoner in tow. That young prisoner is Buck (Roberts), one off Manny's many admirers. Together they survive a gruelling trek through the winter wilderness, eventually arriving at a remote rail yard. They are able to hop on a train and seem homeward bound to freedom. Until that is the train's engineer suffers a heart attack, leaving the train unmanned and out of control. Speeding towards certain disaster they seem to be doomed, until they find that they are not actually alone on the train. They come across Sara (De Mornay), a railway worker who informs them of a way to stop the train, one that comes with a lot of risk however. And as if this wasn't enough they also find themselves being pursued by the relentless warden Ranken.

SPOILER WARNING - Big spoilers in the final paragraph for anyone who has not seen it.
An absolutely first rate thriller where everything, including the performances, really is turned up to 11 to produce an excessively entertaining film chock-full of nerve-shredding thrills, which also holds a surprise or two up its sleeve in terms of the direction it takes as it nears it conclusion. The film actually mimics the nature of the titular train immensely closely; it crashes along at an unrelenting pace, moves forward in a taut and incessant fashion and barely wastes a speck of unrequired energy.

The film is very much a hybrid of Escape from Alcatraz and Speed; kicking off as a prison break/on the run film, before moving into the territory of something resembling a disaster film as three individuals find themselves trapped on an out-of-control train with no way of stopping it. The opening stretch of Runaway Train is set within the confines of the prison walls of Stonehaven Maximum Security. To be honest its made up of fairly standard prison movie cliches, but its done well and with a real vigor to the scenes. You can already sense a potency and a fervor to proceedings. The only problem with this section however is that for a maximum security prison which is meant to be almost impossible to escape from, it was actually pretty damn easy for them to get out. It hardly requires a plan of great genius.

When we move onto the train the film becomes an intensely riveting experience, constantly escalating in terms of the risks and the thrills. The moments of action are just absolutely incredible. We see characters climbing along the side of the train as they are buffeted by wind and snow, we see them struggle to find their footing on its icy exterior, we see them get thrown about as the train crashes through any obstacle in its path and we watch men suspended in the air from helicopters as they attempt to apprehend the escaped prisoners. While such stunts obviously took a great deal of skill, coordination and planning they don't feel rigid or rehearsed as can sometimes be the case. They look absolutely real. There's no sense of 'oh they'll be ok. It's just a stunt after all, they know what they're doing.' Just completely edge-of-the-seat stuff. And Konchalovsky captures it superbly, adding an immense degree of raw energy and wild vitality to the action. While I was also a fan of the way the film was shot. With the majestic snow-covered scenery all around them the film has a very bleak and cold appearance to it that really allows the monstrous black train to pop off the screen in contrast.

Film Trivia Snippets - Akira Kurosawa co-wrote the original script and planned to direct it in upstate New York. The project was cancelled however as a result of snowstorms so severe that the crew were unable to work. At the time Kurosawa had originally planned to cast Henry Fonda as the railway-man and Peter Falk in the role of the escaped convict. /// Kurosawa's original screenplay was apparently inspired by an actual incident in the Northeast, when an unattended locomotive allegedly throttled up by itself and took off down the line. /// Tom Berenger was originally cast in the role of Buck but dropped out to shoot Platoon instead. Jeff Bridges also declined the role which eventually went to Eric Roberts.The performances of the film's two stars, Voight and Roberts, are quite something to behold. I certainly wouldn't say they were 'great' performances from a technical, actorly point of view; they are however brilliant in terms of how viscerally and unabashedly entertaining and effective they are. Both men really go for it full-tilt, completely leaving the world of subtlety and nuance behind, to go head long into the territory of melodrama and scenery chewing. And its a style that works in this instance. It fits alongside the rest of the film's high concept and extravagant nature. And let's be honest, if you're going to be sharing the screen with a massive runaway locomotive, you need to do something to make sure you get noticed, that you don't just disappear into its shadow. As the prison legend Manny, Voight is a vicious and bullying presence, spitting fire and fury. He really is like a wild animal as he growls and bears his teeth throughout the film. There's a fantastic scene where he is given a tremendous speech to impart to Roberts' character. Buck is a clueless kid talking about his plans of crime and how wonderful it will be when Manny sets him straight. He tells him that he can make something of his life. That career criminals like Manny are the way they are because they don't know how to do anything else; they can't hold down a job or take orders from another man. He has too much misguided pride.

While opposite him Eric Roberts is electric as Manny's partner and sycophantic admirer Buck. It's a crazed and twitchy performance with Roberts barely pausing for breath or staying still for an instant. He rather reminded me of a shark; just constantly on the move. And despite the fact that he's a convicted criminal I actually came to care about him in a way because Roberts has such a naïve, simple-minded nature to him. Despite how captivating their performances are however I was stunned to discover that both men had been nominated for an Academy Award for their performances here. It's certainly not the typical fare that the Academy usually go for. Also throwing his overblown stylings into the mix is John P. Ryan's sadistic warden, consumed by a need to stop and defeat his nemesis Manny. In fact his ruthless warden does whatever he can to ensure that Manny is actually able to attempt an escape again, just so that he can justifiably kill him. While Rebecca De Mornay proves an important factor in exposing the true characters of the escapees in an admirably unglamorous performance.

Despite its high concept and fairly bombastic nature the film actually attempts to produce something deeper and even existential. It's a film concerning the great desire for freedom, for control of your life. And not just to be free from prison. Towards the film's conclusion Manny apparently begins to cross the line into insanity as the fate of the characters appears sealed. If he can't have control over his life, he will have control over his death. He will decide how and when it will happen. And this becomes symbolised with a powerful image that closes out the film. After choosing to rescue Buck and Sara, he makes the decision to call time on his own life; after all it's better to die free than to die in prison. He has done one decent thing in his life and now he has chosen to die with dignity and honour. He reverses the power vacuum with the warden by imprisoning him this time, and then he climbs onto the top of the train and struggles against the wind just to stand up. An apt metaphor for his life. With a stirring piece of Vivaldi scoring the scene I found it to be a truly powerful and poignant image as the film fades out with Manny riding to his doom. Perhaps this existential bent to the film shouldn't come as a great surprise however given Akira Kurosawa's involvement in the film. Kurosawa was part of the team that worked on the initial script back in 1970, and he was slated to direct the film. As a result of various creative and scheduling issues however the project never came about under his stewardship, and it would remain on the shelf for another 15 years.

Conclusion - It's a got a simple premise, is over-acted to the absolute hilt and doesn't always hit the mark when trying to find metaphysical meaning but the resulting package is an absolutely thrilling breakneck ride to the end of the line, complete with a surprising amount of depth and characterisation. The acting style means that it certainly won't be for everyone but I ate it up. The script is taut, the action is incredible and Voight is monstrous. Just a complete adrenaline rush.

The Gunslinger45

11-26-13, 08:27 PM

Sexy Celebrity

11-26-13, 08:36 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11797&stc=1&d=1385512552

mark f

11-26-13, 08:38 PM

Really should be seen on the largest screen possible and very loud. I wanted to break Roberts' neck early on with all his whining about needing shoes, but I gradually deigned to allow him to survive. :cool:

honeykid

11-26-13, 08:50 PM

I didn't. I'd have killed him long before. I didn't like the film very much as I found him far too annoying and nothing else grabbed me. Maybe another day. :shrug:

nebbit

11-27-13, 12:57 AM

Great review :yup: of course i own it :laugh:

JayDee

11-28-13, 04:57 PM

I need some warning signs myself.

Never has a truer word been spoken on these forums!

I didn't like the film very much as I found him far too annoying and nothing else grabbed me. Maybe another day. :shrug:

I'd certainy say it's an acquired taste of a film. However I've got Mark and Roger Ebert on my side so I'm comfortable with my position. :D Ebert gave it 4/4, film critic Michael Phillips called it the most underrated film of the 80s and most importantly Mark gave it a 4. At least he did in the past when I searched the forum but I think I noticed just recently he watched it again and gave it 3.5. Any particular reason you dropped the score Mark?

mark f

11-28-13, 05:17 PM

I changed it from 7 1/2 to 7+. Just a general tightening up of my ratings. Or maybe jadedness. :)

cricket

11-30-13, 01:36 AM

I watched it a couple months back for the first time in years. Glad to see your review; I didn't know if I would ever hear anyone else mention it again.

gandalf26

11-30-13, 06:13 PM

I always say that this film doesn't quite live up to it's legendary ending as opposed to the other way around.

I still find myself going to You Tube every couple of months to watch the haunting last few minutes. Brilliant performance by Jon Voight.

7/10

cinemaafficionado

12-01-13, 02:49 AM

Runaway Train is one of my favorite prison movies. Stunningly visceral performance by Angelina's daddy.:D

Masterman

12-02-13, 03:38 PM

Great reviews. Just been catching up, great job.

JayDee

12-03-13, 10:22 PM

Sorry for the longer than normal delay between reviews, been caught up by a few things. Anyway following on from my Phantom Menace review we now have part 2 of the Star Wars sequels

mirror mirror

Year of release
2002

Directed by
George Lucas

Written by
George Lucas
Jonathan Hales

Starring
Ewan McGregor
Hayden Christensen
Natalie Portman
Ian McDiarmid
Christopher Lee
Samuel L. Jackson

Star Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clones

2 +

Plot - The film is set ten years after the Battle of Naboo, when the galaxy is on the brink of civil war. Under the leadership of renegade Jedi Master Count Dooku, thousands of systems threaten to secede from the Republic. When an assassination attempt is made on Senator Padme Amidala (Portman), the former Queen of Naboo, Jedi apprentice Anakin Skywalker (Christensen) is assigned to protect her, while his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) is assigned to investigate the assassination attempt. Soon the Jedi are drawn into the heart of the separatist movement, and the beginning of a new threat to the galaxy: the Clone Wars

I certainly don't think that Attack of the Clones is necessarily a better film than Menace, but with so much action thrown at the screen at least it's a good degree more interesting. The vast amount of action really is the saving grace of the film, even if it rarely exhibits any great creativity or substance it at least keeps you awake. In fact much of it comes across like levels of a video game, not just in their visuals but also their storytelling nature; with Obi-Wan and Anakin chasing the assassin and Anakin and Padme on the conveyer belt being the most obvious. They do provide a couple of fun moments though, as does the fight between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett. I especially liked the moment in the asteroid field with the seismic charges being well realised by the CGI and some great sound design. And while they perhaps didn't achieve the levels that Lucas intended some of the action towards the film's conclusion delivers some thrills. It delivers probably the largest scale set-piece yet seen in the Star Wars films and finally we are able to see Yoda get in on the action. The moment where the little hobbling near-cripple puts down his cane and picks up his lightsaber put a little smile on my face. And finally after five films we finally get to see a whole slew of Jedis enter into battle side-by-side. I think it was actually quite important in helping to re-establish the Jedis as kick-ass. I felt that they had been rather demystified and turned rather dull up until this point both as a result of the midi-chlorian revelation and the fact that for the majority of the time all they seem to do is sit around in Council talking. They were made to look more like politicians or bureaucrats. And not all that bright either considering the way they are getting completely hoodwinked.

Unfortunately Attack of the Clones retains pretty much every single problem that made The Phantom Menace such a woeful experience, with Lucas having to take the blame for the large majority of them. Yet again his writing and dialogue are just lamentable. They are just so clumsy and obvious, completely disposing of any subtlety in favour of clear exposition. Particularly bad are the occasions where Obi-Wan and Anakin all of a sudden talk to each other as if they are complete strangers, ignoring the fact they are constantly together and know everything about each other's lives just so they can move the story along. Oh and some of the painfully unsubtle dialogue? “You're the closest thing I have to a father.” Yet again George also seems totally dedicated to his special effects to the great detriment of the performances of the cast. Pretty much every performance is so lifeless and stiff, with only the odd exception to be found. I can just picture George on the set anytime an actor actually attempted to convey some emotion or show some talent, “No! No! No! You're upstaging my precious, precious effects. Act with less emotion! Look like you couldn't give a damn!” And why the hell did George Lucas feel the need to try and connect everything and everyone in the Star Wars universe and give it a deeper meaning. So many of the little links between characters feel so forced. And then there's the fact that Jango Fett is introduced as the source of the clones. Maybe I'm wrong on this or perhaps it's been addressed elsewhere (the Clone Wars film/series or books) but does that mean that all the stormtroopers we see in the original trilogy are clones of Jango Fett or versions of him? If so that really doesn't work considering that from memory the stormtroopers were different heights and had different accents etc. Either way by making Jango, and eventually Bobba Fett, so vitally important to the whole story it makes Bobba's pathetic, throwaway death in Return of the Jedi even worse. And as with the Jedi it also demystifies the character a great deal.

George Lucas has been criticised for a lot of stuff following the release of the prequels. In one respect though he actually caught quite a lucky break. If it hadn't been for the release of the Twilight films surely it would have been his romance between Anakin and Padme that would have become the go-to example for dreadful, cheesy young romances. Had Attack of the Clones merely been an extravagance of action and special effects it could have been quite entertaining. In between the moments of action however we are lumbered with one of the worst romances I've ever seen committed to the screen, that of Anakin and Padme. Watching their love blossom on Naboo is a truly painful thing to behold. It's poorly written, acted without an ounce of emotion and contains zero chemistry between Christensen and Portman. When Christensen is talking about his deep love for Padme the viewer, just like Christensen apparently, feels absolutely nothing. And Lucas' dialogue? Some of the worst I've ever came across in a major Hollywood movie. Ever! You want an example? “I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me. My heart is beating... hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me.....” Apparently Anakin and Padme are 17th century poets. And s*it ones at that! I don't believe that I have ever cringed so much in my life. It also seems strange that after dedicating so much time to this inane romance the film then rather glosses over their actual wedding at the film's conclusion. Still at least Portman looked adorable. So that's something I suppose.

Film Trivia Snippets - A number of young actors, including some of Hollywood's hottest young actors at the time, auditioned for the role of Anakin. They included Ryan Phillippe, Paul Walker, Colin Hanks and Jonathan Brandis. In the end Christensen was chosen, largely down to the simple fact that he and Natalie Portman “looked good together.” /// Attack of the Clones has the undesirable accolade of being the only Star Wars film not to be the top earner at the US box office for the year it was released. It came in 3rd place, trailing behind Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. /// In response to the great deal of hatred that was directed at the character of Jar-Jar Binks following The Phantom Meance, the original scripts for this sequel had the joking working title of 'Episode II – Jar-Jar's Big Adventure.' /// There have been 12 Star Trek films released theatrically, and 6 Star Wars films. Only on one occasion however have both franchises released a film in the same year. That was in 2002 when both Attack of the Clones and Star Trek: Nemesis were released. /// Throughout the history of the Star Wars films it had been a tradition that actors who would wield a lightsaber where able to choose their own design of lightsaber. In Attack of the Clones however Hayden Christensen became the only actor not given that chance. He was stuck using a samer that was the same design as the one that Obi-Wan presented to Luke in A New Hope. Lucas has received (quite rightly) a lot of criticism over the years for his casting decisions. However in Attack of the Clones he pulled off an absolutely tremendous piece of casting in the form of Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. You would have imagined it would have been impossible to find an actor who could possibly live up to the wooden, emotionless and completely untalented performance of Jake Lloyd in Menace, but Christensen pulled it off, ensuring a seamless piece of transition in the character. Stunning vision from Lucas. And yes I'm being sarcastic! :D Christensen is absolutely dreadful here. Though the character and dialogue he got lumbered with didn't exactly provide him with much support. As I already detailed the romance is just dreadful, while the scene with his mother is so overwrought. After surviving for a whole month she decides to croak mere seconds after Anakin arrives, unable to finish the sentence “I love....” no matter how many times she tries. And instead of being heartbroken and grief stricken his reaction seems much more in the realm of throwing a childish little tantrum. The whole character of Anakin is so disappointing in relation to him eventually becoming Darth Vader. I mean for the love of god where is the darkness that should be residing within him? Instead all we get is this whiny little emo bitch who sulks his way through the film. There's no way this guy is going to become one of the greatest screen villains of all time. At most all he seems capable of is running up to his room (which is painted black of course), slamming the door, listening to some My Chemical Romance while pouting. And probably writing in a journal about how nobody likes him.

The first Star Wars sequel was shown up by The Matrix, while in my eyes Attack of the Clones, released between The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, is deep in the shadow of Lord of the Rings. Both franchises are attempting quite similar stories in the epic fantasy/sci-fi stakes but the Lord of the Rings films did it so, so much better. The story, the dialogue, the acting, the direction - on every level this is vastly inferior. And visually too this is just so second rate, the effects are still very ropey here when it comes to creating characters and attempting to give them life. Particularly bad is any occasion where a character either makes a large leap upwards or jumps down, they just look so cartoonish. George Lucas' constant fiddling with the Star Wars films is quite legendary these days, and not for positive reasons. Well the next time he feels himself getting an itchy trigger finger perhaps the films he should revisit are these first two prequels. If any special effects need ironed out it's those to be found here.

One of my main gripes with the prequels so far has been Lucas' penchant to always go for a cheap laugh, robbing scenes of any drama, emotion, tension etc. It's as if it's an addiction, like he has to do it. So little things like interrupting the chase after the assassin with a 'hilarious' reaction from an alien pilot, or Obi-Wan's alien friend having to pull up his trousers to cover his ass crack, or the dreadful fart humour from The Phantom Menace. Although Attack of the Clones did actually provide me with my first genuine laugh of the prequels, not including the unintentional ones of course. And it only took about three and a half hours! But I actually did allow myself a little laugh at the predicament C3PO finds himself in when his head is switched with that of a droid. I found it gently amusing and a nice callback to his troubles of the original trilogy. Although this time out it's almost ruined by some groaning puns - “this is such a drag!” and “I'm quite beside myself.”

As was the case in The Phantom Menace Ewan McGregor continues to fare the best, doing an excellent job to overcome the dialogue, direction and character development (or lack thereof) which has torpedoed just about every other performer so far. He gives Obi-Wan Kenobi a gravitas, making him both wise but also very arrogant on occasion. The other individual who I felt made an impression this time out was Christopher Lee, a very welcome addition as Count Dooku, bringing a nice weight and similar gravitas to his performance.

Conclusion - After the disaster that was The Phantom Menace you would have expected that surely the only way was up for Lucas. Well he did his damn best to make sure that wasn't the case. This is another extremely poor film that fails to address hardly any of the problems that plagued Menace. There are really only a couple of reasons as to why I would give this the nod over Episode I; the significantly reduced role of Jar Jar Binks and the increase in the action levels. Even if the action is not of the most thrilling standard it is at least more interesting to behold than the constant political conversations of Menace.

Sexy Celebrity

12-03-13, 10:23 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11894&stc=1&d=1386123788

I have been waiting DAYS to use this.

Mmmm Donuts

12-03-13, 11:35 PM

"Attack of the Clones has the undesirable accolade of being the only Star Wars film not to be the top earner at the US box office for the year it was released. It came in 3rd place, trailing behind Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. "

In their defense, both of those movies were big deals. Certainly leagues better than Attack of the Clones. :D

honeykid

12-04-13, 07:58 AM

I've seen it once, but I remember Attack Of The Clones being like a very long advert for the videogame which, I'm sure, followed it which, again I'm sure, looked exactly like the film and allowed you to do exactly the same things. In other words, it felt like watching someone do a walkthrough for Attack Of The Clones for 2 hours and whatever it was. That said, the dialogue in the cut scenes for the game were probably better than the film. :D

seanc

12-04-13, 01:50 PM

I want to defend Attack Of The Clones, I can't. By far the worst of the six films for me and the only one I have only seen twice. Even my six year old has not asked to see this one again.

If you haven't seen it Jaydee I think you may like episode three. The only one of the prequels that I truly care for.

The Gunslinger45

12-05-13, 12:52 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Of all the ***** sequels, this is the one I hate the most. Odd since I have watched it the most. But the points you made are spot on. The acting sucks, the chemistry is non-existent with Padme and Anakin, and Hayden Christensen is easily my most despised actor. Not only does this wooden schmuck have the charisma and personality of a cinder block, but he did it to one of the greatest villains EVER! Turning Vader from uber badass, to whiny bitch. What they needed to do was get an actor who made the character likable, but also with the ability to show that there was a darker side. Something hate filled and angry. The prequel gave me the sci fi equivalent of stupid high school BS! If they had cast Jessica Alba as Padme, I might have gone on an arson spree of Skywalker Ranch. And the amount of CGI is ridiculous! And not very good for that matter! At least Jar Jar had very few lines in the movie, but the fact that Hayden "worst thing about the prequels" Christensen is in it, automatically makes it the worst for me. Even with some of the mindless action.

gandalf26

12-05-13, 01:27 PM

Nice review JD. Particularly about Hayden Christensen.

What I think happened with the original trilogy is that Lucas had a lot of very, very good help. The sort of help that would throw away Lucas stupid ideas and fix the mess he was probably going to make, he even gave up the Director's chair for Empire and Jedi. As the years go by Lucas probably began to believe his own legend forgetting that he was simply the inventor of Star Wars and one of many people who came together to make it so fabled among film fans. So forgetting this he decides to crack on with the Prequels,even writing them hiself, now a billionaire corporate heavyweight who does he have around him to challenge his ideas, or dare tell him things he's doing badly. Emperor's new clothes type scenario.

Nostromo87

12-05-13, 02:30 PM

great review jaydee!
attack of the clones is almost like a How-To tutorial on how to make an atrocious Star Wars movie

Step 1: make young Darth Vader sound like a whiny girl? --- Check!
Step 2: have Yoda flip around like a ninja and totally contradict Empire's 'wars not make one great'? --- Check!
Step 3: enact a run-of-the-mill romance where young Vader and Padame recite bogus poetry to each other? :bored: --- Check!
Step 4: crappy looking flying ant bugs? --- Check!
Step 5: what else? i've done a pretty good job of blocking this movie from my memory
etc

Nostromo87

12-05-13, 02:40 PM

As was the case in The Phantom Menace Ewan McGregor continues to fare the best, doing an excellent job to overcome the dialogue, direction and character development (or lack thereof) which has torpedoed just about every other performer so far. He gives Obi-Wan Kenobi a gravitas, making him both wise but also very arrogant on occasion. The other individual who I felt made an impression this time out was Christopher Lee, a very welcome addition as Count Dooku, bringing a nice weight and similar gravitas to his performance.

i agree here, as bad as it was, these are the bright spots. McGregor makes a great young Obi Wan. wish i could see him surrounded by a better movie

Mmmm Donuts

12-05-13, 03:08 PM

Wait a minute, did Lucas direct all of the prequels? I honestly had no idea about that.

That actually explains a lot. A LOT.

gandalf26

12-05-13, 06:17 PM

i agree here, as bad as it was, these are the bright spots. McGregor makes a great young Obi Wan. wish i could see him surrounded by a better movie

I remember seeing a picture of Ewan sat looking totally despondent in his Jedi cloak between takes surrounded by green screen.

mark f

12-05-13, 06:48 PM

He needed a Midi-chlorian Energy Drink.

Nostromo87

12-05-13, 06:54 PM

I remember seeing a picture of Ewan sat looking totally despondent in his Jedi cloak between takes surrounded by green screen.

definition #37 in the Oxford English Dictionary for impressive:
managing to still look kinda cool despite being in the Prequels

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0uctxlMJ31rn854oo1_500.gif

honeykid

12-06-13, 05:01 AM

What I think happened with the original trilogy is that Lucas had a lot of very, very good help. The sort of help that would throw away Lucas stupid ideas and fix the mess he was probably going to make, he even gave up the Director's chair for Empire and Jedi. As the years go by Lucas probably began to believe his own legend forgetting that he was simply the inventor of Star Wars and one of many people who came together to make it so fabled among film fans. So forgetting this he decides to crack on with the Prequels,even writing them hiself, now a billionaire corporate heavyweight who does he have around him to challenge his ideas, or dare tell him things he's doing badly. Emperor's new clothes type scenario.
I agree completely. This is pretty much what I said/feared would happen in the late 90's. Rather than just seeing people would love to see the trilogy again and that there was an audience out there for more, Lucas seemed to see the special edition tweaks as the pull and made 3 new films of them.

JayDee

12-06-13, 08:34 PM

Well we've got another queue-jumper of a review here! Like Thor: The Dark World this one has jumped the queue because it's a film which is currently in cinemas, and I know how many of you wait for my opinion before deciding what to spend your money on at your local cinema! :p I had only intended on it being a short micro musing but it just kept on going

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Alfonso Cuarón

Written by
Alfonso Cuarón
Jonás Cuarón

Starring
Sandra Bullock
George Clooney
Ed Harris (voice)

Gravity

4
(I think.....maybe.....probably.......I'll have a think and get back to you!)

Plot - Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is medical engineer on her first shuttle mission on board the space shuttle Explorer. She is accompanied by veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney) who is commanding his final expedition before his retirement. During a supposedly routine spacewalk to service the Hubble telescope however disaster strikes. High-speed debris from a destroyed satellite strikes the Explorer, destroying the shuttle and killing everyone on board, leaving only Stone and Kowalsky left alive and all alone, tethered to nothing but each other and spiralling off into the infinite blackness of space.

As you can tell from my humming and hawing over the score above I'm not entirely sure how to judge and rate Gravity, largely because it doesn't really thrive in the areas where I would usually fixate on for a film. For a start its plot it exceptionally simple. I think Dude Where's Your Car had a more complex and intricate plot than this does! You really could give a very thorough summary of everything that occurs throughout the entire film in a single sentence. The film also doesn't push any boundaries with its dialogue or its characters. The dialogue is minimal and hardly the kind of work that will be studied for years to come in screenwriting classes, while the characters are largely blank slates with little in the way of characterisation. So as a 'film' in the classic respects there's not a great deal to it. As an event or an experience however it's a completely different matter. On those terms it is absolutely, truly, undeniably astonishing. And astonishing on an almost inconceivable level. I mean I honestly cannot fathom how some of this film was constructed. I would be absolutely fascinated to watch the special features on the future DVD to see just how Cuarón pulled some of this off. In particular the film's opening shot which unfolds in one singular and unbroken take (which apparently lasts for 17 minutes) really needs to be seen to be believed and will assuredly earn itself a place in cinema history when people discuss such things.

So as a 'film' I don't know what exactly to make of it. As a technical exercise and a feat of film-making however it is an incredible achievement. And I really can't go any further without addressing the film's special effects. While going into space may be a dream for many of us, and despite what Richard Branson may think, the overwhelming majority of us are unlikely ever to have that experience. In Gravity however we have the closest thing we may ever have to realising it. Right away from the film's opening images of Earth viewed from orbit you just know you are about to witness something special. Some of the CGI on show here is at a level we have hitherto never seen before. The way it captures the incomprehensible vastness of space as well as the sheer beauty to be found up there is exceptional. It really wouldn't take a lot of effort to convince a slightly gullible person that Cuarón and co. actually went into space itself to shoot the film. Cuarón takes full advantage of these astonishing effects to compose some wonderful shots. There's one shot where the camera pulls out for a extreme wide shot of Bullock's character floating off into the infinite canvas of space, becoming nothing but a tiny speck, that had several filmgoers around me gasping and producing mutterings of “wow.” Gravity also marks the rare occasion where I would actually encourage anyone wanting to see the film to watch it in 3D. I'm not a proponent for the technology but here I think it's almost a must. As with James Cameron's Avatar it was the 3D that added so much to Gravity's status as a real 'event.' As with Avatar however it makes me question how much I'll enjoy the film when it's relegated to the comparatively tiny screen of my TV and it's non-3D capabilities. Is there enough here as a film that it can stand on its own? Or when you remove the experience factor I've talked about does it greatly hurt the enjoyment.

As I said earlier the script and story are actually really quite simplistic, especially for a film being hailed as a masterpiece, with a great number of contrivances present. What you essentially have is a good old-fashioned survival movie/thriller. It takes the idea of being ship-wrecked that we've seen numerous times before but just transports it from one immense expanse (the ocean) to another (space). And on these terms the film is exceptionally effective. It's an extremely tense, nerve-shredding experience. A problem throughout the film for Bullock's character is that she is breathing too fast, depleting her levels of oxygen. Well for me I was in the exact opposite position. The film is so unbearably tense, and for such a large majority of the time, that I actually found myself not breathing. I was also so tensed up that I would frequently notice that I had balled my hands into tight fists. The film really does present a truly horrifying prospect to ponder. If you ever held dreams of becoming an astronaut then this may well and truly extinguish them. Watching how close and how easily the characters can succumb to disaster, through no fault of their own, is a frightening prospect. And putting myself in their shoes was really quite unsettling as I imagined how horrible it would be to just drift off into the vast emptiness. Oh and the moments where the characters are floating around untethered and needing to grab a hold of something to ground themselves are wrought with anxiety as we watch them desperately grasping at objects that slip through their fingers. It is an immersive and truly captivating experience.

Film Trivia Snippets - Considering how big a star he is it may come as rather a shock that if you don't include the Ocean's franchise this is actually the first film starring George Clooney to break the $100 million mark at the US box office since The Perfect Storm all the way back in 2000. /// In a nice little touch the off-screen voice of Mission Control is provided by Ed Harris. Harris played the same role in 1995's Apollo 13, and also portrayed astronaut John Glenn in The Right Stuff. /// During filming for an underwater scene, Alfonso Cuarón held his breath along with Sandra Bullock to make sure that he wasn't asking too much of her. In the end he found that he was unable to match Bullock's lung power. /// When she manages to reach the Russian Soyuz capsule Dr Stone puts on a spacesuit that has a patch with the number 42 on it. As anyone who read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will know 42 is "the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" A frequent complaint levelled at science fiction films down the years, and one that has still rarely been addressed and corrected, is the issue of sound in space. The likes of Star Trek and Star Wars have often been ridiculed for their loud explosions and the pew-pew of their lasers given that in the vacuum of space there is no air, and hence no sound. Now while you could accuse Gravity of embellishing the truth on some aspects for dramatic effect, here it adheres to fact, allowing proceedings to unfold in silence except for the terrified gasps and laboured breathing of Sandra Bullock and Steven Price's exceptional score. As well as lending the film authenticity I think it actually worked in building the sense of anxiety and dread. With all the explosions and carnage going on around them, having it occur in utter silence I actually found to be a strangely unnerving experience.

Acting duties pretty much fall solely on the shoulders of Sandra Bullock. I've actually been rather surprised at the number of people on here expressing a strong dislike towards her, with some even going as far as stating that she was the sole reason why they were not interested in watching the film. Now personally I've got to say that I've always liked Bullock, finding her an immensely likeable and charming performer. And I've got to say that here in Gravity I thought she was just absolutely exceptional. While I wouldn't quite put it on the same standing as Tom Hanks' amazing solo performance in Cast Away she really does carry this film. I felt that she conveyed the sheer terror of the situation wonderfully through her facial expressions and her eyes. A lot of people weren't exactly over-joyed that she picked up an Oscar for her work on The Blind Side. If she was to become a two-time winner however I'm struggling to imagine how too many people could argue with it. I think that she deserves every award that will undoubtedly come her way.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before eventually going into production Gravity had been languishing in development hell for four years because the film's ambition in terms of cinematography, visual effects and realistic "story atmosphere" of outer space had been beyond the limits of the current technology. That changed however with the release of James Cameron's Avatar which showed that the technology had advanced to the required levels. /// Alfonso Cuarón developed the script at Universal and originally hoped to cast Angelina Jolie, and according to some sources she was officially cast. Universal decided however that the film would be too expensive and put the film into turnaround. The project was picked up by Warner Brothers with Cuarón casting Bullock and Robert Downey Jr. in late 2010. Downey had to drop out at the end of the year however due to scheduling conflicts. /// Following Jolie's departure from the project and before Bullcok was cast Natalie Portman turned down the role while all of the following actresses were either tested or approached to take on the role - Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Carey Milligan, Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Blake Lively, Rebecca Hall and Olivia Wilde. I also felt that George Clooney was a really smart piece of casting as her fellow astronaut, Lietenant Matt Kowalski. As a character Kowalski is actually quite a bland, nondescript individual. We don't learn a single thing about him and there is no great interest generated by his actions; even in these unimaginably horrific conditions he remains completely calm and controlled throughout. He's a character that you could very easily forget ever existed as soon as he disappears from the screen. So to make sure he makes some sort of impression upon the viewer, you need to cast someone with a natural charm and an easy-going warmth and Clooney certainly falls into that category. He is also responsible for the very rare moments of levity in the film, providing some welcome relief from the near continuous tension that permeates proceedings. Considering the situation facing them, having the characters introduce humour could easily have come across as straining credibility. Thanks to Clooney however you just accept it.

Now while Gravity is pretty thin on the surface of things there certainly is deeper meaning to be found here, largely within its symbolic imagery. I've got to say that I'm not completely sure on what to take from the film. I don't know if that's just on me or if it's because the film leaves the allegories open to interpretation depending on the viewer. Many people will undoubtedly find the film to be strongly religious, and that is obviously part of it with numerous symbols to be found such as a picture of Jesus on one of the space stations and a statue of Buddha on the other. While the astronauts talking to mission control in Houston “in the blind”, unsure of whether anyone is actually able to hear them, is very much reminiscent of prayer and faith. I'm not religious however and as an atheist what most strongly struck me initially was the film being symbolic of humanity at large and our life cycle, covering life, death, beauty and pain. Amongst the most obvious imagery is that of rebirth. One of the more striking images of the film sees Sandra Bullock, having finally made it into the safe womb of a space station, curling up into the foetal position with the airhose of her spacesuit falling into place as an obvious umbilical cord. There is a similar scene at the film's conclusion. After crash-landing into the water she struggles to reach the surface, being dragged down by the weight of her suit. She escapes from her suit, symbolically shedding her skin, and emerges from the water reborn, struggling to make it to her feet and stumbling like an infant taking her first steps. If the first scene is about the beginnings of the individual, then that final scene feels like the beginnings of mankind in general, representative of evolution. Like the creatures we descended from, Bullock has to drag her self from the waters that attempt to contain her and as we see her struggling to get a grip in the mud we see her essentially emerging out of the primordial ooze. She struggles out of the water onto on all fours, then pulls herself up to a hunched, ape-like position before finally being able to stand erect on her own feet. It's like the realisation of Darwin's theory of evolution in one quick shot. While those of a religious way of thinking could obviously take this scene to represent a baptism by water for the character.

The film uses the individual of Dr. Stone as a symbol for the life of every human, using her situation in space to mirror her life back on Earth. Watching her drift through space acts as a metaphor for the character drifting aimlessly through life following the tragic death of her daughter. Her journey and eventual arrival back on Earth is symbolic of her having to overcome her past and move on. Several times throughout the film she could easily give up, and she actually does on occasion, but then she discovers the will to live, the will to go on. Up until this point she had understandably been unable to let go of what happened to her daughter, just as she doesn't want to let go of Matt in the film but eventually has to if she herself wants to survive. The random and unpredictability of life and its sometimes cruel nature is reflected both in terms of the Murphy's Law predicament Dr. Stone finds herself in; that everything that can go wrong will go wrong, and the tragic and meaningless death of her daughter. Just as then she now has to find the will to go on and fight for her own life in spite of all the cruel blows she has been handed. Her floating all alone out there in space is like all of us just hurtling through the universe on this simple little planet, with only ourselves and each other to rely on. Another way of interpreting events in the film is to see it as a representation of humanity's relationship with space. Bullock curling up in the figurative womb could be symbolic of how mankind as a whole is merely an infant in galactic terms. Man may have walked on the moon nigh on 45 years ago now but we are still mere newborns when it comes to exploring and existing in space and with so much to learn.
Conclusion - As an example of what is now possible in terms of technology there is no doubt that Gravity is a landmark film. Alongside it's boundary-pushing CGI the film also features astonishing examples of editing, sound design, cinematography and direction. When it comes to the technical awards at this year's Oscars I don't think any of the other films will need to bother showing up. Where it is less ground-breaking however is in its story and its characters, meaning that I didn't connect with it on a really deep level. Whenever I see a magazine or website list it as the best film of 2013 I will not feel any need to argue against it. On a personal level however I think I loved the likes of Rush, Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World more and can certainly see me wanting to re-watch them more often. What I really need is to re-watch the film on a standard TV to see how it holds up without the addition of the big screen, 3D experience. Oh and on a side note can I say how nice it was to see a big event movie with a running time of just 90 minutes! When I was growing up all films seemed to be 90 minutes but these days at least 2 hours seems to be pretty much the standard.

Daniel M

12-06-13, 08:52 PM

Someone elsewhere asked me for my thoughts on the film, and they kind of act as a balance to some of your comments about plot and character:

Definitely not [boring and gimmicky], it's a fantastic film to watch for it's visuals, but that's not to say that the rest disappointments. Just because it is like nothing you will have seen before visually, that doesn't mean that it's not a traditional disaster movie, which is exactly what the plot moves like. Mark Kermode says it well when he describes the story like that of a B-movie, we move from one segment to each other, each a disaster, everything that could go wrong does, even Cuaron himself admits that the storyline is impossible, and would never actually happen, but you go along with it and enjoy the thrill.

The normal dangers that you associate with a disaster movie feel more real and closer than ever despite being in space, at moments I had my heart in my mouth. Bullock is great in her role, and I think Clooney has unfairly been receiving some criticism (not really, but a lot of people call him one of the 'weaker parts') for his role, which I found added a nice bit of balance and comedy to the whole thing. The characters themselves are not greatly developed in terms of story, but this is not a movie about that, it's a disaster film but because of the hype people expect it to be more.

I think people are being too harsh and are expecting something else when at heart it is like a good old fun disaster film where plot and character aren't as important as the visuals and thrills.

Cobpyth

12-06-13, 09:23 PM

SPOILERS! Don't read my post if you haven't seen the film Gravity!

@Daniel: Hmmm, I wouldn't classify it as just a usual disaster movie. This film is definitely more than that.

I saw Gravity's story as some sort of life lesson. The main scene for me was the surreal moment when Clooney's character climbs back in the space craft and convinces Sandra's character to focus on the positive things in life, in stead of her sorrow.
I know it sounds like a cliché message, but I thought it was a very effective moment in the film. Maybe it was because the audience in my theater was responding so well. Everyone was literally sniffling when Sandra was letting herself go and when she closed her eyes and then suddenly George comes in, makes a witty remark and everyone starts laughing, while still having tears in their eyes. Brilliant stuff! Mainstream cinema at ist best, in my opinion.

The filmmakers were letting the audience experience the fact that the smallest thing can get you going again, as long as you are open for it. It's basically the main existential message that many philosophers, storytellers and film directors already told before. You have to find the purpose and the beauty of life inside yourself first and then you can find happiness in even the smallest moments and most evident things, like in the final scene, just standing on a beach, feeling the gravity of Earth, makes dr. Ryan Stone feel alive again, ready to go through with her life, in stead of giving up.
The message is comparable with scenes like the 'strawberry scene' in The Seventh Seal or the moment in Stardust Memories with Louis Armstrong's Stardust playing while Woody is watching his ladylove just reading a book on the floor.

Gravity may not be graving as deep into the real substance of finding meaning in life like the two other films I've mentioned, but I think it has its qualities on that field too (depicted in a way we rarely see in its genre), which makes it a more interesting film to watch content-wise (so not only in terms of visuals) than an ordinary disaster movie, in my opinion.

Anyway, great review, JayDee! Very in detail!

rauldc14

12-06-13, 09:28 PM

Gravity will surely be a favorite of mine for years to come, and I agree with everything Cobpyth had to say.

mark f

12-06-13, 10:27 PM

Gravity is undoubtedly a better experience in the theatre (what good movie isn't?), but I think it will play exceptionally well at home too. Some of you guys have to stop sounding like you're apologizing for liking/loving it. :)

seanc

12-06-13, 10:36 PM

Count me in the I love Gravity camp, my favorite of the year thus far. I have never used the term "immersed in a film" until seeing this. The best theater experience I have ever had and as someone who loves going to the theater that will count for something even if the film loses a little at home.

Personally I think the knocks on the story are being a little over stated. Surely someone who preferred Thor and Iron Man to this would agree.:D When I hear people talk about 2001, that's how I think and hope I will be talking about Gravity in twenty years, it was that kind of experience. As for 2001, it took me three sittings to get through because I kept falling asleep and had to back track. Shhh, don't tell the Kubrickians around here. I am rambling but the point is, different films hit people different ways.

mark f

12-06-13, 10:56 PM

I guess if Cuaron had made Gravitas it'd be considered deeper and duller. :)

Sexy Celebrity

12-07-13, 12:51 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11971&stc=1&d=1386391886

The Gunslinger45

12-07-13, 01:07 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Count me as someone who loved Gravity! The 3D is spectacular! And I admit I do not like paying extra money to see a movie in 3D, and I prefer it as a gimmick ala Drive Angry, but I still thought it was an awesome film! I admit I did not rush out to see this movie at first. Not because of Bullock who is one of my favorite actresses, but because of Clooney, one of my least favorite actors.

As for how it will play out on home viewing, I think it will do fine. The cinematography I think is good enough to still wow people, and Bullock does a damn good job on screen. I will admit that I think the best way to view this movie is in 3D on the big screen as intended. Which can be done with large 3D TV's, but if you do not have one I don't think it is dire important to rush out and buy one just so you can watch this movie.

gandalf26

12-08-13, 06:58 AM

Your right about Gravity being an event that must be seen on big screen/3d, but I'm not sure I'll be particularly bothered about seeing it on a TV screen. As an event though I had to give it 9.5/10. So tense to watch and amazing visually especially the Earth being so big and clear in the background.

cinemaafficionado

12-08-13, 12:39 PM

mark f

12-08-13, 12:43 PM

Because... it's a strangely reasonable modern movie. :)

honeykid

12-08-13, 12:58 PM

What I don't get about Gravity, if it does have great special effects and is meant for the big screen, why is it only 90 minutes long?
Wha? Grrrr.
Because... it's a strangely reasonable modern movie. :)
Exactly. If only the rest of Hollywood would get this. *sigh*

gandalf26

12-08-13, 01:02 PM

Movie Muse, some of us don't go to movie theaters, so reviews come in handy for getting Dvd's:D.
What I don't get about Gravity, if it does have great special effects and is meant for the big screen, why is it only 90 minutes long?

Mainly I would say because not a great deal happens. It's essentially a disaster/survival film with 2 people in space, no real plot complexity to get stuck into or side plots. It's exactly as long as it needs to be.

Sexy Celebrity

12-08-13, 05:01 PM

Post another review. I have another picture in the queue.

Brodinski

12-09-13, 03:23 PM

^ You taking off Tom Daley's speedo's with your teeth?

JayDee

12-09-13, 09:00 PM

Nice to see some attention and love for Runaway Train. Back when I watched it a few months ago and did a search of the board there really didn't seem to be much said about it.

Great reviews. Just been catching up, great job.

Good man! :up:

I want to defend Attack Of The Clones, I can't. By far the worst of the six films for me and the only one I have only seen twice. Even my six year old has not asked to see this one again.

If you haven't seen it Jaydee I think you may like episode three. The only one of the prequels that I truly care for.

I thought you said that despite the flaws you were still able to enjoy all the prequels, putting them about a 3.

Well I watched all 3 back to back a month or two ago. You'll just have to wait and see what I thought of it! :p

What I think happened with the original trilogy is that Lucas had a lot of very, very good help. The sort of help that would throw away Lucas stupid ideas and fix the mess he was probably going to make, he even gave up the Director's chair for Empire and Jedi. As the years go by Lucas probably began to believe his own legend forgetting that he was simply the inventor of Star Wars and one of many people who came together to make it so fabled among film fans. So forgetting this he decides to crack on with the Prequels,even writing them hiself, now a billionaire corporate heavyweight who does he have around him to challenge his ideas, or dare tell him things he's doing badly. Emperor's new clothes type scenario.

Absolutely. :yup: Think I said something along the lines in one of the reviews but not sure

I remember seeing a picture of Ewan sat looking totally despondent in his Jedi cloak between takes surrounded by green screen.

Yeah I remember a few years back when he appeared on Top Gear he talked about how the original trilogy was excellent, and then the films he made were "the films I made." He also talked about how ridiculous he found the whole constant green screen experience

Gravity is undoubtedly a better experience in the theatre (what good movie isn't?), but I think it will play exceptionally well at home too. Some of you guys have to stop sounding like you're apologizing for liking/loving it. :)

That's fair enough but I think it's more true of some films than others. For example 2/3 months ago I watched the Richard Curtis film About Time, and found it a rather charming and delightful flick. It's such a small, personal film that I can pretty much guarantee it will work exactly the same on DVD. I'm just wondering that without the 3D and the huge screen Gravity might lose its wow factor. And if it does I'm not sure there's enough of everything else to sustain it. Not saying I would all of a sudden hate it but the score may drop a little.

Personally I think the knocks on the story are being a little over stated. Surely someone who preferred Thor and Iron Man to this would agree.:D When I hear people talk about 2001, that's how I think and hope I will be talking about Gravity in twenty years, it was that kind of experience. As for 2001, it took me three sittings to get through because I kept falling asleep and had to back track. Shhh, don't tell the Kubrickians around here. I am rambling but the point is, different films hit people different ways.

Woah settle down there, no need for insults! Perhaps I was a little harsh in the review. It's not that I felt the story was weak, just rather thin, especially for a film that was being sold to me as a masterpiece beforehand. And whether you think it achieved it or not surely you'd have to say that Thor and Iron Man at least attempted something more in terms of its story and characters. Oh and by the way I'm not alone in loving Iron Man 3. Empire recently did a review of the year, and had all 20 of their reviewers compile a top 10 list. IM3 appeared on 8 of the 20 lists and overall got enough points to come in 7th place. So there!!! Yes Gravity came in at #1 and by a wide margin but that's beside the point! :p

Oh and smart move trying to keep that one quiet. The Kubrickians are like the original Christopher Nolan fanboys! You won't like them when they're angry. :D I had actually been going to make a comparison in the review about how Gravity is very much like 2001....except that you know, it's actually interesting! :p

Post another review. I have another picture in the queue.

Hmmm....that makes me want to leave it for a while just to frustrate you! :D Or I could post like 15 in a single day to really test you!

Sexy Celebrity

12-09-13, 09:31 PM

Or I could post like 15 in a single day to really test you!

Ooooh!!

JayDee

12-10-13, 08:39 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Sam Mendes

Written by
Neal Purvis
Robert Wade
John Logan

Starring
Daniel Craig
Javier Bardem
Judi Dench
Ralph Fiennes
Naomi Harris
Ben Whishaw

Skyfall

3 -

Plot - James Bond (Craig) returns once again in this new adventure. When his latest assignment goes spectacularly wrong, the identities of agents all over the world are exposed. Following this, MI6 is attacked forcing M (Dench) to relocate the agency. These events cause her authority and position to be challenged by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. With MI6 now compromised from both the inside and out, M is left with only one ally she can trust: Bond. 007 takes to the shadows - aided only by field agent, Eve (Naomie Harris) - following a trail to the mysterious Silva (Javier Bardem), whose lethal and hidden motives have yet to reveal themselves.

First off let me lay out my feelings on the Daniel Craig era of Bond so far for people who haven't already seen them on here before (and just to annoy Brodinski again! :D). I have been a fan of the Bond films for a long time, usually always finding something to enjoy through all the different incarnations; from the original Connery period to Moore's campier adventures, Dalton's nastier efforts to the series' resurrection under Brosnan. So far however the Daniel Craig era just hasn't done it for me. Up front I will freely admit that his outings have probably been the closest to Ian Fleming's original source material, but for me they just don't feel like 'proper' Bond films. It's not the Bond that I've grown up with and become accustomed to. So I perhaps went into this with a bit of a chip on my shoulder and an axe to grind. I just don't find the same level of fun and charm anymore, and I haven't really taken to Daniel Craig in any way whatsoever.

And that's where we shall begin, with Mr James Bond himself, Daniel Craig. I have not warmed to him at all. It's not that I think he's necessarily bad in the role, it's just that he doesn't excite, or even interest me whatsoever as Bond. I don't get the sense of any charm, presence, charisma etc. I actually find him rather bland, and just feel he is taking himself way too seriously in the role. And combined with the fact that his look just doesn't feel very Bond to me, I'm still not able to buy into him. The Bond character should be beyond cool, he should embody that sentiment of 'men want to be him and women want to be with him.' I just don't see it. And in Skyfall I didn't feel that any of the attempts at humour from the character really hit, coming across as rather creaky thanks to the script and the fact it doesn't seem to be in Craig's wheelhouse. In his defence however I will say that I don't think he has been particularly well served by the character. Back in Casino Royale we found ourselves in the presence of a raw, flawed and vulnerable Bond. That was acceptable because as people argued that was him just starting out, he hadn't yet become the secret agent we had become accustomed to over the decades. However it's three films later now and I don't feel the character has really progressed all that much, either emotionally or in terms of how good he is at his job.

Then we come to the villain of the piece, Javier Bardem's Silva. I certainly wouldn't call it a 'great' performance and am surprised about the amount of praise and awards recognition he got, but I did find it to be rather entertaining. Bardem plays his role very camp and over-the-top. And as such he was certainly one of the film's livelier components. Given the flamboyant style of performance however I'm not sure that it sat all that comfortably with the rest of the film. Alongside the tone of the film as a whole his performance feels quite outlandish. With his eccentric and oddball nature, manic ravings and physical disfigurement he feels more like a villain who has managed to escape from one of Roger Moore's 70s-era Bond films, and I just don't feel that it sat naturally with the more serious, down-to-earth inclinations of the Daniel Craig era. It seemed like an uncomfortable marriage.

There were however some success stories to be found amongst the supporting cast. Judi Dench is as strong and wonderful a presence as you would expect in this, her swansong as M. As her future replacement, and even if he doesn't have a great deal to do here, Ralph Fiennes is rock solid and shows some promise in the role of M going forward. Even if his section of the film has its problems (more on that later) Albert Finney brings a lot of character as the caretaker of Bond's old family home. In the role of Eve, Rosemary Harris proves to be smart, tough and sexy. While the addition of Ben Whishaw as Q finally brings a little bit of fun into this world, he's very endearing as the geeky gadget maestro, even if he didn't really have any gadgets to hand out. His inclusion finally brings some humour to the series.

Film Trivia Snippets - A large number of actresses were considered to fulfill the role of a Bond girl. Amongst those were Freida Pinto, Olivia Wilde, Rachel Weisz, Esti Ginzburg, Margarita Levieva, Alice Eve, Ana Ventura, Emilia Fox and Ebru Akel. /// Before Javier Bardem slipped into the role of Silva it was rumoured that Sam Mendes originally offered the role to his old American Beauty comrade Kevin Spacey. Spacey apparently had to decline due to scheduling conflicts. /// For the first time in the history of the Bond series, during the iconic gun-barrel sequence which opens the film Bond is seen wearing a grey suit rather than his customary black one. /// Following the film's release, online retailers apparently reported sales increases of cut-throat razors of between 50 and 400%. /// Skyfall was the first Bond movie to earn an Oscar nomination in over 30 years. The last occasion was 1981's For Your Eyes Only which was nominated for Best Song. And it was the first time that a Bond film had actually won an Oscar since Thunderball all the way back in 1965! /// Considering the amount of classic songs that the series has inspired, and the number of legends who have performed them, it may come as quite the surprise to learn that Adele's win for Skyfall is the first time a Bond song has ever won the Best Song Oscar.The plot itself is actually really basic and familiar; there's a list with the identity of agents and we need to get it back. And in fact it's so old a story that we have seen it played out through pretty much every form of technology over the decades, from having the list on a USB stick, to a CD disc, to a floppy disc, to microfiche, to a cassette tape and all the way back to simple pen and paper. It certainly doesn't break the mould in terms of originality. I also felt that the casino scene and the character of Severine were complete flops. One of the things I did enjoy however were some of the little nods to classic Bond movies, very fitting given it marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. No's release. Alongside some smaller and vaguer references some of my favourite homages included the return of the Aston Martin from Goldfinger (complete with a hint to the ejector seat), Bond stepping on a reptile's head to aid his escape a la Live and Let Die, Silva's prosthetic jaw mimicking Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me and Q informing Bond that they don't make silly gadgets like exploding pens anymore; such a gadget featured in Goldeneye.

I'm a bit torn on the film's third act. On the one hand it finally brings some energy and action to the film which proved rather dialogue-heavy for much of its running time. On the other hand however the conclusion itself felt drawn out and fairly unsatisfying. To begin with, the whole logic of Silva's plan seems rather convoluted. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. The man is apparently quite the genius; you think he could come up with a simpler plan to get to M than what he put into production. It also doesn't help that it features a twist that seems to feature in just about every other action/thriller/superhero film that appears in cinemas these days; that the villain gets caught about halfway through the film but it turns out that he just allowed himself to get caught deliberately as part of his larger plan. The ensuing escape, train crash, chase and assault at M's public inquiry is a decently thrilling stretch of the film (if really far-fetched) but it almost feels like the film should end there at that inquiry. Instead the film resets, stops for a 5-10 minute breather before unleashing its true finale, and it then went on too long in my eyes. And it didn't even seem to really make much sense. M and Bond have been targeted by a dangerous psycho; so what do they do? They head off to a deserted location with no help nearby and no guarantee of weapons, and then they purposely lead Silva right to them. WHAT?!!! In what realm does that sound like a good plan? Bond then goes all Kevin McAlliser on us by setting up a series of booby traps to take out Silva's faceless goons. But it doesn't end here, or even in the water where Bond nearly drowns battling another goon. It ends at a chapel where after putting so much effort into killing her, Silva then passes on the chance to kill M, allowing Bond to slink in and take him out with a knife to the back. And that's it. How underwhelming! Where's the brutal smackdown we expect to take place between Bond and Silva? Very disappointing.

The one saving grace of that finale, and indeed probably the best thing about the whole film, was its cinematography courtesy of Roger Deakins. First of all you've got his lovely photography capturing the gorgeous Scottish scenery. And then after Bond's family home is blown to smithereens the rest of the sequence plays out with a wonderful orange glow to proceedings, giving it a really quite eerie tinge. The scenes set in Shanghai are likewise superb, a fantastically exotic location of neon lights, otherwordly technology and striking architecture; immersing us in a completely different culture. Outside of that though, this was still a struggle for me and not my Bond.

I've kind of ran out of steam here so I'm just going to abandon any semblance of a review and throw out some additional comments. Even if its constant radio airplay drove me to near insanity at the time, Adele's theme song is pretty damn good. It's the best in a good long while and harkens back to the grand anthems of the 70s and 80s. I wasn't quite as sold on the credit sequence that it accompanied; it had a couple of cool images but overall I felt it was a little bit of a mess, and an example of trying way too hard. The film's lack of fun was heightened I felt by its cold, grey colour palette during the London scenes and a lack of score for much of the time. It left it feeling lifeless too often, and aesthetically it was tough to tell it apart from any number of BBC dramas; Sherlock, Spooks etc. Though again it was decently captured by Deakins. And Silva's deserted island held a bit of interest in terms of appearance with its debris stricken streets and crumbling buildings.

Conclusion - The film is certainly a considerable improvement on Quantum of Solace, but then that's not really any great a feat. In fact there's a good chance I'd probably nominate QoS as the dullest of all the Bonds. So all in all, while it's an improvement on its predecessor it still hasn't won me round to this new era of Bond. In fact these days, following the rather superlative Ghost Protocol I think the Mission: Impossible series has become the go-to source if you're looking for fun, old-fashioned Bond-style adventures. Sadly for myself and others who feel similarly to me however, it doesn't seem like Daniel Craig or this current template will be going anywhere anytime soon; not going by the monstrous box-office numbers it put up.

Sexy Celebrity

12-10-13, 08:46 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11993&stc=1&d=1386722748

Mmmm Donuts

12-10-13, 08:49 PM

Nice review Jaydee! I'm certainly not an expert on Bond films (having seen only a handful of the classics), so it's nice to get an opinion from the perspective of a real fan.

I would probably give it about the same score myself. The last act was just so bizarre to me. Like you said, is he really going back to his roots while a crazy man is trying to kill them?

I admit that I kind of loved Bardem's character though. His relationship to M was fascinating to me. But yes, his schemes were pretty silly.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

EDIT: I also liked that nerdy guy. I don't know if he's a regular or a newcomer, but he had a nice personality about him.

Cobpyth

12-10-13, 08:57 PM

Conclusion - The film is certainly a considerable improvement on Quantum of Solace, but then that's not really any great a feat. In fact there's a good chance I'd probably nominate QoS as the dullest of all the Bonds. So all in all, while it's an improvement on its predecessor it still hasn't won me round to this new era of Bond. In fact these days, following the rather superlative Ghost Protocol I think the Mission: Impossible series has become the go-to source if you're looking for fun, old-fashioned Bond-style adventures. Sadly for myself and others who feel similarly to me however, it doesn't seem like Daniel Craig or this current template will be going anywhere anytime soon; not going by the monstrous box-office numbers it put up.

I agree. The Bond films need to go back to their early roots, in my opinion, but it seems that the idea of James Bond as a pure action hero is popular with audiences and that's why they won't seperate from their contemporary Daniel Craig Bond. It's a pitty. The charm of the series is mostly gone because of this. James Bond has become just another action hero that is part of an action serie. Apart from the few classic quotes, he isn't recognizable anymore.

Daniel M

12-10-13, 09:56 PM

Skyfall is a very good film, perhaps it's not a very good 'Bond film', but that shouldn't stop it from being great overall. I grew up with and loved the old Bond films, my favourite Bond might even be the hated Roger Moore, my favourite film might be the at times over the top and silly Live and Let Die, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the newer films in any way. I'll expand on why I think it's a good film tomorrow perhaps (too tired now), as you seem to have genuine concerns about it as a normal film too unfortunately :(

The Gunslinger45

12-10-13, 10:17 PM

Godoggo

12-10-13, 10:20 PM

Skyfall is one of two Bond films that I've seen; one because of Benicio Del Toro and the other because of Javier Bardem. Unless, there is another Bond with an actor that I just have to see their entire body of work, I doubt I'll ever see another.

For me Bardem was the best thing about the movie but it was still my least favorite performance by him. Even worse than Golden Balls. :)

seanc

12-10-13, 10:45 PM

I knew I liked to hang out here for a reason. In the real world I feel like the only person who was not blown away by this film. More than a little underwhelming. Like Godoggo I am a big Bardem fan. I will try to forget I saw him in this movie though. The only thing I disagree with in this review Jaydee is that Ghost Protocol is a good film.:D

Masterman

12-11-13, 01:44 PM

Nice review. Not a big Bond fan, but I have enjoyed the latest ones.

Sexy Celebrity

12-11-13, 07:31 PM

Gandalf, I'm surprised you gave me rep for O-Ren. Thank you.

Gabrielle947

12-11-13, 08:48 PM

Nice to see some dislike for Skyfall :up:

gandalf26

12-12-13, 08:53 PM

Gandalf, I'm surprised you gave me rep for O-Ren. Thank you.

Misclick. My Staff must have fallen on the mouse again.

JayDee

12-12-13, 09:02 PM

Misclick. My Staff must have fallen on the mouse again.

Is that the euphemism you use for 'little gandalf' yeah?

gandalf26

12-12-13, 09:31 PM

Well I was indulging in a spot of Porn earlier this evening so that's possible too.

Mmmm Donuts

12-12-13, 09:34 PM

Well I was indulging in a spot of Porn earlier this evening so that's possible too.

I think everyone deserves a spot of porn every now and then. As for relating that to "little Gandalf" and your staff, I'm telling my brain to not read into it.

Sexy Celebrity

12-12-13, 09:38 PM

So Gandalf's penis gave me a rep point?

Mmmm Donuts

12-12-13, 09:41 PM

It would appear so. Does this please you?

Sexy Celebrity

12-12-13, 09:45 PM

YES! The positive rep button is my G spot.

JayDee

12-14-13, 03:02 PM

Another film revisited for the long gestating update to my top 100 list.

This also acts as a rebuttal of sorts to Rodent's views on the film which he detailed here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=983276). Now in general Rodent and I share quite similar taste in films. However when it comes to Star Trek we differ wildly. While this is my favourite of all the Trek films, Rodent ranks this as his least favourite. The fool!!! :p

mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Jonathan Frakes

Written by
Brannon Braga
Ronald D. Moore

Starring
Patrick Stewart
Brent Spiner
Jonathan Frakes
LeVar Burton
James Cromwell
Alice Krige

Star Trek: First Contact

4.5

Plot - Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), once assimilated by the alien Borg, now senses that they are about to return. He is proved correct when the Collective engage the Enterprise E in battle, only to escape through a temporal vortex into the Earth's past. Picard and his crew glimpse an alternative Earth which is dominated by the Borg and, in an attempt to find out how the Borg have altered the timeline, follow them back to the year 2063, one day before Zefram Cochran made the first warp drive journey. It was this event that attracted the attention of some passing Vulcans and established Earth's 'first contact' with alien life. While Riker (Jonathan Frakes) leads an away team to prevent the Borg from tampering with the Earth's history, Picard must repel a Borg invasion of the Enterprise.

Without a doubt a large reason as to why I'm such a fan of this film, and why it's my favourite amongst all the Trek films, is down to the crew at its helm. While I love the whole world of Trek (well not Voyager so much) the Next Generation TV series and its cast is by far and away my most beloved of all the series that have been created so far. A large part of why Next Generation has such a place in my heart is down to the character of Jean-Luc Picard as portrayed by the national treasure that is Patrick Stewart. He was absolutely terrific throughout the show's seven year run and surely deserved awards recognition if it weren't for the snooty opinions that so many awards shows seem to have for genre shows. He built such a strong, rich and layered character during the show and was then able to carry it on into the films. Before Next Generation premiered back in 1987 it would have seemed infeasible that any Star Trek captain could come along to challenge Captain Kirk in terms of popularity, and yet Stewart was able to at least match, and arguably surpass the character of Kirk that was so vividly created by William Shatner. And here in First Contact both the character and Stewart himself are given great prominence and absolutely shine.

While I imagine that even newcomers to the world of Trek could enjoy this film, First Contact certainly holds greater rewards for viewers who are well versed with the exploits of Picard and company. The film acts as a sequel of sorts to the classic two-part story, “The Best of Both Worlds.” That story, spread over the third season finale and fourth season opener, concerned the Borg assimilating Captain Picard and converting him to Locutus, a being that would act as an intermediary for the human race and attempt to facilitate their own assimilation. And while his crew were able to save and restore him, the event had a lasting impact upon Picard as can be seen here in First Contact. Generally renowned for being a great leader, this time he allows his personal feelings of revenge towards the Borg to cloud his vision and risk the lives of his crew. References and allusions to the literary classic Moby Dick were a recurring theme throughout the history of Star Trek. Alongside numerous small name drops across all the shows, the story provided the basis really for both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and here in First Contact. As well as direct references to the novel and its characters both films detail characters who have become so obsessed with the destruction of another individual(s) that it is to the detriment of both themselves and those around them. In Wrath, it is Khan who after being stranded on a desolate planet by Kirk takes on the role of Captain Ahab and becomes immersed with the thought of killing Kirk. While here it is Picard who inhabits the role of Ahab, attempting to slay his own personal white whale in the form of the Borg

So as a result we get quite a different Picard than we became accustomed to. In the conception of Next Generation one of the main issues was making the captain a more believable character, not having him leave the ship all the time, getting into scraps and putting himself in danger as Kirk did. So Picard was more of an intelligent man prone to reason and negotiation. Here however that gets thrown out of the window; this Picard is a bad ass! He's not sending any away teams to do the dirty work here, he's out and blasting away the Borg all by himself. I love the moment where he furiously mows down a couple of Borg with a tommy gun. We also see quite a dark, hard-edged side to Picard at times; at one point unflinchingly killing one of his own men who has been infected by the Borg because there is nothing else he can do for him. He really is all-action. In fact at one point he goes for the full-on John McClane look by sporting a vest. And throughout the film Stewart is just excellent, a real tower of strength.

In addition to touching back on that classic story there are also a number of smaller nods to the show that will put a smile on the faces of long time fans. The use of the Dixon Hill program on the holodeck and the brief cameo for blundering crewmember Reginald Barclay for example. In particular I get a real kick out of the Dixon Hill sequence. While it only featured a small handful of times during the series (3 or 4 episodes I'm thinking) it was always a real favourite of mine. There are also a couple of cameos for non-Next Generation Star Trek alumni in the form of Robert Picardo's holographic doctor and Ethan Phillips (played Neelix in Star Trek Voyager). While even the main plot point goes right back to Starfleet's very beginning with Zefram Cochrane achieving warp drive for the first time. And touching on its past also came into play when it came to the decision of who should direct the film. While he had directed several episodes of all three Trek series that run during the 90s, First Contact marked the feature directorial debut for Jonathan Frakes. And as with Leonard Nimoy before him (The Voyage Home) it proves a very smart appointment. After seven years on the show he is completely aware and informed of all the actors and their characters and fully understands the world of Trek, whilst also proving a dab hand at handling the action sequences

Film Trivia Snippets - Originally Tom Hanks was under consideration for the role of Zefram Cochrane, and as an avid Trekkie Hanks was all for it. However his commitment to writing and starring in That Thing You Do meant that he was forced to pass. /// It only took 30 years but First Contact marked the first occasion where the actual phrase “star trek” was uttered in Star Trek history. It was said by James Cromwell's Zefram Cochrane. /// Here's one of the geekiest in-jokes you'll ever come across. Part of the Borg's uniform consists of an eyepiece which has flashing lights. Throughout the film it uses Morse code to flash the names of people who were associated with the production. /// As I note later on, the film goes for a bit more of a horror tinge than was usually attempted in the TV series. And this is shown up in terms of some of the films that Jonathan Frakes watched before filming for inspiration. He viewed Alien, Aliens, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner and Jaws. /// While the producers settled on Frakes due to his experience within the world of Star Trek, he was not apparently the first choice. Reportedly, both Ridley Scott and John McTiernan turned down approaches about directing. As you would expect given all their years of experience with the characters, pretty much all the actors who are reprising their roles are completely comfortable with them. And going by the TV series it should come as no surprise that the strongest performances come from Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, while the weakest emerges from Marin Sirtis. James Cromwell is a great deal of fun as Zefram Cochrane, delivering a character completely atypical of what the cast and the audience are expecting given the legend and legacy of the character and his achievements. For the characters of Geordie and Riker it is quite an eye-opening experience and a real example of the whole sentiment that you should never meet your heroes. Expecting to find a man of great intelligence and vision they instead discover that the man they all learned about at school and idolised was in reality a bit of a drunk and a man whose motivations for travelling to the stars were purely fiscal. Cromwell gives us quite an endearing mix of genius and trailer trash. The other main addition to the cast not already known from the TV series is Alfre Woodard as Cochrane's assistant, Lily Sloane. She gives a nice, colourful performance and enjoys a fun dynamic with Patrick Stewart. Her character also proves vital to the story, providing the viewpoint of an outsider and the voice to challenge Picard on his wayward actions.

Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, the Gorn, the Ferengi, the Jem'Hadar, the Q Continuum. Throughout the decades and numerous incarnations that Star Trek has taken on they were never short of great, iconic villains. In my eyes however all of them pale in comparison to the villain that features in First Contact; the Borg. They were a brilliant creation. In fact they're amongst my favourite ever villains period, no matter the TV show or film; although they were rather de-fanged by Star Trek: Voyager. Their concept and modus operandi is intriguing, while visually they were quite a spectacular and captivating design. They are like a fusion of futuristic technology and good old-fashioned zombie. George A. Romero gave us zombies at night, during the day, at dawn and in their own land. Had he given us zombies in space they make have looked a lot like the Borg. They really are so much more creepy because of their passive nature and slow shuffling movement. As well as zombies the other touchstone for me would be an ant colony, all working together as one entity towards a single goal. Jonathan Frakes utilises them to try for a much more horror-tinged instalment of Star Trek. Even though fans will know exactly what they are like from the TV show the film contrives to keep them hidden offscreen for a considerable amount of time to build up their threat and suspense before finally revealing them. For this outing of the Borg a new character was introduced; the Borg Queen who was portrayed by Alice Krige in quite a delicious and hammy fashion. While the character is a lot of fun it did prove a bit of a contentious addition for Trekkies as it didn't really seem to fit with the base intentions of the Borg.

One criticism that has often been levelled at Star Trek's cinematic output is that too often they just feel like extended episodes of the TV shows from which they sprang. Certainly in my eyes I feel that First Contact was able to sidestep that problem both in terms of the scale of its story and how the stakes have been raised in terms of effects. I think First Contact is able to successfully walk the line between feeling like we're still in the same world that was created on the TV screen, but also making it grander for the big screen. We see this right from the start with great effects developing an excellent opening scene which places us in a Borg ship before zooming out to reveal the sheer scale of it. The larger budget and more impresive effects mean that shots of the ship flying through space past planets and galaxies are richer and more beautiful than they have ever been before. I think giving the crew a new ship to inhabit since we last saw them was a smart move. With both the Star Trek: Enterprise TV show and J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot one of the issues was how to redesign the ship to make it look modern and sleek, while still retaining the basic feel. The new ship allows them to build a new bridge which has more depth and scale to it without stepping on the toes of the old ship from the TV series.

Although in terms of its story it is rather like a classic staple of TV with the film split into two distinctive storylines. The A plot details the efforts of Picard, Worf and assorted crew members to battle against the Borg drones, while the B plot covers the efforts of Riker, Geordie and others at helping Zefram Cochrane to fulfil his destiny as the man who will initiate humanity's first contact with an alien race. The B storyline provides laughs and an interesting little storyline (I always love a time travel story) while the A plot delivers the action. In particular I love the rather unique action sequence set outside of the ship in zero gravity. It's also in the A plot that the impressive effects are seen at their fullest. Which is not to say that it doesn't deliver in terms of depth, with Picard's struggles providing much of the meat of the film. And while it's not explored to it fullest potential there is also an interesting dynamic between Data and the Borg Queen which has a slight hint of sexuality about it. As I already said Krige is entertaining and the same can most certainly be said for the great Brent Spiner as Data who provides a lot of the film's humour and charm. In fact the whole film is just really good fun.

Conclusion - First Contact is generally credited as being the best of the Next Generation films and one of the best of all the Trek outings, though most people would have it behind at least Wrath of Khan and perhaps one or two more. For me however this is without a doubt my favourite outing for the Enterprise. With a strong central performance from Patrick Stewart this is thrilling, action-packed stuff which is still able to retain a touch of the charm and wonder that defines Star Trek.

Sexy Celebrity

12-14-13, 03:54 PM

http://i.imgur.com/PPZFY2d.gif

The Gunslinger45

12-14-13, 04:25 PM

The Rodent

12-14-13, 05:03 PM

Nice review matey!! Got a different special stamp for you...

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampcopy_zps4f3edcd5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampcopy_zps4f3edcd5.png.html)

I still think FC is the weaker of the films though. I still love it, love all the Trek films and the series's's's's's's...

Sexy Celebrity

12-14-13, 05:05 PM

Rodent, I think your special stamp has blood on it.

The Rodent

12-14-13, 05:09 PM

The ink pad has too much ink in it.

gandalf26

12-14-13, 06:24 PM

Very nice review, literally makes me want to go and get it off the shelf. Patrick Stewart really is a Titan here compared with some of the other crew who look like they are delighted to be getting the pay-check without really trying.

It's a shame the battle at the beginning is over in like 2 minutes, I would have loved to see Federation vs Borg tearing each other up for at least a good 10 minute event. They could have shown a lot more before Enterprise turned up.

For me it's by far the best of the Next Generation films but probably somewhere around 4-5th overall behind Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Voyage Home and Star Trek (2009).

Sometimes I remember feeling that I couldn't wait for the Earth scenes to finish so we could get back to the action on Enterprise.

8/10

gandalf26

12-15-13, 06:14 PM

I actually watched it again last night thanks to your review. Now that you mentioned it I really noticed all the nods to classic Sci Fi movies that Frakes watched before Directing it. Like how you don't actually see a Borg for quite a while even though a crew member will see them or the Holo Doctor just like in Alien how you don't actually see the Alien for quite a while.

Part's of the Enterprise even start to resemble the areas in Aliens that have been taken over by the "Alien's".

nebbit

12-16-13, 01:54 AM

JayDee

12-17-13, 05:12 PM

Thanks to everyone for the compliments on my last couple of reviews.

And seeing as other people have been outlining their favourites, just to let everyknow know First Contact is my favourite of all the Trek films as I mentioned. 2nd place would go to A Voyage Home. I can understand why a lot of people think it's a pretty bad film. But I just find it so fun and silly that I love it. In 3rd would be Wrath of Khan. After that not too sure.

I'll expand on why I think it's a good film tomorrow perhaps (too tired now), as you seem to have genuine concerns about it as a normal film too unfortunately :(

Sorry to disappoint Daniel. Well come on with your defence, bring it on!!! :p Although it looks like you've actually got quite a bunch of people to convince! :D

I knew I liked to hang out here for a reason. In the real world I feel like the only person who was not blown away by this film. More than a little underwhelming. Like Godoggo I am a big Bardem fan. I will try to forget I saw him in this movie though. The only thing I disagree with in this review Jaydee is that Ghost Protocol is a good film.:D

You know you're getting really quite good with the backhanded compliments and slipping in little digs here and there! :D

Very nice review, literally makes me want to go and get it off the shelf.

Thanks gandalf. :up: And that's about the best compliment you can get for a review, to inspire someone to either watch a film for the first time or to rewatch it. Hope you enjoyed going back to it.

Nice review :yup: I am a big Star Trek Fan :yup:

Knew this review would appeal to you! After all you're a self-confessed Trekkie tragic! :p

JayDee

12-18-13, 06:03 PM

So here we are with the final instalment in the prequel trilogy.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2005

Directed by
George Lucas

Written by
George Lucas

Starring
Hayden Christensen
Ewan McGregor
Natalie Portman
Ian McDiarmid
Samuel L. Jackson
Frank Oz

Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

3.5

Plot - Three years after the onset of the Clone Wars the noble Jedi Knights have been leading a massive clone army into a galaxywide battle against the Confederacy of Independent Systems. The Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic reveals his true nature as a Sith Lord as he unveils a plot to rule the galaxy by transforming the Republic into a Galactic Empire. Jedi hero Anakin Skywalker (Christensen) is seduced by the dark side of The Force to become Darth Sidious' new apprentice - Darth Vader. The Jedi have been all but eliminated with Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) and Jedi Master Yoda (Oz) forced into hiding. The only hope for the galaxy is Anakin's own offspring - the twin children born in secrecy who will grow up to become Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa.

Now this is more like it. Much, much, MUCH better. While it still may come up some way short of the original trilogy, in comparison to its prequel counterparts the improvement here is really quite sizeable. Just everything about it is so much better. In fact it was such an improvement that when the end credits began to roll I was expecting to see that it had been written and directed by someone other than George Lucas. In fact I think I found the opening 25 minutes of Sith more satisfying and engaging than the previous four hours of prequels action combined. Right from the off the film opens with a slice of brooding, thumping score music which lets us know that we are in for something decidedly darker than what the prequels had so far delivered. The action opens right in the midst of a huge, chaotic scrap where it becomes immediately apparent that the film's CGI has had a bit of an upgrade. The animation of the characters is much more fluid and believable while the spectacle of the space-set action is more impressive than ever. That action-packed prologue is a particularly impressive sequence. Another factor which improves the action is their storytelling nature, giving them a lot more substance as opposed to the chaotic, throw everything at the screen style of the prequels. After that initial burst of interest the film does once again get a little bogged down in the politics of the whole situation but overall this is a far more entertaining beast than its forebears, with a much more intriguing plot.

Finally both the character of Anakin and the film itself finally embrace their darker side. In fact this is probably the darkest entry in the entire series, surpassing even Empire Strikes Back. And it certainly helps add a richness and depth that was missing in the first two prequels. Around about the time of the Jedi culling, and particularly the slaughter of the younglings, I realised that for the first occasion in the sequels I was actually beginning to care about what was happening; I had become invested in the story and the fates of its characters. While I was actually quite taken aback by the moment where we see Anakin burning in the fires of Mustafar. For a series which had previously been delivering Jar Jar Binks and fart jokes I found it really quite surprising in its graphic nature.

Revenge of the Sith concludes with perhaps the most impressive lightsaber battle of the whole series, a great duel between Obi-Wan and the newly monickered Darth Vader on the volcanic planet of Mustafar; a wonderfully realised world that comes off like a futuristic Mordor. Fighting in amongst a hail of lava showering down around them it is a strongly choreographed fight which unfolds at a lightning speed and contains more emotion than any of the other action sequences of the prequels by some distance. Although that fight, and indeed much of the film, suffers from the problem that all prequels suffer from; we know the outcome of the story and the fate of the characters no matter how much peril you place them in in an attempt to convince us that their life is on the line.

Film Trivia Snippets - The original cut of Revenge of the Sith ran to nearly four hours, with the opening battle/Palpatine rescue alone running for over an hour. /// George Lucas had originally intended to have Peter Cushing reprise his role as Tarkin, despite the small fact that he had died a number of years earlier. He had planned to use stock footage and digital technology to bring him back onto the screen, but the idea was scrapped when the footage of Cushing was deemed unusable. /// Revenge of the Sith is the only Star Wars film that did not receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Visual Effects. And in total it only received one nomination for its make-up; losing out to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. /// One of the main criticisms levelled at the Star Wars prequels is its reliance on CGI. To illustrate that point this film had over 2200 visual effects shots, which was more than The Phantom Meance and Attack of the Clones combined. And by comparison the original Star Wars had a mere 350 such shots. /// To further highlight the massive amount of effects work that went into the film every single clone trooper in the film is CGI. Not a single clone costume or helmet was created. While the climactic battle between Vader and Kenobi took upwards of 70,000 man hours to create. /// The images of the volcanic eruption on Mustafar was actually real footage of Mt. Etna in Italy which just happened to be erupting at the time of production. /// During the birth scene, some shots were made using an animatronic puppet to portray the infant Luke and Leia. The puppet was operate by Ewan McGregor and as such the cast came to refer to it as 'Foamy-Wan Kenobi.Once again Ewan McGregor gives a very decent account of himself as Obi-Wan Kenobi (loved his heartbreak at the end) and is finally given some competition in the acting stakes by Ian McDiarmid. He is quite excellent as the sinister Palpatine, delightfully sly and conniving as he tears Anakin down before rebuilding him again in his own image. Sadly Samuel L. Jackson continues to feel kind of wasted as Windu. I'm a little torn on the character of General Grievous. The design and conception of the character I felt were strong but he was poorly written and is never truly established as the threat he should be. Though unlike many characters throughout this series of prequels he did actually put a smile on my face on more than one occasion, whether it be revealing that he is a wielder of four lightsabers (FOUR!!!) or revealing that he has the ability to move around like a scorpion. I also felt that the CGI in regards to him was a lot stronger than the previous instalments, making him much less cartoonish and making his interactions with the human cast more believable.

So there are certainly a lot of pleasant surprises to be found here following the atrocities of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The most pleasant surprise of all though would probably have to be Hayden Christensen. Now I'm not going to say that he turned it around completely and delivered a great performance, but it is a truly vast improvement. While he remains wooden on occasion he just looks so much more comfortable and relaxed this time out. Back in Attack of the Clones the only thing more robotic than him was C-3PO. And even then it was damn close! Although I've got to say that I still wasn't 100% happy with the character of Anakin and his journey towards becoming Darth Vader. Anakin should have had an obvious streak of darkness in him through all three of the prequels, certainly the last two, but instead it just came across like he was a silly, naïve little boy who had just been manipulated into the position. When you combine that with his compassionate change of heart in Return of the Jedi it feels like Lucas was desperately attempting to humanise him, whereas I think it would have been better to just leave him as a really evil b*stard! It's something that happens occasionally in films when a villain is so good and becomes so popular that the filmmakers then feel the need to try and soften the character and give him redeeming features, perhaps even turning him full-on good guy. The other most obvious example would have to be Arnie's T-800 from the Terminator films.

It's not all plain sailing however as the film does still suffer from many of the problems that plagued the previous two prequels. The most grating of which remains the romance between Anakin and Padme which is still a real slog to try and get through. With Christensen's improved performance the chemistry between the two is more obvious but still nothing to write home about. And unfortunately it's with this dynamic that Lucas once again displays his tin ear for dialogue and melodramatic nature; “You're so beautiful..", "Only because I'm so in love.", "No, it's because I'm so in love with you." And the moment where it turns out that Padme is dying because she “has lost the will to live”? :facepalm: Seriously George? That's the ending you want to give your newly completely trilogy? Couple that with the brutal moment where Vader lets out a heartbroken “Nooooooooooooo!!!” and the film actually ends on a little bit of a whimper. While once again Lucas attempts to squeeze in what I felt were unnecessary references back to the original films, the most obvious this time out probably being the inclusion of Chewbacca. Out of all the wookies in the world the one who helps Yoda out just happens to be Chewbacca. Really? And if you're going to include him you might as well make it worthwhile by giving him something to do. Instead it just comes off as feeling cheap.

So as you can see a lot of improvements. The biggest reason this film is the best of the prequels however? Jar Jar never utters a single word!

Conclusion - It may not be a perfect film but the step up in quality is considerable. The effects are both more impressive and better utilised, the acting in general has gone up a notch and while Lucas' detrimental impact in the writing and directing departments may still be present it is certainly not as conspicuous or damaging. There's a chance I may be over-rating this one ever so slightly because on the back of the two preceeding films it looks like a masterpiece. After being continously kicked in the nuts for 4 straight hours Revenge of the Sith is like instead having your ears flicked over and over again; it's still not ideal but oh what a relief it is!

Sexy Celebrity

12-18-13, 06:20 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=12048&stc=1&d=1387404916

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32JpruyLZk

Mmmm Donuts

12-18-13, 06:26 PM

Great review JayDee.

I definitely agree that this was the most entertaining out of the prequels.

The Gunslinger45

12-18-13, 10:52 PM

seanc

12-18-13, 11:02 PM

I knew you would like Revenge well enough. Good review.

JayDee

12-21-13, 04:47 PM

Thanks guys. :up: Although I've got to say that as great as the 21 reps for Seven Samurai were I think it's kind of spoiled me. Everything else seems measly by comparison! :D I think I'll start up a subscription service, but a mandatory one. When I post a new review I'll contact everyone to inform them of the review and that their rep is required! :p

Also it just dawned on me that for the first time in I don't know how long my review count is ahead of Rodent! :p

nebbit

12-21-13, 06:45 PM

Rep whore :kiss:

gandalf26

12-21-13, 07:29 PM

I think you're being a little over generous with 7/10. If it's an improvement then it's a very slight one.

Cringe worthy dialogue as you mentioned, nonsensical story/plot lines. I'll turn to the dark side to save Padme, in an instant going from Jedi to Jedi slayer. The turn should have come at the end of the second movie. Also it's a big leap to go from killing a Jedi to wandering over to the Jedi temple and slaughtering children. Die Lucas seriously.

We are deprived of what could have been an epic battle on Kashyyk, Wookies and Yoda battling the Clones. Perhaps this was cut due to the four hour first cut you mentioned.

The fall of the Jedi sequence is quite good though, really sad actually. bit daft that the Jedi would be in the very front lines though and some of the Jedi could have put up a bit more of a fight.

Too many Lightsaber duel's too. I would rather have 1 meaningful duel at the end of a film than 4 or is it 5 even. Including one against basically a non force user. Just force push him off a cliff ffs Kenobi.

I'm not a fan of the final duel either. Too much CGI with ridiculous moments leaping around the lava without a scratch ending with the pathetic , "I have the high ground" nonsense. I think it suffers too by having blue vs blue Lightsaber. At times it looks like blue light flashing all over the place without aim.

I'm actually embarrassed for Lucas that the NOOOOOOOOOOOOO moment made it in. I mean it's just laughable.

As you say a fundamental flaw of any Prequel is that the result is known. Ooh Obi Wan is nearly falling into the lava, well actually he made it to Episode 4 so I'm just feeling no suspense. Mace Windu well he didn't so obv gonna die.

4/10

JayDee

12-22-13, 09:56 AM

Rep whore :kiss:

You know it baby! :p JayDee - rep whore and proud of it!

I think you're being a little over generous with 7/10. If it's an improvement then it's a very slight one.

Conversaely I think you're being overly harsh. Though as I said in the review I was unsure if I was perhaps over-rating it a little just because of how positive it felt compared to the first two films. In fact I think originally my feeling was to go slightly higher with a 3.5+. Perhaps something in between our two ratings would be appropriate.

And I do agree with most of what you said despite the difference in our scores.

JayDee

12-22-13, 05:32 PM

For a film that I didn't fall madly in love with this certainly inspired quite the lengthy review.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Quentin Tarantino

Written by
Quentin Tarantino

Starring
Jamie Foxx
Christoph Waltz
Leonardo Di Caprio
Samuel L. Jackson
Kerry Washington
Don Johnson

Django Unchained

3.5 +

Plot - Set in the South two years before the Civil War, Django Unchained stars Jamie Foxx as Django, a slave whose brutal history with his former owners lands him face-to-face with German-born bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz is on the trail of the murderous Brittle brothers, and only Django can lead him to his bounty. The unorthodox Schultz acquires Django with a promise to free him upon the capture of the Brittles - dead or alive. Success leads Schultz to free Django, though the two men choose not to go their separate ways. Instead, Schultz seeks out the South's most wanted criminals with Django by his side. Honing vital hunting skills, Django remains focused on one goal: finding and rescuing Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), the wife he lost to the slave trade long ago.

As I've laid out several times on the forum I'm not as enamoured with the work of Quentin Tarantino as the majority of people seem to be. I think he undoubtedly has a lot of talent but too often his ego gets in the way in my opinion. He started his career by directing two excellent films in the form of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and contributing to another with True Romance. Since then however I'm of the opinion that it's been a case of diminishing returns as far as his work goes, with QT delivering films that are increasingly bloated and narcissistic. For about the first hour of Django Unchained however I felt that Tarantino may be on his way to delivering his best and most entertaining film since he exploded on to the scene in such startling fashion. It was funny, it was entertaining and it had a lot more energy and life about it than many of his more recent efforts. It was a lively and breezy opening which moved along at a fair clip, certainly compared to a typical Tarantino film which never seems to be in much of a rush. The odd couple, buddy-like relationship that develops between Schultz and Django is very entertaining, and I actually found the film to be very funny; and not just in the usual Tarantino fashion of eliciting laughs out of violence and very dark comedy. It's really quite playful, verging on slapstick stuff on occasion as embodied by the flabbergasted reactions of people to seeing a 'n**ger on a horse', the bobbing tooth on top of Schultz's carriage, Django's flamboyant blue outfit and the fact that Schultz's horse, Fritz, bows whenever he is introduced. However the absolute highlight in terms of humour would have to be the brilliant scene depicting the costume woes that the Ku Klux Klan are experiencing with their new hoods. I'll admit that I'm perhaps being a bit of a hypocrite on this as it's usually the type of unnecessary scene that offers nothing to the story that I would criticise Tarantino for. But I just found it damn amusing.

So it was all looking very promising for that first act. And then my early enthusiasm started to slip away with the introduction of Leonardo Di Caprio's Calvin Candie. Now I'm not saying that it was through any fault of Di Caprio himself, I actually thought he did a very nice job. It's just that all of a sudden Tarantino seemed to fall back in to his old ways which have irritated me in films like Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds. In that first hour I felt that Django was a much more lively and fluid film, aided by taut storytelling and tighter editing that resulted in shorter scenes. When Django and Schultz arrive at Candyland however Tarantino's ego seems to kick back in to play. I always get the feeling that he is just so proud of his creations, that he finds his characters and dialogue so precious that he can't bear to leave any of it on the cutting room floor even if it would be to the benefit of the film. I found that during this long stretch the film fell into a real lull. Scenes become unnecessarily overlong, resulting in a film that I feel is way too long as it approaches a running time of three hours. As I feel has been the case with many of his films I think there might be a really great film hiding in here that gets suffocated under its length. In this instance I think there could be an excellent two hour film here, but instead we are given a merely very good two and half hour plus film.

The second act wasn't a complete loss however, there are still some real treats to be found in there. Chief amongst them are some very intriguing characters that Tarantino created. Calvin Candie is a slave trader and the owner of the Candyland plantation. He seems like a man with great aspirations of class and a high standing but he doesn't really seem to have the required intelligence to accomplish it. This is highlighted in the fact that he is enamoured with France and its people, and likes to be referred to as Monsieur Candie, but he doesn't actually speak French and an attempt to converse with him in the language would embarrass him. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed, relying very heavily on Stephen (his house slave). He is taken in by the ruse perpetrated by Schultz and Django, not seeing through it until Stephen points it out to him. This despite a few clear warning signs that he doesn't take heed of. One thing I found really interesting about his character was his attitude towards black individuals. There were numerous occasions where Django says something that you think is going to provoke an angry reaction from Candie, but instead he seems intrigued and even entertained with him 'stepping beyond his limitations' as a black man. It's a similar case with Stephen who speaks in quite a confrontational and 'uppity' manner to Candie at times, a manner that you imagine will result in a whipping, but Candie not only tolerates it but appreciates it. Despite his detestable standing as a slave trader, Calvin Candie actually seems a very charming and affable man, and even worryingly likeable. He sort of reminded me of Hitler in a way. I've heard it said that one way he was able to convince so many people to commit such inhumane acts was that he was a very charismatic individual. There was even a documentary on TV here in the UK quite recently called “The Dark Charisma of Hitler” I think it was. And yet side by side with this engaging side to his character is a much darker streak of hatred and violence that Di Caprio unleashes. It may sound strange given his standing as a slave trader and a plantation owner but for much of the time I didn't feel that his emotions were inspired so much by actual racism as much as a sense of ownership. When the slaves disobey or try to escape him I didn't always feel that he was angered that 'a black' would do this, so much as someone he owned would. I mentioned Candie's house slave Stephen there and he is the other character I found very fascinating. In many ways I actually found his character even more detestable than Candie; you expect it from someone like Candie but for Stephen to co-operate feels like such a betrayal of his race. He also turns out to be a very sly, cunning individual. At the end when confronted by Django he throws down the cane he has been using, his limp disappears and even his demeanour changes from his rather jokey, simple-minded character to a much more intense and apparently intelligent man. This throws up a couple of interesting theories; perhaps he has faked his injury to escape from mandingo fighting or working in the fields, perhaps the injury and his more jovial manner were all an act to obtain work in the house.

Film Trivia Snippets - There were a number of actors who were initially cast that later had to drop out. Both Sacha Baron Cohen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were cast before having to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. The characters they were supposed to play were subsequently removed. And then in regards to Ace Speck it was a bit of a revolving door situation. Originally Kevin Costner was cast in the role but dropped out to scheduling conflicts. He was then replaced by Kurt Russell who himself then had to drop out. /// Just by looking at the cast list you can see for yourself it's an impressive ensemble. But if you want some kind of proof, how about the fact that the film features seven actors who have been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Jonah Hill, Russ Tamblyn and Bruce Dern all earned a nomination in that category. Although Waltz was the only one to be victorious, winning for Ingluorious Basterds. /// When it came to the character of Django a whole host of people were considered for the role including Will Smith, Idris Elba, Chris Tucker, Terrence Howard, Michael K. Williams and Tyrese Gibson. Tarantino had actually written the role with Will Smith in mind, but despite Smith's agents and manager urging him to accept it, Smith declined. Cuba Gooding Jr. had lobbied strongly for the role but Tarantino would not consider him. According to Gooding it's his biggest disappointment.While both Di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson were great with these respective characters, it was the later performance that I was really joyed by. Back when I was writing my review for Con Air I think it was, I mentioned how I admired the fact that Nicholas Cage is always shaking things up in terms of performance when compared with some actors who seem content to trot out the same performance time and time again. While I didn't name any names one actor who did pop into my mind was Samuel L Jackson. A lot of the time in the last few years it has felt like he's just phoned in his performances and that it's just been a case of Samuel L Jackson simply being Samuel L Jackson. While that has still been entertaining and good enough for the most part it's nice to see him really show up and 'act' again. And he's fantastic. Oh and a great make-up job on him as well. While Jackson may run him close however, taking home the award for the film's MVP would definitely have to be Christoph Waltz. He is an absolute blast as Dr. King Schultz, the dentist turned bounty hunter. He displays great charisma and great comic timing and just seems a perfect fit to deliver Tarantino's colourful dialogue. Waltz's performance made me all the more pissed off about the rather unceremonious fate that befalls the character. After contributing so much to the film he is disposed of and all but forgotten for the film's closing stretch. Oh and in a minor role early on Don Johnson is a whole lot of fun.

I think that Jamie Foxx does a very solid job as the titular Django although the character makes it very hard for him to break out and really make the kind of impression that Waltz, Di Caprio and Jackson are able to make. As a result he gets rather overshadowed in their company. His Django is very much the strong, silent type which means that he rarely gets the chance to really express himself. To be fair to Foxx, on the rare occasions where he is asked to convey some emotions merely through his eyes he does a fine job. The character I feel highlights what I saw to be one of the real flaws of the film, particularly the longer the film went along. The main thrust of the whole film is supposed to be the romance between Foxx's Django and his wife Broomhilda, played by Kerry Washington. Why Django teams up with Schultz in the first place, why Schultz trains him, why they go about the elaborate ruse to try and trick Candie, why Django goes back to Candyland for the blood-soaked finale; it's their love that is supposed to be the driving force for all of that which unfolds, that everything revolves around. And yet we never really get to know either character or see any evidence of their love. Given Tarantino's propensity for non-linear stories I was expecting to get a series of flashbacks to flesh out the relationship, but other than the odd glimpse here and there it never really transpired. We never come to really know Django other than on the most superficial and shallow terms; that he's very 'cool' and quite the bad ass. We know nothing of his backstory or his character. And the Broomhilda character fares even worse. Kerry Washington is given no chance whatsoever to make an impression, to create a character worthy of such devotion on Django's behalf. And we're never given any personal reason to care for the character, to root for her freedom, other than through a general sense of right. So despite being the central cause of everything their relationship is given no development at all. At the very best that would be disappointing but given Django's epic runtime I think it's approaching criminal that with so much time at his disposal Tarantino couldn't find the time to properly flesh out this important facet of the film. The film and Tarantino seem to get to caught up with the battle of wits between Candie and Schultz and drops the ball on this aspect.

Film Trivia Snippets - When Dr. Schultz is negotiating to buy the Mandingo fighter Eskimo Joe, he says that he wants to rename him Black Hercules. That was the real-life nickname of Ken Norton, the boxer who starred in the film Mandingo. /// Aside from films which listed the cast alphabetically (Celebrity and Don's Plum) Django marked the first occasion in 16 years that Leonardo DiCaprio didn not receive top billing. /// Throughout the production Jamie Foxx actually rode his own horse, Cheetah, during filming. /// Whilst at Comic-Con Tarantino revealed that the characters of Django and Broomhilda are intended to be the great-great-great-grandparents of John Shaft from the series of Shaft films. An overt reference to this can be found in Broomhilda's full name - Broomhilda Von Schaft. /// A riding accident during training saw Christoph Waltz thrown off his horse, breaking his pelvis in the process. To make him feel better Jamie Foxx presented him with a gift; a saddle with a seat belt. /// For the role of Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly (played by Laura Cayouette) both Zoe Bell and Lady Gaga were under consideration. As far as his films go I actually found Tarantino's direction to be quite reserved by his standards. The only obviously noticeable little quirk is the camera's infrequent tendency to zoom in on a character's face for a reaction shot of some kind. It's not a smooth movement, it's rather jittery and comes across as deliberately quite amateurish. I assume that's it a move designed to mimic the original series of Django movies, and perhaps spaghetti westerns in general. I don't really have experience of either to know for sure. Visually the film also benefits from some lovely photography courtesy of Robert Richardson who handsomely captures some beautiful, sweeping vistas. Tarantino is often hailed as one of the most original directors in Hollywood, and while that may be true when compared with all the other directors in Tinseltown, is it just me or is he sort of making the same film over and over again these days? That may sound daft given the huge disparity between genres and eras in his films; 1800s western, World War II film, revenge film with a heavy Japanese influence etc. But they all feel very similar; largely revenge films with dialogue-heavy scenes that attempt to push boundaries with their violence. I'd love to see him try something truly different. Oh and can a friend of his or whoever please have a word with QT and convince him to stop cameoing. Fair enough you could argue that when he puts so much time and effort in as he clearly does he has earned the right to show his face. However it just reeks of ego and there's no getting around the fact that he cannot act, and whenever he shows up I just feel it hurts his films because it's so distracting.

As has been the case for just about every film that Tarantino has ever associated himself with, Django Uncahined arrived in cinemas with a wave of controversy. Well maybe not a wave so much as a smattering of complaints led by one man, namely QT's old foe Spike Lee who had a problem both with Tarantino's continued use of the word n*gger in his films and his treatment of the issue of slavery. Yes the dreaded 'n word' is used to a quite staggering degree throughout the film, but what exactly do you expect given the film's setting? Taking place in the South of the 1800s and set within the world of slave trading it would seem strange if it wasn't uttered constantly. If he had omitted the word's use Tarantino would have then received criticism for glossing over the truth so he couldn't win. It's a similar case with the film's violence. Some of the violence really is quite nasty and vivid, from the early occasions of mandingo fighting and a vicious dog attacks, to the final act which erupts into a blood-soaked massacre of quite stunning proportions. Particularly striking is the way that bullets produce such epic splatters and sprays of blood. I also have a problem with the fact that Spike Lee seemingly believes that he has domain over both that word and 'black issues' in general. He seems to find it offensive that a white man concerns himself with such matters, but surely it's just as offensive that he feels as a black man he can talk for and represent the whole race by himself. And as someone who once referred to Samuel L Jackson as a “house slave” I find it very unsavoury that he wants to criticise anyone about racism.

Even when it comes to the Tarantino films that I'm not keen on the one element of them that I've always been able to count on is that they're going to have a pretty awesome soundtrack. And it's a similar tale with Django Unchained. Part of what makes his soundtracks so great is that he goes with songs that are unexpected, that don't feel like they should be a good match for what is on screen, and yet when you see them in context they fit brilliantly. Here we get a mix of some great spaghetti western beats in a score featuring exerts from the back catalogue of Ennio Morricone mixed with a number of great songs from such diverse sources as John Legend, James Brown, 2pac, RZA, Richie Havens and Johnny Cash. The highlight of the whole soundtrack would have to be the brilliant main theme which is lifted from the original Django film of 1966. There were only one or two occasions where I felt that the music didn't work, namely when he employed rap music. It just felt like an example of Tarantino trying too hard to include something cool. Oh and any film that makes use of the music of Johnny Cash is alright in my book. For me his music has the same effect as dogs. If either of those is included then a film immediately becomes better.

Conclusion - Tarantino returns with a new film, but one that still has many of the same old problems in my eyes. However I did find it a much more entertaining and satisfying experience than many of his films of late. And I'm sure that lovers of his work will lap it up. It's probably amongst the most purely fun and accessible films that he has so far produced and has some excellent scenes, great performances and a fun soundtrack. While I've struggled to warm to a number of his films this is one I could see growing on me with a repeat viewing or two.

gandalf26

12-22-13, 06:56 PM

I tried to watch it again recently and basically just got bored and never bothered to finish it. Your score is about right this time, a reasonably entertaining way to spend a couple of hours but never getting the urge to rewatch.

Miss Vicky

12-22-13, 07:18 PM

I disagree with a lot of your criticisms of Django Unchained, but I'm glad to see that you enjoyed it overall.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

The Gunslinger45

12-22-13, 07:31 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I admit, I have not seen this movie and have no plans to see it. However you and I have similar tastes in movies, and it seems a lot of the criticisms of Tarantino (namely his need of an editor) seems to continue. Very informative indeed.

JayDee

12-28-13, 06:03 PM

After a slight hibernation over Christmas, Movie Musings is back up and running. And again it's with a queue-jumper. Might not be the best review and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an error or two to be found as I've churned it out rather quicky.

mirror mirror
Year of release
2013

Directed by
Ben Stiller

Written by
Steve Conrad
James Thurber (short story)

Starring
Ben Stiller
Kristen Wiig
Adam Scott
Shirley MacLaine
Kathryn Hann
Sean Penn

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

3 ++

Plot - Walter Mitty (Stiller) is employed by Life magazine as a negative asset manager, putting him in charge of their photographic output. A real day-dreamer, Walter can constantly be found escaping the doldrums of his real life by disappearing into fantasy worlds that he concocts in his imagination; worlds where he is more heroic, more action-orientated and more confident that he ever is in reality, and where a frequent element of these fantasies is his co-worker at Life, Cheryl Melhoff (Wiig). Bad news comes to Walter, Cheryl and their fellow employees when Life is taken over and it is decided that the magazine will be wound up and become an internet only product. For the last ever issue, a photograph taken by famed photojournalist Sean O'Connell (Penn) is chosen to grace the cover, a photograph that according to O'Connell captures “quintessence of life.” One slight problem - negative 25, this special image, is nowhere to be found. Using the other photos as clues, Walter heads out into the real world in an attempt to track down the missing negative. Along the way he indulges in adventures that are just as grand, and indeed even grander than those in his imagination.

I had been greatly looking forward to this film. I thought the trailer was terrific and all the reports I had been hearing about it made it sound like something potentially special; hell Empire magazine was invoking the likes of The Apartment, It's a Wonderful Life and Life of Pi after seeing a preview of 15 minutes of footage. I was ready for something great. Well the good news is that The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a very nice little film. The bad news however is that, well, it's a very nice little film....but not much else. It certainly feels like a film that is aiming to be something special and life-affirming; aiming for the sweetness and sentimentality of a Forrest Gump or a Frank Capra movie without slipping into schmaltz. However I just felt it all seemed a little bit sterile and superficial, leaving me a touch uninvolved with its narrative and title character.

The film is a very loose adaptation of the 1939 short story by James Thurber. By making the film in this day and age it gives the filmmakers the chance to update the story to include some contemporary issues such as the recession, downsizing and redundancies at large companies, and how the digital revolution is making more and more print media obsolete. Those issues alongside the film's attempts at some musings on life means that there is the potential for some interesting topics to be covered, and I did appreciate the film's central declaration about not being afraid to take chances and risks and about living for the moment. It's just that I rarely found that the film was able to address these issues with any great depth. The whole thing just came across as a bit too slick and glossy for its own good. A feeling certainly not helped by the blatant product placement slapped across the whole film. In addition to the obvious involvement of Life magazine the film frequently feels like an extended ad for eHarmony. Every 10 to 15 minutes the film seems to take a break and indulge in an eHarmony commercial, taking me out of the film. I think the main culprit in regards to the lack of depth is certainly to be found in its clumsy script. In terms of both the story and its characters there are a lot of inconsistencies and unexplained issues. This is especially true of Walter himself. He is apparently a very cautious and retiring fellow and yet it doesn't feel that he really needs all that much motivation to head out onto this grand, globe-spanning adventure. And while he is apparently a bit of a frugal individual he is fairly quick to splash the cash to fund those adventures. There are also some things which just seem a little illogical and improbable which at times makes you question if what you're watching is indeed real or not. While another problem in the script is that its message about life really does try to pummel you into submission. It is constantly spelling it out for you just in case you somehow managed to miss it the previous 8 times.

The main attribute of Mitty is certainly to be found in just how lovely it looks. Filmed across the astonishing landscape of Iceland in some of the most visually dynamic of environments, Iceland both 'plays' itself in the film whilst also standing in for Greenland, Afghanistan and the Himalayas. It provides a wondrous, almost otherworldly array of immense mountains, vast oceans, steep valleys, glaciers, volcanoes and waterfalls. As well as providing some astounding images Iceland also proves to be a smart choice to fit the story. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty concerns itself with a man who finds more excitement in the world he creates in his head than in real life. So it feels very fitting that if anywhere on Earth was going to convince Walter that the real world can be just as intoxicating as his imagination then it would be Iceland. Stiller utilises these locales to good effect, coming up with some fine examples of framing and compositions. And these images that he creates are handsomely captured by the truly gorgeous cinematography of Stuart Dryburgh. An Oscar nomination for his work is surely nothing but a formality.

Film Trivia - A new, updated version of the film had actually been under consideration for close on 20 years, with various A-listers both in front of and behind the camera circling the project. Back in 1994 producer Samuel Goldwyn Jr., whose father had produced the original Danny Kaye version in 1947, had the idea of a remake with Jim Carrey in mind to take on the title role. The production moved on positively for a few years and in 1997 a first draft was in place and Ron Howard was in negotiations to direct. Howard was also set to produce the film alongside Brian Grazer and Imagine Entertainment. Howard, Grazer and Imagine Entertainent eventually left the project however in favour of making Edtv. The project bounced around for a few years with numerous rewrites and a lawsuit holding it up before Steven Spielberg signed on to direct in 2003, with Carrey still the preferred choice for the starring role. The following year however Spielberg dropped out. Life was again breathed back into the project in 2005 when Mark Waters was hired to direct. Carrey however had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts and was quickly replaced by Owen Wilson. Wilson himself would then drop out and be replaced by Mike Myers in 2007. Things then went quiet until 2010 when Sacha Baron Cohen accepted the role of Walter and Gore Verbinski agreed to sit in the director's chair. Once again nothing came of it, until finally in 2011 Ben Stiller became attached both as actor and director.
Also very visually impressive are the film's special effects. Bringing Walter's daydreams to life the CGI is tasked with covering a large breadth of ventures, from superheroic action to a daring rescue of a little dog from a burning building. And Stiller again does an impressive job when it comes to handling the special effects and the action sequences; something we had never really seen was in his wheelhouse up until now. He also has a lot of fun when it comes to clever and creative uses for text throughout the film. There were times however where I just got the feeling that instead of concentrating purely on this film, it came across a little like a calling card for his directing abilities, a chance for him to show off with as many little tricks as possible to try and get himself on the directing A-list. All of the daydreams are a lot of fun, and greatly help the film through a rather slow opening act. The highlight of these sequences would certainly have to be a brief little diversion where Walter fantasises a situation that plays off of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That moments got a big laugh from both myself and pretty much everyone in the audience. While it is a very funny moment it does however flag up what I saw as one of the film's problems; its uneven tone. The film sets out its stall to be this powerful, life-affirming movie in the vein of Life of Pi. This doesn't sit all that comfortably alongside Stiller's predilection to return to the arena of broad humour where he is most comfortable. Moments such as the Benjamin Button sequence, Walter's encounter with a drunken pilot and battling a shark with a briefcase may provide laughs but I felt that it came across as out of place and just hurt the flow of the film, with the addition of a slight romantic comedy angle further heightening this.

While the film may mark a more ambitious stretch for Stiller in terms of his directing duties, when it comes to his performance he is sticking very much in his comfort zone. Throughout his career Stiller has had pretty much just two modes in terms of his acting. There's the obnoxious douchebag that we've seen in the likes of Dodgeball and Mystery Men. And then there's the rather neurotic sad-sack that we've seen in, well pretty much everything else! Most notably however in Meet the Parents, Night at the Museum, Along Came Polly etc. In the case of Walter Mitty we are firmly in the camp of the latter. What Stiller lacks in range however I've always found he made up for in terms of likeability. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but I've always enjoyed his films and I thought he gave Walter a rather endearing and awkward charm. Even if I struggled to find it, he certainly seems to have made the film with all his heart. With the film predominantly following Walter on his travels and adventures very few other actors get much of a look-in, however Kristen Wiig is able to create an adorable and beguiling character all the same despite the limitations imposed upon her. It's just a shame that her considerable talents were not further utilised; something that would also have helped to enhance the fairly flimsy romance. The rest of the cast also do a nice job, including Shirley MacLaine's as his mother, Kathryn Hahn as his kooky sister and small roles for Patton Oswalt and Sean Penn.

One thing I will say about the film is that I think it makes for a very good Christmas film. It's a nice, sweet little film that has its heart in the right place and a little splash of fantasy. I'm sure that whole families will be able to take a trip to the cinema this festive season, and every member of the family will be able to enjoy the film on one level or another, whether it be for its gorgeous looks, the humour or its attempts at profundity. And for people who are able to find the great depth in the film that I felt was lacking, they could very easily come away absolutely loving it. For them it may indeed prove to be the new Forrest Gump like some people are saying. Not for me though.

Conclusion - I feel I'm perhaps being a touch harsh on this film, a little bit of a Grinch if you will. It is a well acted and directed affair, and it looks spectacular thanks to some excellent cinematography. For all its stunning visuals however I just felt that the weak script struggled to match it, undermining a lot of the good on show. I would say that it's a pretty easy watch. It's not a film that I imagine I would actively search out to watch again all that often. However it's the type of film that I can see watching a number of times by stumbling across it on TV and just sticking with it. And I feel that I'll get plenty of opportunities for that because it's likely to become a staple of Christmas schedules and a bank holiday favourite for schedulers. Oh and something I forgot to mention, it's got quite a fun little soundtrack that is highlighted by the prominence given to David Bowie's Space Oddity.

Sexy Celebrity

12-28-13, 06:06 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I have no pictures made up for you this time, so I'm stealing hers.

seanc

12-28-13, 06:08 PM

Looking forward to Mitty. I just may be waiting for Blu-ray. There is so much at the theater I want to see right now. Good review Jay Dee.

Daniel M

12-28-13, 07:58 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I have no pictures made up for you this time, so I'm stealing hers.

I laughed way too much at this :D

Miss Vicky

12-28-13, 07:59 PM

Nice review, JayDee.

I was kind of on the fence about seeing this movie, I think I'm leaning towards "No" now. Maybe when it hits DVD or Netflix.

The Gunslinger45

12-28-13, 08:55 PM

cricket

12-28-13, 09:45 PM

Thanks for the review JayDee; I've found that I have been drawn to these types of movies lately. I won't see it until it's on DVD, but I'm glad to see that you enjoyed it.

The Sci-Fi Slob

12-28-13, 09:58 PM

Nice review. I saw the trailer for "Walter Mitty" when I went to watch "Gravity". The trailer was on for about 15 minutes, and included an interview with Ben Stiller. The film was being screened in the UK before anywhere else, as an exclusive promotion for Cineworld Cinemas. After watching the trailer two thoughts ran through my head: 1.) This film is going to be 3 star material at best. 2.) Get Ben Stiller off the screen, and put "Gravity" on, NOW!! :D

JayDee

01-01-14, 04:14 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Stephen Chbosky

Written by
Stephen Chbosky

Starring
Logan Lerman
Emma Watson
Ezra Miller
Mae Whitman
Paul Rudd
Nina Dobrev

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

4

Plot - Based on the novel written by Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is about 15-year-old Charlie Kelmeckis (Logan Lerman), a shy and troubled outsider attempting to come to terms with the suicide of his best friend and his own mental illness. Some relief comes into his life when he befriends a group of self-described wallflowers that includes Patrick (Miller); a young gay man who is involved in a secret relationship with a popular athlete, and Patrick's stepsister Sam (Watson). These new connections brings some stability and happiness into Charlie's life. Before long Charlie beings to fall in love with Sam, but does not have the self-confidence to admit his feelings to her. The longer he spends with the group however the more confidence he gains as they take him under their wing and introduce him to the wider world. There are still going to be some dark times in his life however, including a revelation where we learn why Charlie has such troubles in the first place.

This film reminded me greatly of Zach Braff's 2004 effort, Garden State. Like that film I imagine that some viewers may not be all that taken with Perks, some perhaps even taking an active dislike to it. Like Garden State however I personally found watching this to be a very touching, moving and affecting experience. It's just one those films that I made a really personal connection to as I was watching it. This was largely down to how much of myself I could see in the character of Charlie. While my struggles may not have come from quite as dark a place as Charlie I certainly didn't have the happiest of experiences during my teenage years, especially when it came to my school days. Truthfully it was hell! Like the character of Charlie I suffered from social anxiety, was extremely withdrawn both in life and especially at school and for long spells I was deeply unhappy. So I was very easily able to place myself in Charlie's shoes and empathise with the character. There was one little moment in the film that just really drew me in. During English class the teacher (played winningly by Paul Rudd) is asking questions and getting no responses from the class. As he walks around the classroom however he notices that Charlie has been writing the correct answers in his notepad, but just didn't speak out in class. As I said it is a really tiny moment but it just worked for me on such a personal level. During class I would so often know the answer to something, but even if I was 99.99% sure I was correct I would never put my hand up in case I was somehow wrong or I did something stupid to attract attention to myself. I basically just tried my best to hide when at school.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based on the highly acclaimed debut novel of Stephen Chbosky, and with Chbosky behind the adaptation in the capacity of both writer and director, he ensures that the characters he created are treated with respect and tenderness and makes sure to focus on the messages that the film has to convey. There are a series of really lovely and touching scenes which I felt were just beautifully written and acted, while there were also some really lovely examples of dialogue, even if they could perhaps come across as pretentious to some (“We accept the love we think we deserve”). I felt that the film just captured so perfectly a number of facets of teenage life. It captures that great rush of excitement you feel when you discover a new song that you just absolutely love. You feel like it is going to change your life, and for the rest of your life you will forever associate it with a specific time and place in your existence. When you hear it on the radio it will just transport you right back. In a move similar to Stand by Me it highlights the close friendships you develop at this stage and how important they can be to your life. You really don't seem to ever form the same type of bond that you did as a kid or teenager; as was summed in Stand by Me with this quote that I love - “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?” I think the film also highlights that emotion of feeling like a freak when you're at school. You feel like you're completely defective and different from every other single person in the world. You later discover that at one point or another it seems that everyone felt that way.

I felt that the film was extremely well acted throughout; a great ensemble effort from such a young cast. In the lead role I found Logan Lerman to be impressive and really quite affecting, giving a very touching and honest performance. He perhaps doesn't shine as brightly as some of his co-stars but I think a lot of that is down to the character being a much more difficult prospect than those around him. While they get to revel in being loud or flamboyant or flashy, Lerman's character is much quieter and more reserved, necessitating a smaller, low-key showing. It doesn't stop him from delivering a really tender and likeable performance however. As his best friend Patrick, Ezra Miller is fantastic, giving a really charismatic showing. When you couple this with his darkly magnetic (and vastly different) turn in We Need To Talk About Kevin, it really does mark Miller out as a young actor to really watch out for in the coming years. He takes the potentially clichéd character of the flamboyantly gay best friend but breathes life into it with great comic timing and sensitivity.

Film Trivia Snippets - The legendary John Hughes actually wanted to write the screenplay after he read the novel. He did acquire the rights from Chbosky but never finished the screenplay. Hughes' vision was for more of dark comedy angle with dramatic elements, and would have marked Hughes' directorial comeback. As he was writing the screenplay Hughes was picturing Shia LaBeouf for the lead role of Charlie, Kristen Dunst for Sam and Patrick Fugit for Patrick. /// Ezra Miller actually did his initial audition for Perks over Skype, and proved so charismatic in the interview that he was cast within 5 hours of the audition. /// Stephen Chbosky knew he wanted to cast Emma Watson once he saw her in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the scene when Ron breaks her heart and Harry consoles her. Chbosky said: "She broke my heart in that scene. She is crying and I just felt that she had all of the vulnerability that Sam needed." /// During the director's commentary on the DVD and Blu-Ray, director Stephen Chbosky mentions that Dead Poet's Society and The Breakfast Club were two of his favorite films growing up and that they had a large influence on him. /// In the book, the tunnel song was "Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac but in the movie it was "Heroes" by David Bowie. Writer/Director Stephen Chbosky reportedly changed the song to something grander after seeing the footage of Emma Watson standing in the back of the truck. And then there is Emma Watson as Sam, the dreamgirl that steals Charlie's heart. First off I have to ask, when the hell did little Hermione get so damn sexy?! Man alive I was just utterly transfixed by her from the first moment she appeared on screen. Like Logan Lerman she is most closely associated with a large kiddie-friendly fantasy franchise (Percy Jackson and Harry Potter respectively). And like Logan Lerman she proves here that she also appears to have some acting chops on her as well, perhaps indicating some potential for a career beyond Hogwarts. As I said the whole cast are really strong, delivering a series of very likeable and believable performances, with Mae Whitman and Nina Dobrev being particular stand-outs. Exploring the DVD extras I discovered that during the shoot all of the young actors stayed together in the same floor of a hotel and really bonded; all of the becoming really great friends. And I think you can certainly see that on screen. They all have a great chemistry together and its completely believable that they are the closest of friends and have been their whole lives.

As I mentioned Stephen Chbosky was both the writer and director of this film, with it being his debut on both fronts. And there are occasions where you can see it. He has apparently dropped a lot of material from the original novel, but I'd say that it perhaps isn't quite enough. A number of threads are included which don't really go anywhere and are left rather dangling come the film's end. While on the directing side of things there are a few shots here and there that are a bit scrappy. For the most part however I think he does a very capable job, one that is very impressive given his lack of experience up until this point. He delivers a series of nicely composed shots, aided greatly by some beautiful lighting. Some people may accuse the film of being a touch unrealistic in regards to the way that the young characters talk and the manner in which they interact with each other. And while there may be an element of that at work I don't think it hurt the film at all; if anything it was the exact opposite. In that respect I found it rather akin to John Hughes' seminal classic The Breakfast Club. On occasion both films may indulge in slight exaggeration, but they do so to create an overall feeling of being real, of being authentic.

While I don't believe it has made its way to our shores I'm aware of a campaign in America called 'It Gets Better.' It was a project started up to support and help young people in the LGBT community in response to high numbers of teen suicide and bullying; its aim is to provide hope for affected individuals and let them know that it does get better. If the group were to expand its goals to cover all teens who are having a tough time then The Perks of Being a Wallflower would be able to serve as a damn good poster child for the cause. It has a very positive, uplifting and life-affirming message about no matter how bad a place you are in, there is always a glimpse of hope. In the film Charlie's transition is conveyed by a sequence which sees the group driving through a tunnel listening to David Bowie's “Heroes.” As they do so he steps out onto the back of the pick-up truck, stands up and allows the wind to rush against him. It's a great expression of freedom and hope, and as they emerge from the tunnel out into the light his fortunes have been transformed. And I felt very buoyed by this aspect to the film as truthfully I still worry greatly about how my life is going to turn our and how problems are going to resolve themselves. Even though I'm a few years older than the characters portrayed in the film I think part of the reason I was so taken with it is that in a number of ways I feel I'm still at their level in terms of age and where I am in life.

Oh and lastly there's the film's soundtrack. A large part of the characters' lives and their friendships resolved around their love of music. And as such the film boasts a rather excellent soundtrack which sits comfortably alongside the similarly themed Garden State, Juno and 500 Days of Summer. It's a delightful mix of 90s hits (the film is set during the early 90s) and classic efforts from earlier decades which includes the likes of The Smiths, Dexys Midnight Runners, Sonic Youth, New Order and David Bowie. As well as just being a fun listen the soundtrack is also a nice fit for the characters and their relationships.

Conclusion - I really need to start doing more thorough investigations into the films that I'm interested in. It's becoming quite commonplace for me to go into a film with the wrong idea of what I'm in for. And this was another case. When it came to Perks I had been anticipating a more light-hearted, romantic indie-comedy in the vein of Juno, Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, 500 Days of Summer etc. Instead I was treated to a film that had a great deal more depth and substance to it, that was significantly more serious and lighter on laughs than expected, but was probably all the better for it. I found it be a well written, affectingly acted film that just really touched me on a personal level. You'll sometimes really enjoy a film but as soon as the closing credits begin to roll you immediately forget about it. This was the opposite of that. As it finished I just sat there for a while absorbing it, and it's stuck in my mind ever since. In fact if you combined this with Stand by Me and Garden State then it could act like a coming-of-age trilogy that mirrors my life (well of a sorts...I never found a dead body! :D)

The Gunslinger45

01-01-14, 04:32 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Wow I actually had a very similar first impression of Perks of Being a Wall Flower being some kind of light hearted target to tweens generic crap. Seems I was very wrong in that regard. Might have to check it out.

Miss Vicky

01-01-14, 04:33 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I haven't seen it yet, but I think I'll add it to my watchlist.

JayDee

01-04-14, 04:48 PM

That's it, enforced subscriptions are on their way! 4 reps for Perks of Being a Wallflower?!!! :mad: Pitiful!!! :p

Well if you two (Vicky and Gunslinger) do see it at some point I hope you enjoy it. And who knows GS, you may still find it to be what you originally expected; perhaps I'm just a tween at heart! :D

I was kind of on the fence about seeing this movie, I think I'm leaning towards "No" now. Maybe when it hits DVD or Netflix.

See this is one of the things I dislike about this. When someone watches a film because of my review and likes/loves it that's great. But I don't like dissuading people from films. You might eventually see it and be a big fan, then regretting you didn't see it on the big screen

Miss Vicky

01-04-14, 05:46 PM

Well Walter Mitty looks like it could be interesting, but I wasn't feeling overly compelled to see it and, except for Tropic Thunder, I've not been a fan of pretty much anything Stiller has done. I was already teetering on the edge of "No;" your review was just the tiny nudge I needed to say "I'll pass for now."

Besides, at the moment I'm just counting down the days until I get to see Her.

Sexy Celebrity

01-04-14, 07:41 PM

http://i.imgur.com/vXaY0pB.gif

Godoggo

01-04-14, 08:11 PM

I really liked Perks of Being a Wallflower but, yes, I did feel it contained a lot from the novel that should have been left out. It would have made me a much more concise and focused movie. However it's still a very strong movie and it represented my high school experience very well.

I wasn't as crazy as you about Emma Watson. I could take her or leave her. It was Ezra Miller who was the standout for me and I have high hopes for him that he will make the transition into really good adult roles in the future.

I thought this was a way better movie than Garden State.

Mmmm Donuts

01-04-14, 08:13 PM

http://i.imgur.com/vXaY0pB.gif

That's really disturbing, Sexy. :eek: :sick:

seanc

01-04-14, 09:59 PM

I have has Perks on the DVR for a couple of months. Might be time to push play.

JayDee

01-05-14, 03:32 PM

Better!!! Much better people! I can just about live with 10 reps. :D

Just goes to show that throwing a hissy fit really does work. No wonder Sexy has been doing it for so many years. :p

Besides, at the moment I'm just counting down the days until I get to see Her.

Really? I can't think why you'd be so interested in that. :p

I really liked Perks of Being a Wallflower but, yes, I did feel it contained a lot from the novel that should have been left out.

Not read the novel although I did just receive it at Christmas there so will try and give it a shot at some point

And yeah Ezra Miller could become a special actor.

I have has Perks on the DVR for a couple of months. Might be time to push play.

Will be interested to see what you and others make of it. Because I had such a personal connection with it I perhaps struggled to be impartial with it. Curious to see what others think.

Sexy Celebrity

01-05-14, 03:38 PM

Just goes to show that throwing a hissy fit really does work. No wonder Sexy has been doing it for so many years. :p

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

JayDee

01-05-14, 04:40 PM

This could be the review that finally kills off the last shred of credibility that myself and my reviews had. But who cares?! I've always felt that respect was very over-rated.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1998

Directed by
Stephen Sommers

Written by
Stephen Sommers

Starring
Treat Williams
Famke Janssen
Kevin J. O'Connor
Anthony Heald
Wes Studi

Deep Rising

3.5 ++

Plot - "Far below the South China Sea lies an underwater mountain range with canyons deep enough to hide the Himalayas, deeper than any man or machine has ever explored. Throughout the centuries, countless vessels have vanished into these waters without a trace. Their disappearance has remained a mystery." Until now that is. A group of mercenaries have hired the boat and services of John Finnegan (Williams) to lead them out to an undisclosed location in the middle of the ocean. Unbeknownst to Finnegan and his crew the mercenaries are carrying a couple of missiles on board. It turns out that the intended location is the Argonautica, a new luxury cruise ship on its maiden voyage. When they board the ship however they are shocked to discover that the ship is almost completely empty, its hundreds of passengers have vanished. Amongst the few surviving individuals are the ship's owner Simon Canton (Heald) and a female passenger, Trillian (Janssen) who was caught attempting to steal from the ship's vault. Before long they begin to realise that humans are not the only species present on board; there is a deadly force onboard which has emerged from the unexplored depths of the ocean and looks set to take the lives of everyone in its path.

I'm not going to try and present a strong argument about this being a great film, because I don't necessarily think it is. However I did find it to be just a whole heap of fun, one of the more entertaining viewings I've had in quite a while. And that is what my score is reflecting as opposed to any level of quality. It's wonderfully trashy and knows it, not attempting to be anything more than what it is; a highly entertaining slice of action, horror and one-liners. I guess that for some people the nearest comparison may be to call this a rip-off/homage of Alien, but with its B-movie mentality and consistently tongue in cheek nature I found it to be more along the likes of Tremors set at sea. Or with its story of mercenaries taking over a ship it's like Steven Seagal's Under Siege if half-way through it Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey and Colm Meaney had been attacked by huge sea creatures!

The film is directed by Stephen Sommers, and while I certainly wouldn't say he's a particularly good director he certainly knows his way around this kind of fare. Similar to his work on The Mummy he makes sure to keep the pace flying along at a frenetic rate, has a strong grasp on how to handle the scenes that are heavy on CGI, delivers a lot of fun if familiar action set-pieces and balances all of the film's various tones (comedy, horror, action adventure, monster flick) nicely. He also makes decent use of the film's setting, finding the spooky and claustrophobic nature inherent within the dark and deserted ship. As well as taking his seat in the directors chair Stephen Sommers also wrote the screenplay for Deep Rising. And while he may not be the second coming of Shakespeare I think he does a nice job on scripting duties. While the film may be stupid and bursting with clichéd characters and corny one-liners, in its own way it is actually quite a well crafted little script. It's aware of its limitations and unoriginality but concentrates on what is important. It tells a very simple, straightforward story that has the limited ambition but also the sizeable charm of an episode of Scooby-Doo. It's a well established and clichéd formula that sets a group of one-dimensional, stereotypical characters out as monster bait and has them picked off one by one. And the mercenaries appear to be plucked straight out action flicks of the 80s such as Predator. They are testosterone-fuelled macho guys who are all about bravado and talking tough. And while I think it can always be beneficial to have a single mind bringing their own creation from page to screen here I think it is especially helpful because right from the first words he wrote on the script he knew the tone he was going for. Had another director taken it over they may have tried to go for a more serious, straight approach.

Film Trivia Snippets - Originally Deep Rising was set to have a substantially larger budget but when Harrison Ford turned the role of Finnegan down the production's budget was downsized as a result. /// Famke Janssen's character was given the name of Trillian as an homage to the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy character of the same name. In Hitch-Hiker's it is short for Tricia McMillian whereas here Trillian is the character's actual name. /// Janssen was not the first person cast as Trillian St. James however. Originally Claire Forlani (Mallrats, Meet Joe Black) had been hired and had even started shooting, but she walked out after just three days due to creative differences with Stephen Sommers. Janssen was then brought in as a replacement. Although she was almost not cast as the producers felt that she was too recognizable as being the girl from Goldeneye. /// Stephen Sommers began writing the script back in the mid-1990s when he was working at Hollywood Pictures. It was initially titled Tentacle. Deep Rising was released back in 1998. Now in 'human years' that may only be a mere 15 years, but in terms of technology and CGI that's a lifetime. So it's very pleasing to find that the film's special effects still hold up as being really quite impressive and entertaining. The Lovecraftian style creature that terrorises those onboard the ship is a very cool creation and is well conceived by the effects. The film also features some great make-up work when it comes to creating numerous decomposed and mutilated bodies. There's one particular moment which is deliciously gory. After being confronted by the creature the group unleash a barrage of bullets into it, rupturing its digestive sack and allowing a half eaten guy to drop out, still alive, and starts staggering towards the horrified group. In fact for a studio picture with a fairly hefty budget ($45-50 million) the film really is surprisingly gory, both in terms of the creature attacks and its violence; at one point a character takes an axe straight through the centre of his forehead.

Deep Rising has a host of fun characters and really likeable performances. The whole cast seem to really understand the kind of movie they're making and throw themselves into it with gusto, chewing the scenery and the colourful dialogue for all they're worth. In the lead role Treat Williams is really quite excellent, apparently having an absolute ball as an adventurer in the Indiana Jones/Han Solo mould. I felt that he sort of had a bit of a Kurt Russell vibe to his performance; a very macho action hero type but in a rather self-deprecating manner who always has a wisecrack ready at hand. His comic timing was spot on and he was just a really charming and endearing presence. Actually never mind Kurt Russell, his performance is very similar to the one that Brendan Fraser would give in Stephen Sommers' next movie, The Mummy, the following year. Likewise Famke Janssen is very pleasant and likeable, brightening up proceedings whenever she appears. And the fact that she is also immensely sexy in this certainly doesn't hurt. In the real comic relief role of the film you've got Kevin J. O'Connor, very much doing the same job as he would for Sommers in The Mummy. He does a decent job although I've got to say that for me he alternated wildly between being funny and downright irritating. Character actor Anthony Heald (always good at playing a baddie) is a real hoot as the villain of the piece while there's even a very minor role for Djimon Hounsou as one of the mercenaries. It's amazing to think that in the same year as this trash he was starring in and picking up nominations for Amistad.

I'm sure that there a lot of people who hate this film, but I'm sure there are also a fair few around here who like or even love this film but may just be too embarrassed to admit it. Well this review is for those people. I'm standing up for all the people on here who don't think that cinema begins and ends with art house; the people who are more interested in the latest Sylvester Stallone film than the newest offering from Bela Tarr, the people who are more interested in films which feature cats talking and dancing than being tortured. This is a call to arms for all the normal people out there - it's time for the revolution of the simple-minded! :D

Conclusion - Deep Rising is a film that knows full well just how dumb it is. However it's not trying to be anything else, there is not a hint of pretension about it. All that the people involved want to do is to entertain you for an hour and a half. And you know what, god bless them for it! The film aims very low, but as a result it ends up hitting some real highs. I am undoubtedly over-rating the film in regards to quality, but if anything I think I may be underrating just how much I enjoyed this film. I'd say that it's a great Friday/Saturday night flick, and I could see it possibly becoming a real favourite in a guilty pleasure kind of way. It's got big monsters, big guns, big explosions, some nasty deaths, a touch of gore and a really hot girl. What more could someone possibly want?

PS - Just to let everyone know my final paragraph there before the conclusion was inspired by some talk at the time between myself and Daniel about his forays into art house. :D

The Rodent

01-05-14, 04:44 PM

Yeah, I really liked Deep Rising.

Would put it around the 85% margin myself. Simply a fun and gory film that delivers what it wanted to.

I wouldn't say Kevin J O'Connor was the same in this as in The Mummy though. I loved O'Connor in Deep Rising... probably one of his funniest roles tbh.

No mention for the late great Trevor Goddard though? Shame on you :D

mark f

01-05-14, 05:16 PM

This could be the review that finally kills off the last shred of credibility that myself and my reviews had.

http://omgpissmeoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RIP-300x300.jpg

The Gunslinger45

01-05-14, 05:16 PM

Sexy Celebrity

01-05-14, 05:35 PM

http://i.imgur.com/7fkNeKV.gif

honeykid

01-05-14, 05:39 PM

Yeah, this is more my kind of thing. I don't think I'd rate it quite as highly as you, but we all know this is where I live. :D I didn't know about Harrison Ford's involvement and the thought of it both sickens and terrifies me.

seanc

01-05-14, 05:49 PM

Isn't there something between Stallone and Bela Tarr for me. :D

The Gunslinger45

01-05-14, 06:42 PM

Isn't there something between Stallone and Bela Tarr for me. :D

Scorsese?

seanc

01-05-14, 07:05 PM

Scorsese?
Exactly. Scorsese, Payne, O'Russell, PTA, Anderson. That's what I'm talking about.

The Gunslinger45

01-05-14, 08:00 PM

Exactly. Scorsese, Payne, O'Russell, PTA, Anderson. That's what I'm talking about.

Good choice!

JayDee

01-05-14, 09:08 PM

Isn't there something between Stallone and Bela Tarr for me. :D

Nope, sorry. Those are your only two choices. And it is now time for you to nail your colours to the mast. So are you team Sly or Team Bella? (hey, that one actually works as a Twilight reference! :D)

The Gunslinger45

01-05-14, 09:11 PM

Nope, sorry. Those are your only two choices. And it is now time for you to nail your colours to the mast. So are you team Sly or Team Bella? (hey, that one actually works as a Twilight reference! :D)

Get your butt into the awards thread and accept you award! :D

JayDee

01-07-14, 03:28 PM

Get your butt into the awards thread and accept you award! :D

That's right people, it's official. When it comes to reviews I am your king! How'd you like them apples Rodent? :p

Although it was probably a good call to not post Deep Rising until after voting had closed. It could have cost me votes! :D

gandalf26

01-07-14, 06:51 PM

I honestly don't think I ever heard of Deep Rising.

Sexy Celebrity

01-07-14, 07:26 PM

http://gifti.me/i/Jg1a.gif

He just posted a new one, but you can't stop Macaulay Culkin's magic.

Daniel M

01-07-14, 08:01 PM

I now understand, the reason you hate art house is because Bela Tarr tortured a cat.

bluedeed

01-07-14, 08:12 PM

than the newest offering from Bela Tarr, the people who are more interested in films which feature cats talking and dancing than being tortured.

That hurts man, not the whole cat nonsense, but Bela Tarr is retired and the world is sad!

You should totally watch The Spirit of the Beehive now!
http://ktismatics.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/beehive-cat.png

The Rodent

01-07-14, 08:17 PM

That's right people, it's official. When it comes to reviews I am your king! How'd you like them apples Rodent? :p

Although it was probably a good call to not post Deep Rising until after voting had closed. It could have cost me votes! :D

I've yet to see you write up a review so large it takes two posts to fit it on the board.

By the way, along with that tremendous Two-Post Star Trek Review I rocked the MoFo World with, I'm working on two more whole franchises...one with 6 movies, one with 5...

... oh, and my 5 Movie X-Men Franchise Review is going to get a rerun as well soon because The Wolverine hadn't been made at the time I wrote it.
I'll probably wait until Days Of Future Past is out first before I rerun it though.

Oh, and, I also got a £30 Cinema Card for Christmas so I can go see it regardless of my monetary situation.

honeykid

01-08-14, 07:03 AM

You shouldn't boast about Star Trek reviews, Rodent. That could be what lost you the award. :D

JayDee

01-11-14, 05:57 PM

Been meaning to post another review for a few days now. To make up for it here's a double bill. I had only been planning on watching With a Vengeance for my top 100 list but decided to throw in Die Harder as well, largely down to Vicky listing it in her 100.

Die Hard Double Bill

mirror mirror

Year of release
1990

Directed by
Renny Harlin

Written by
Steven E. de Souza
Doug Richardson

Starring
Bruce Willis
Bonnie Bedelia
William Sadler
Art Evans
Dennis Franz
Franco Nero
John Amos

Die Hard 2: Die Harder

4 -

Plot - Once again, New York cop John McClane (Willis) has found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time - this time he's waiting for his wife's plane to arrive at Washington's Dulles Airport when he uncovers a plot to sabotage the airport's landing system. The criminals wish to free a drug baron being extradited to America for trial by holding the airport to ransom until they all safely escape on another plane. However, if they'd known that Holly McClane (Bedelia) was on a flight home to the very airport they were hijacking, they would have picked another day.

My memory of Die Hard 2 wasn't the most positive. I think just the fact that I always associated it with being the weakest of the Die Hard films (at least of the original trilogy) meant that in my mind it wasn't that great a film. Now while I'd still have it some way behind the original Die Hard and 1995's Die Hard With a Vengeance, Die Hard 2 is able to stand as a very good action film on its own merits.

Die Harder has a lively set-up and a thrilling finish, however I feel that there is a bit of a lull during the film's second act. It feels like the film rather abandons its action film roots and instead moves off into the territory of an old school 70s disaster flick. So you instead get McClane running around the airport trying to find ways to avert the disaster, as opposed to him actually having any direct contact with the villains, either physically or verbally. Well apart from one big shootout which sees McClane take on a bunch of the goons who are dressed as painters in a terminal that is closed for refurbishment. When the film does return to its action groove it more than delivers. Some smaller skirmishes and a fun snowmobile chase set the stage for its huge, explosive finale which sees McClane battling both William Sadler's Colonel and John Amos' Major on the wing of a accelerating plane. When he is knocked from the wing to the ground it seems like the terrorists have won but old John McClane has one final trick up his sleeve. Just before being thrown he had removed the plane's fuel cap, creating a large streak of fuel, one which McClane proceeds to light, resulting in a massive fireball in the sky. More than any film in the series Die Harder also has some devilish fun by depicting some rather nasty deaths, such as Amos' Major Grant being turned into a soup after falling into the jet propeller and McClane stabbing one of the goons through the eye with an icicle.

Early on in the film we are presented with a quite striking scene which sees William Sadler's performing a martial arts routine in nothing but his birthday suit. There doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be naked other than the opportunity to see that he is one ripped motherf*cker, thus creating a sense of threat about him. And in that respect Sadler (an actor I've always been a big fan of) is a great choice for the role. His cold, icy eyes and chiselled jaw as sharp as glass make him a very menacing presence. In fact it's a similar case with many of the goons who are a real rogues gallery of touch, uncompromising looking individuals. Their goal is the release of General Ramon Esperanza, a drug lord and dictator of Val Verde. Oh and while we're on it what a s*it-hole that Val Verde must be! Surely one of the worst places in the world! :D As I'm sure some people will know it is actually a fictional country created by 20th Century Fox to serve as a stand-in for a South or Central American country when they don't want to get into any legal or diplomatic tussles by using a real country. The villain of Commando who attempts to control and manipulate Arnie is the former ruler of Val Verde. While in Predator the country that Dutch and co are sent to where they encounter the alien hunter is also Val Verde.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film was based on the novel “58 Minutes” by Walter Wager. This is why in France the film was titled "58 Minutes Pour Vivre" ("58 Minutes To Live"). /// John McTiernan, director of both the first and third Die Hard films, did originally plan to direct this film as well but was unable to do so because of his commitment to direct The Hunt for Red October. /// Die Hard 2 had a hell of a time trying to locate snow for its filming. It was due to be filmed at both Moses Lake in Washington and in Minnesota but both locations were abandoned due to there being no snow, with production instead moving to Michigan and Denver. Even then however they encountered problems as Denver was unseasonably snowless during the snowstorm scenes so a large amount of the snow had to be created artificially. /// Here's a great example of movie magic when it comes to editing. The scene where McClane climbs the ladder from the service tunnels up onto the runway and then nearly gets run over by Esperanza's plane was actually filmed at eight different locations - Granada Hills, California (McClain in the tunnel and climbing up the ladder); Los Angeles, California (Close-ups of Esperanza inside the plane's cockpit); Mojave Desert, California (Head-on view of plane in the sky on approach); Alpena, Michigan (Exterior shot of the grating door on the runway); San Francisco, California (Rear shot of plane on approach with runway lights in the background); Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (Plane after just landed rushing towards the screen); Lake Tahoe, California (Plane rushing towards McClane in the foreground) and Denver, Colorado (Plane rushing towards McClane as seen from behind the front landing gear). The character of John McClane was never going to allow Bruce Willis to trouble the award ceremonies but he plays it perfectly and shows once again why it became the iconic character that has defined his career. His performance is actually a touch different here than in the other films, the character seems to be in a much better place with a much more positive, perkier outlook on life and a sense of playful humour to him. This undoubtedly comes from the fact that for the only time in the series he is enjoying a harmonious home life due to his reconciliation with his wife Holli. I also enjoyed the fact that this time things didn't just happen to him. The series has occasionally been ridiculed for the freakish run of bad luck McClane has suffered by constantly getting caught up in such situations. This time however it is McClane's keen police eye that leads him into the centre of things. I mentioned his wife Holli there, and while you need here to get McClane to the airport in the first place, I wonder if you really need her thread of the film; it perhaps feeling like a forced scenario to generate a desperation in McClane while I like to think that he would have acted just out of a sense of right. As well as the returning Holli this sequel also included another couple of fun nods back to the original, namely the reprisal of both the news reporter Sam Coleman and Reginald VelJohnson's Sgt. Powell character. Though Powell's appearance is merely a cameo but it's a nice addition all the same.

Its airport setting and snowstorm conditions certainly do give Die Harder the most distinctive look of the series, although the airport itself I felt lacked interest. Even though it does share environmental elements with the first film (McClane even acknowledges how he is once again stuck crawling through air vents) they just don't generate quite the same level of interest as we watch McClane exploring the airport's endless catacombs and corridors.

I think that perhaps the biggest flaw this film has, and what keeps it from achieving the same standing in my eyes as either the film that preceded or followed it, is the lack of interest that its villains generate. As I already stated William Sadler provides a strong, bad-ass presence; as does John Amos, but as actual characters they come up some way short. They are never really given the opportunity to flesh out the characters or add a great degree of colour to them. I think it also hurts that you've got a trio of villains who all seem to be on a very similar standing, instead of having one major bad guy like Alan Rickman in Die Hard and Jeremy Irons in Die Hard With a Vengeance. I think it robs McClane of having a real adversary to go head to head with.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
John McTiernan

Written by
Jonathan Hensleigh

Starring
Bruce Willis
Samuel L. Jackson
Jeremy Irons
Graham Greene
Larry Bryggman
Coleen Camp

Die Hard: With a Vengeance

5

Plot - Following the dissolution of his marriage, John McClane (Willis) is now almost a full-blown alcoholic and is suspended from the NYPD. But when a bomb goes off in the Bonwit Teller Department Store the police go insane trying to figure out what's going on. Soon, a man named Simon (Irons) calls and asks for McClane. Simon tells Inspector Walter Cobb that McClane is going to play a game called "Simon Says". He says that McClane is going to do the tasks he assigns him. If not, he'll blow up another bomb. With the help of a Harlem electrician named Zeus (Jackson), McClane must race all over New York trying to figure out the frustrating puzzles that the crafty terrorist gives him. But when a bomb goes off in a subway station right by the Federal Reserve (the biggest gold storage in the world) McClane starts to think that not everything is as it seems.

I certainly believe that in terms of just pure quality the original Die Hard has the clear edge over this sequel, and indeed all of the films that followed it. However this film has two elements which more than make up for the deficit - Samuel L. Jackson and Jeremy Irons. Both men contribute greatly to the energy and humour of the film with really charismatic showings. Jackson is quite dynamic as Zeus Carver, the angry and in your face individual who comes to McClane's rescue and finds himself as an unwilling sidekick. At times he really is quite hilarious. The chemistry that he has with Willis is excellent and is a huge factor in the film's success. With the issue of race always present between them, and antagonised by McClane's frequently reckless behaviour, it's a very contentious and at times exceptionally funny partnership. While it may just be your standard buddy movie dynamic they do it damn well. In fact when you put these two together you usually get something pretty special. As well as this film they also made Pulp Fiction and Unbreakable. When these two get together magic happens. And as the man who is eventually revealed to be the brother of Hans Gruber, Jeremy Irons does a more than commendable job of living up to the legacy of Alan Rickman. As with Rickman's earlier effort Irons makes the characters a wonderfully colourful, magnetic presence who is just gleefully evil. Like Rickman he creates a character that is so much devious fun to behold you actually end up really liking him in a way. Oh and maybe I'm alone on this but did anyone else find the character of Katya, the mute killer and lover of Simon, to be strangely alluring and sexy; admittedly in a very scary kind of way.

If you're looking for a great slice of action you really can't go wrong with this film. During its two hour running time it manages to pack in just about every variation of action that the genre has to offer. So we get high speed pursuits that sees the characters traversing roads and parks at great speed, a train crash, big gun shootouts, brutal hand to hand combat, large explosions, high-wire stunt work and even a moment where the film slips into disaster movie mode as McClane is chased down a tunnel by a torrential wall of water. Jam packing so much action into the film ensures that the pace of Die Hard With a Vengeance is absolutely unrelenting and as a result thrilling. All this action also ensures that McClane, and in turn Zeus, are really put through the ringer. By the end both men are caked in blood and dirt, and McClane had already started the film looking like s*it this time out. For McClane it rather makes his previous experiences look like the proverbial walk in the park, as tough as that may be to imagine.

Returning to the Die Hard directors seat after Renny Harlin kept it warm for Die Hard 2, John McTiernan does a great job, again showing why he was one of the best directors of the action genre. He keeps the film moving along at a tremendous pace and handles the numerous sequences of action with the kind of skill you'd expect given his massive experience with the genre. From its opening seconds we see that he's going to do everything he can to deliver a great energy and lots of thrills. With Lovin' Spoonful providing the tunes with “Summer in the City” (awesome song by the way) we are presented with a scattershot of images of New York, building up the look and atmosphere of the place before rudely interrupting it with a large explosion which rocks the city. Also helping to create the film's abrupt pace is Jonathan Hensleigh's fun, rather clever script. As well as providing Willis and Jackson with the back-and-forth banter to sink their teeth into, it keeps the audience guessing with a lot of fun twists and turns to its story. The script also does a nice job of dropping in little touches which will become relevant later; the attention paid to police badge numbers which later alerts McClane to danger and Zeus' kids handling stolen merchandise which makes them avoid the school evacuation.

Film Trivia Snippets - John McTiernan's first choice for the role of Simon Gruber was Sean Connery but he turned it down as he didn't want to play such a diabolical villain. And before Jeremy Irons took over the role it was actually occupied by David Thewlis. /// And for the role of Zeus Carver, Laurence Fishburne was the original choice but turned it down. He later reconsidered his decision but by then Samuel L. Jackson had been cast instead. /// The sex scene near the end of the film between Jeremy Irons and Sam Phillips was a last minute addition by John McTiernan. He knew by this point that the film was definitely getting an R rating so he thought he may as well thrown a sex scene in. /// The film's writer, Jonathan Hensleigh, was actually detained for questioning by the FBI after completing the script because of the extensive knowledge he displayed of the Federal Gold Reserve in Downtown Manhattan. He stated that he got all the information from an article in the New York Times. /// In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, 20th Century Fox took out trade press ads defending their decision to continue with the imminent release of a film about a terrorist planting bombs in public places. /// There was a unique case of scripts being passed about between some of the biggest action films and franchises of the time. An early script that was rejected eventually went on to become Speed 2: Cruise Control, while the script that eventually became Die Hard With a Vengeance started life as “Simon Says” and was considered to be the third sequel for Lethal Weapon. In fact the first hour of this film comes from the “Simon Says” script word for word, with just the names of the characters changed.One element that I've always really enjoyed about this film is its use of riddles. I personally may be absolutely hopeless when it comes to solving them but I've always enjoyed attempting them and the process that characters go through in their bid to solve them. So it's why The Riddler was always my favourite villain in the original, pre-Nolan Batman films and the classic 60s TV show; it's why as a kid I was kind of obsessed with the great Scooby-Doo animated film, Scooby-Doo Meets the Boo Brothers; and it's why I've always just enjoyed films and TV shows etc which include riddles and clues etc usually in the search for treasure such as the Indiana Jones films. Oh and every time I watch this film I get frustrated trying to work out the water jugs riddle, and then even after I have by the time I get round to rewatching the film I've forgotten it again! :D The addition of the riddles, and the game of cat and mouse that ensues, also allows the film to break away from the formula it had established in the previous two instalments.

One area where Vengeance succeeds in a perhaps surprising fashion is as a city movie. With New York as its backdrop I think it's a terrific city movie, showing numerous sides of its famous streets and locations. And after two films which took McClane out of his comfort zone and into alien territory it's nice to finally see McClane on his own streets. Although watching it these days the film has taken on a whole new dimension. Following the horrific and tragic events that occurred back in 2001 there is now a real and unavoidable vibe of 9/11 to the film's proceedings. Numerous shots place great prominence on the Twin Towers themselves, with one particular seeing framing McClane and Zeus between the towers for an extended period of time as they run along one of the city's streets. Alongside that there is the fictional disaster featured in the film, a train crash, which sends smoke and dust billowing up onto the streets as the city's residents scramble frantically for cover and safety. And just as with 9/11, following the train crash the streets are littered with policemen and fire fighters. They really are quite evocative and sadly familiar images. And they make it highly unlikely that this film would be made today, or for a long time to come actually.

While the previous two films, especially the first, relied on cooping McClane up, Die Hard With a Vengeance revels in giving him a whole city to roam and gives the film a fresh twist on its established formula. If there's one flaw with the film it's that the finale does perhaps feel a little bit tacked on, as if it was only conceived of at the last minute. And as it turns out there's actually some truth to that. The film went through a few variations of alternate endings and indeed another ending was filmed before they settled on the final version.

While it may not be as good as the original, it runs it damn close for being the most entertaining entry in the Die Hard series. So close in fact that at times I'm really not sure which I should consider as my favourite.

seanc

01-11-14, 06:01 PM

This after Rodent's double bill. I feel a rivalry.

Miss Vicky

01-11-14, 06:09 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I love Die Hard II and it's in my Top 100. It's been a favorite since I was a kid. I haven't watched Die Hard With A Vengeance in many years and I've been meaning to get to it, but I do remember liking it a lot.

The Gunslinger45

01-11-14, 06:33 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I love the Die Hard series! While Die Harder is my least favorite of what I consider to be the good Die Hard movies, it blows A Good Day to Die Hard out of the water! And Die Hard With a Vengeance is a very easy number two to the original.

Sexy Celebrity

01-11-14, 07:01 PM

http://i.imgur.com/0ePswHB.gif

nebbit

01-12-14, 04:58 AM

good stuff Jay :yup:

Plan B

01-12-14, 07:17 AM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1979

Directed by
Francis Ford Coppola

Written by
Francis Ford Coppola
John Milius
Michael Herr

Starring
Martin Sheen
Robert Duvall
Marlon Brando
Frederic Forrest

Apocalypse Now

3

Plot - Vietnam, 1969. A Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz (Brando), has gone insane in the eyes of the United States army. So concerned are they by his actions that they delegate a Special Forces officer with a covert mission - to find and assassinate Kurtz. That officer is Captain Willard (Sheen). Sent up the Nung River on a US Navy patrol boat, Willard investigates Kurtz's military history and discovers he is one of the most decorated officers in the army, making him question his mission. As Willard and the crew descend deeper and deeper into the jungle they begin to fall prey to the insanity all around them.

Apocalypse Now is an occasionally splendid, but frequently flawed film in my eyes. I guess it's pretty much what you'd expect given the struggles that occurred during its infamous production. I just felt the film had more than an occasional air of pomposity and pretentiousness. This was achieved through a mixture of things; beats on the soundtrack, the continuous narration, the ponderous pace, some forced and overwrought moments such as when a soldier lies dead as a recorded message from his mother plays telling him to watch out for bullets. I just found it to have quite a grand sense of self-congratulation.

The boat that Willard and his fellow soldiers are aboard meanders very steadily along the river towards Kurtz; and it's a suitable representation of the film's pace as whole, just meandering along. It really is quite a curiously paced film. After some thrilling sparks of action early on, more often than not the film seems content to settle into a slow trudge towards its destination. I just felt the story lacked direction, which may sound strange given its straight-ahead linear nature, but the main crux of the story didn't greatly interest me, and I failed to really engage with any of the characters. I also felt that the film didn't really tie itself to the Vietnam war in a way. I want a war film to really place me in the war its tackling and the issues that went along with it. This felt like it could have taken place during any war.

Martin Sheen I think gives a very solid performance, but I feel that he is sabotaged from giving a truly great performance by the style of the film itself; he's sent up the river if you will. ;) He is handed an almost continuous amount of narration to deliver, meaning that on screen he is left with little more to do than glare menacingly. Some of his fellow soldiers on the boat I felt were created with some hammy performances but were generally solid. The real star for me would have to be Robert Duvall, even in his limited role. He just absolutely pops off the screen when he appears as Bill Kilgore, the terrifyingly colourful Lieutenant Colonel with a penchant for surfing, and for napalm in the morning. Considering what, and who they find at the end of the river I was left wishing that the film had just dropped us off with Kilgore; I imagine it would have made for a much more interesting and entertaining experience.

So indeed quite a few flaws, but even then it was still going along rather well. The real nail in the film's coffin however in terms of my really liking it? It's third act. Drawn out and just flat out dull. After so much build-up to meeting this apparently monstrous god of a man, what do we get? A fat, bald guy who hides in the shadows and recites poetry. :confused: It fell tremendously short of what my mind had been creating. And it was most certainly not helped by Brando's hammy mugging. The film tries to sell the repugnance of Kurtz's character with his lair. I get they were going for horrific with all the bodies dotted around the temple like buildings, but for me personally it felt pretty gaudy and pulpy. I wondered whether Sheen had been on that damn river for so long that he had ended up arriving on the set of Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I just found the whole thing to be a spectacularly underwhelming conclusion.

One place where I can have no criticism whatsoever however is in the film's visuals. The sheer scale of the canvas that Coppola told his tale on is epic, leading to some truly spectacular scenes and striking images. I can just picture Coppola's way of thinking at times - “why settle for just a few helicopters when we can have ten of them?”, “why have dozens of extras when I could have hundreds?” The ultimate culmination of this occurs during the tremendous Ride of the Valkyries sequence. Further heightening the visuals is some absolutely beautiful cinematography from Vittorio Storaro. The scenes with the boat floating down the river, the orange sun bouncing off the water with lush wilderness all around are gorgeous. And its the visuals which also prove the saving grace of that conclusion; the use of lighting is terrific, creating a cavernous setting that makes it feel like the characters are down in the very depths of hell itself. Even if the lack of lighting was merely a device to try and hide Brando's immense weight gain!

Conclusion - Overlong, self-indulgent and with a weak finale that leaves a sour taste in the mouth, I found this very far from the masterpiece that many people paint it as. In terms of numerous technical aspects (direction, editing, cinematography) however I do think that it is an exceptionally well-made film; it's just that I wasn't particularly taken with the film that ended up getting made. However some of the extraordinary visuals mean that I certainly wouldn't have a problem recommending people give it a try.

Weak finale? How so?

cricket

01-12-14, 11:41 AM

I actually prefer part 2 to part 3, as I think part 2 is the most like the first. Part 3 is a good movie with a lot of great ideas, but the second half started to drag for me. I also felt that the Sam Jackson character was kind of a distraction. I also recently saw part 4 and was surprised how much I liked it. I taped the newer one last night; I know it's supposed to suck, but I'll still give it a shot.

Die Hard 10/10
Part 2 9/10
Part 3 8/10
Part 4 7.5/10

honeykid

01-12-14, 12:41 PM

Weak finale? How so?
Probably because the last third of that film is weak.

I love Die Hard, as you know, but unlike most people I don't have much between 2 and 3. I think that's because I like 2 more than most and 3 less than most, which evens them out when compared to how most seem to feel about them.

The Gunslinger45

01-12-14, 12:44 PM

honeykid

01-12-14, 01:06 PM

A friend of mine bought that yesterday. He was slightly scared to show me. :D

The Gunslinger45

01-12-14, 01:14 PM

A friend of mine bought that yesterday. He was slightly scared to show me. :D

I saw it in the theater... it still hurts.

gandalf26

01-13-14, 07:14 PM

Nice Die Hard reviews JD!

It's rare for a third part to come back strong and almost hit the heights of the first movie.

JayDee

01-13-14, 09:15 PM

Thanks for the compliments everyone. :up:

This after Rodent's double bill. I feel a rivalry.

Where have you been at sean? Rodent and I have had a long and storied rivalry! Although it recently ended at the Mofie awards when I won the best reviewer award, forever confirming my superiority. Isn't that right Rodent? :p

I love Die Hard II and it's in my Top 100. It's been a favorite since I was a kid. I haven't watched Die Hard With A Vengeance in many years and I've been meaning to get to it, but I do remember liking it a lot.

I've actually been meaning to ask you about Die Hard II. Since you listed it on your top 100 I've seen you rate it a couple of times at 3.5 which seems quite low for an absolute favourite. Is that just a quality rating as opposed to how much you personally love it?

Sexy Celebrity

01-14-14, 01:02 AM

Miss Vicky

01-14-14, 11:06 AM

I've actually been meaning to ask you about Die Hard II. Since you listed it on your top 100 I've seen you rate it a couple of times at 3.5 which seems quite low for an absolute favourite. Is that just a quality rating as opposed to how much you personally love it?

It's a more of a quality rating. Like the Herbie movies, my love of the first two Die Hard movies has more to do with the childhood memories associated with them than it has to do with the movies themselves. If I'd never seen them as a child and watched them for the first time as an adult, I don't think I'd like them much as I'm not a fan of the action genre.

That said, though, coming from me a 3.5 means this is an above average, solid movie and I enjoyed it.

JayDee

01-14-14, 09:38 PM

Just as a little preview of sorts of what is perhaps coming up this year in terms of my New Year movie resolutions.

I've made a list of a few hundred films that I'd like to watch at some point, helping to narrow down from the thousands of options I have. I will also be trying to get my top 100 list up at some point this year so I'll be revisiting more of them which will mean a lot of 5 star reviews.

And I've also highlighted a few directors I want to focus on at some point for one reason or another -

Martin Scorsese - I've seen a few of his films and yet to get one I really like/love, but that's mainly because they've not been my type of films. So I'll be looking at some of his other films
David Lynch - I've still never actually watched a film of his :eek: but have access to 6 at the moment which I could watch
Billy Wilder - I've seen 5 or 6 of his films and really liked/loved the majority (Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, Seven Year Itch, Some Like it Hot) so want to check out a few more

There were a couple of others as well but can't think of them just now. And obviously can't guarantee any of the films will generate a review or not

seanc

01-14-14, 09:45 PM

I will be interested to see how you feel about Lynch. I don't get the love. I could use another cinephile on my side.

Daniel M

01-14-14, 09:49 PM

David Lynch - I've still never actually watched a film of his :eek: but have access to 6 at the moment which I could watch

Yes! Please do. Although you will probably hate most of his films, what 6 do you have available?

Skepsis93

01-14-14, 11:10 PM

Martin Scorsese - I've seen a few of his films and yet to get one I really like/love, but that's mainly because they've not been my type of films. So I'll be looking at some of his other films

Of his more popular films Taxi Driver is the only one I really love. It's his dark comedies that have become firm favourites with me - After Hours and The King of Comedy in particular I think are brilliant. I definitely recommend The Wolf of Wall Street too if you get a chance to see that.

P.S. Look! I'm in your thread!

Miss Vicky

01-14-14, 11:21 PM

Martin Scorsese - I've seen a few of his films and yet to get one I really like/love, but that's mainly because they've not been my type of films.

Which ones have you seen?

I didn't care for Taxi Driver (gasp, shock, horror! :eek:), or Gangs of New York and am not entirely sure how I feel about Bringing Out the Dead, but I really enjoyed Goodfellas, Casino, The Aviator, Shutter Island, The Wolf of Wall Street and, my favorite, The Departed.

JayDee

01-15-14, 12:25 PM

I will be interested to see how you feel about Lynch. I don't get the love. I could use another cinephile on my side.

Well to be fair you've got pretty much the ultimate cinephile on your side in Mark. Other than a couple of his films I'm pretty sure you could say that he is certainly not an admirer of Mr. Lynch.

Although you will probably hate most of his films, what 6 do you have available?

:mad: Oh I see! You don't think I'm intelligent enough to 'get' your precious Lynch? You pretentious art house snobs are all the same!!! :p

Between DVDs I've picked up and a couple I've taped off TV I've got Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Straight Story and Mulholland Drive.

Oh and I watched about half of Twin Peak's first season a long while back but then I got distracted or something and left it for a while. When I tried to pick it back up I just couldn't get back into it. So will need to go from the start again someday.

Which ones have you seen?

I didn't care for Taxi Driver (gasp, shock, horror! :eek:), or Gangs of New York and am not entirely sure how I feel about Bringing Out the Dead, but I really enjoyed Goodfellas, Casino, The Aviator, Shutter Island, The Wolf of Wall Street and, my favorite, The Departed.

I've seen 4 of Marty's films, including what are perhaps his 3 most celebrated. Like you I also didn't really like Taxi Driver (I feel we should be whispering about this so we don't whip up an angry Movie Forums mob that will drive us off the board!). It's not that I thought it was a bad film or anything but just found it so bleak and grim that there's no way I could say I liked it. And I'm also not a great fan of Robert de Niro. Similar story for Raging Bull which I found a real slog to get through. Goodfellas I struggled a bit with, largely as I have no interest in films about gangsters. I may lose my man card for it but it's just not something that appeals to me at all. That said I did actually enjoy it more than I expected. And lastly there was Gangs of New York. Again it's a gangster flick of a sorts which is a mark against it, but I also just didn't think that one was all that good.

In addition to trying out more of his films I do plan on revisiting Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. It was a few years ago now that I watched both and would like to think that I've grown at least a little bit as a movie watcher in that time. Perhaps I'll be able to recognise and appreciate the technical qualities of the film to a degree that it overcomes my general problems with their natures. Oh and I have now actually seen 4 new Scorsese films over the last few days.

Miss Vicky

01-15-14, 12:35 PM

I get where you're coming from in regards to gangster films, I'm not really a fan either. That said, though, if The Departed isn't one of the 4 "new" Scorcese films you've seen in the last few days, I urge you to watch it. I went into it the first time expecting not to like it because of its subject matter and because I hate Marky Mark and Alec Baldwin and don't like Matt Damon much, but it really blew me away. It's also largely responsible for Leonardo DiCaprio becoming one of my favorite actors.

Daniel M

01-15-14, 01:09 PM

:mad: Oh I see! You don't think I'm intelligent enough to 'get' your precious Lynch? You pretentious art house snobs are all the same!!! :p

Between DVDs I've picked up and a couple I've taped off TV I've got Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Straight Story and Mulholland Drive.

That's a decent bunch. Most people like The Elephant Man and The Straight Story, Mulholland Drive seems to be one of his most accessible artistic ones and most people's favourite, Dune I have not seen and Wild At Heart is very odd but quite straightforward, you might enjoy Nicolas Cage being crazy. I'd just stay away from Inland Empire, there's like a 1% chance you'd like that, two of three hours in and you'd have regretted not giving Magnolia a re watch instead :p

Cobpyth

01-15-14, 01:18 PM

Skepsis93

01-15-14, 01:24 PM

@Jaydee:
Watch Blue Velvet.
If you don't like that one, you probably won't like Lynch. It's his masterpiece and it is the perfect combination of his typically mysterious and surrealistic, but wonderfully stylized atmosphere, the excessive situations he so often sketches in his work and his notoriously peculiar narrative style.
It's also quite accessible to a certain extent.

If you don't like Blue Velvet you probably won't like Lynchian Lynch, if you get my drift, which rules out most of his filmography. But if that's the case you might still love The Elephant Man and The Straight Story, JayDee. They both bear his mark to a certain extent but I wouldn't call them Lynchian films by any means, and they're both very good, especially the latter.

mark f

01-15-14, 01:28 PM

It's OK to not like crappy movies. Just try to see whichever movies with an open mind and take them for whatever they have to offer. Some of them may surprise you and turn you on to something new, in film and in yourself. But it's OK to call crap crap, preferably after seeing it. Yeah, I realize there may be limits for you, but this site proves people will watch and love (or hate) anything. :)

Daniel M

01-15-14, 01:31 PM

It's OK to not like crappy movies.

Indeed, but he said he was going to watch David Lynch, so that doesn't apply here :p

Daniel M

01-15-14, 01:35 PM

If you don't like Blue Velvet you probably won't like Lynchian Lynch, if you get my drift, which rules out most of his filmography. But if that's the case you might still love The Elephant Man and The Straight Story, JayDee. They both bear his mark to a certain extent but I wouldn't call them Lynchian films by any means, and they're both very good, especially the latter.

The Elephant Man is basically a sequel to Eraserhead. After the events of Eraserhead, Henry discovers that Mary is pregnant with another mutant child, and unable to cope he sends it away to join a circus, before it ends up in England under the care of Anthony Hopkins. Why do you think they are both black and white? :p

mark f

01-15-14, 01:35 PM

Indeed, but he said he was going to watch David Lynch, so that doesn't apply here :p
It does (or should) apply to reality though, but that may not apply here much either. :cool:

Cobpyth

01-15-14, 01:55 PM

mark f

01-15-14, 02:39 PM

My comments above really were not talking about Lynch, but once Jeffrey goes down the rabbit hole, I pretty much think it falls apart. I still give it 2.5, but those later scenes are probably what make you, Woody Allen and those who are fans of the "Lynch Touch" call it a masterpiece.

BlueLion

01-15-14, 02:54 PM

I think I prefer Lost Highway to Blue Velvet, myself. :cool:

JayDee

01-15-14, 05:02 PM

What one is it you really hate Mark? I know you're not a fan of many of them but I remember you really ripping into one at some point I'm sure. Was it Inland Empire?

And thanks for the recommendations everyone.

That said, though, if The Departed isn't one of the 4 "new" Scorcese films you've seen in the last few days, I urge you to watch it. I went into it the first time expecting not to like it because of its subject matter and because I hate Marky Mark and Alec Baldwin and don't like Matt Damon much, but it really blew me away.

Don't want to give away too much, I like to keep you all in suspense. :D But no The Departed isn't one I've watched yet. I had actually been thinking of picking up a used copy on DVD for pennies but spotted that it's on TV tomorrow night, so will try and tape it to watch. Similar to you I have some reservations in terms of the cast in addition to the subject matter. Although for me it's Jack Nicholson who I really can't stand. As I've said before with the likes of Nicholson and De Niro I think it's those macho, aggressive types that I find a turn-off; something that a therapist could no doubt link to my problems with my father in mere seconds.

bluedeed

01-15-14, 05:03 PM

What one is it you really hate Mark? I know you're not a fan of many of them but I remember you really ripping into one at some point I'm sure. Was it Inland Empire?

Couldn't be seeing as that's his best film!

Miss Vicky

01-15-14, 05:34 PM

The Departed isn't one I've watched yet... Similar to you I have some reservations in terms of the cast... Although for me it's Jack Nicholson who I really can't stand.

Well if it's Nicholson you don't like, you might not like The Departed. Jack is very Jack in it, if you know what I mean. But I think it works very well for his character.

Daniel M

01-15-14, 05:58 PM

What one is it you really hate Mark? I know you're not a fan of many of them but I remember you really ripping into one at some point I'm sure. Was it Inland Empire?

Nope, that's Mark's favourite, he gives it 4, it's The Elephant Man that he hates and gives only 0.5.

Or maybe it is the other way round :D

honeykid

01-15-14, 08:03 PM

Well if it's Nicholson you don't like, you might not like The Departed. Jack is very Jack in it, if you know what I mean.
^^This.^^

cricket

01-15-14, 08:13 PM

Well if it's Nicholson you don't like, you might not like The Departed. Jack is very Jack in it, if you know what I mean. But I think it works very well for his character.

Jack Nicholson is my favorite actor, but his performance was my one disappointment with The Departed. He was great as always, but it's not close to one of his signature roles. He is overshadowed in this movie by the rest of the cast, which is phenomenal.

JayDee

01-15-14, 09:48 PM

Before I move onto my next review I think it's about time I clear my backlog of micro musings, so here's the first batch. I had kind of forgotten all about them and I think some of them have been sitting around for about 6 months or something, back just before and during the Films of the 90s countdown

Micro Musings

mirror mirror

Year of release
1992

Directed by
Robert Altman

Starring
Tim Robbins
Greta Scacchi
Fred Ward
Peter Gallagher
Whoopi Goldberg

The Player

3.5 -

I was enjoying this film quite a bit up until its central murder after which I felt it started to lose a little bit of steam. However it recovered its impetus towards its conclusion with the great Bruce Willis-starring film within a film, which was both highly entertaining and made a salient point about the compromise of artistic integrity for Hollywood success. I also enjoyed the satire that came into play in terms of the pitches that Robbins' character heard, from The Graduate 2 to how everything is one thing meets another. Personally I'd really like to see Ghost meets The Manchurian Candidate. The film has got a number of good performances, including Robbins' central showing, Vincent D'Onofrio as the bitter writer, Greta Scacchi as Robbins' mysterious love interest and Richard E. Grant in a small role as the screenwriter with morals. Well at least for a while until money comes into the equation. I feel that I should have enjoyed it a little bit more than I actually did so will definitely get a rewatch someday.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
Richard Linklater

Starring
Ethan Hawke
Julie Delpy

Before Sunrise

3.5 ++

This was a strange viewing experience, and one I'm really not too sure what to make of. As the film was going along I was enjoying it well enough, a little dull at times perhaps, but nice enough. Perhaps heading for a score somewhere between 3 and 3.5. Then however in the final 10 or so minutes I found that I had actually become really emotionally invested in the characters and their relationship; so much so that at the end I even found myself tearing up a little. I was really quite surprised, and I'll be fascinated to see what I make of the whole film whenever I revisit it one day as well as its sequels. What got to me was both the parting of these two souls who had found each other, and also a sequence after their split. There are a series of static images which show the locations where they spent their time on that magical day, except that now they are deserted. Without them these places now seem very lonely and empty. I'm not sure I can say why it touched me so much but there was just something about it. Oh and I've got to say that I thought Julie Delpy was just delightful as Celine; really attractive but also just lovely and sweet.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1998

Directed by
Joel Coen

Starring
Jeff Bridges
John Goodman
Steve Buscemi
Julianne Moore
David Huddleston

Big Lebowski

3.5 -

Ever since I joined this board I feel that I've constantly been saying how I didn't 'get' The Big Lebowski but that I really needed to watch it again. Well I finally got round to it, and while I did find quite a bit of enjoyment here I still don't think I'd say I really 'got' it. I still don't quite understand why it's so beloved and has developed such a cult following, but as I said I did enjoy it. I liked the moments of sheer weirdness, the epic dream sequences and John Goodman I thought was just fantastic! I'd probably say Goodman was the best bit about the whole film. John Turturro was also highly amusing as their freaky bowling nemesis.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
Michael Mann

Starring
Robert De Niro
Al Pacino
Val Kilmer
Tom Sizemore
Jon Voight

Heat

3 ++

This was certainly a very well made film but one that just didn't really engage me massively. I just felt it was a little bit too slick and stylish, creating a bit of a hollow sensation for me. Although I'm aware of how insanely hypocritical I'm being because I love Mann's Collateral which is just as slick and stylish, if not even more so. As I said it is well done, with the huge shootout following the bank robbery being a particularly astonishing scene. I could see and appreciate what the film was doing in terms of paralleling the lives of Lt. Hanna and McCauley but as I said I struggled to really connect to any of the characters or performances, largely down to the cast. This was an example of Pacino going big and really irritating me at times; the bit about the “GREAT ASS!!!” I found positively cringeworthy. Then you've got Robert de Niro who is an actor I have just never warmed to whatsoever. Like some other tough, macho actors (Jack Nicholson for example) there is just something about him I find a massive turn off. I've got a pretty good idea that a psychologist could find a link between these aggressive guys and my father who I didn't have a great relationship with and that's why I don't like them.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
Tim Robbins

Starring
Susan Sarandon
Sean Penn
Robert Prosky
Margo Martindale
Raymond J. Barry

Dead Man Walking

4 -

A very powerful film that is propelled along by two fantastic performances in the lead roles. Sean Penn is a fine choice for the role of death row inmate Matthew Poncelet; he just has the look of someone with a potentially dangerous side to him. And Susan Sarandon is excellent as the nun who forms an intriguing bond with him. It really is quite a strange relationship; you feel at any point it's heading towards a romance even if we know how unlikely it us. I had no idea until I saw the credits that Dead Man Walking was directed by Tim Robbins, and on this evidence it's a shame he hasn't done more films. He does a very impressive job, particularly at the film's conclusion. He cuts back and forth between the execution and flashbacks of the harrowing events that resulted in him ending up on death row; showing us both his crime and his punishment. Dead Man Walking acts as a real examination of the merits of the death penalty and forces the viewer to question what their opinion of it is. Now I think there are some people who do things so reprehensible that they do deserve it, but I don't know if it's gone about in the right fashion. Having an audience to view and perhaps savour the death feels uncomfortable; the burden and guilt it places on the people responsible for executing the procedure seems unfair on them.

Daniel M

01-15-14, 10:07 PM

Nice to see you liked The Player :up: I think you've got the film spot on with how it loses a bit of steam in its middle part but recovers towards the end, and I loved the Bruce Willis, Hollywood satire bit too (well, the whole thing is :p ). And good to see positives ratings for The Big Lebowski and Heat, although I give both higher :)

The Gunslinger45

01-15-14, 10:10 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I agree with you on the Big Lebowski. A damn good very quotable movie, but I do not get the cult status. I disagree on Dead Man Walking. I am against the death penalty, and that movie still managed to piss me off. And that movie should be preaching to the choir, and it still failed.

Oh well.

Sexy Celebrity

01-15-14, 10:25 PM

I love Dead Man Walking. I gave it a 5.

I'll be back in a moment with your picture.

Cobpyth

01-15-14, 10:25 PM

Thumps up, although The Player is rated much too low, in my opinion. It's one of my all time favorite films by now, though, so I get that I'm probably a little bit biased. ;)

I think the film actually only gets better and better. The murder in the middle gives everything more moral gravitas, even when it's obvious that everything is supposed to be very satirical.
It makes the movie more cruel, more evil. It makes it morally more despicable and confronting, which I personally really REALLY liked in this context.

Next to the practically perfect narrative, I also thought the film looked amazing. It showcases Hollywood in an irresistible, darkly glamorous fashion and I absolutely ADORED it!

About The Big Lebowski:

I think it's the overall attitude of the whole film and the main character that attracts so many people. Also, after having rewatched it again a few weeks ago, I have to say that the Coens were truly ON FIRE when directing this film. It's full of great stuff to look at. It all seems very laid back and loose, but the craft that is put into this film is definitely the result of hard creative work!
I still don't consider it as one of my favorite films, but I do have to say that I get fond of it more and more. I can definitely see why it's a cult classic.

I also liked Before Sunrise and I think Heat deserves a little bit more credit than you give it, but I get your criticism. It's definitely not a perfect film or anything like that.

Sexy Celebrity

01-15-14, 10:33 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=12514&stc=1&d=1389839569

mark f

01-15-14, 10:42 PM

JayDee, you need more 2 and 2.5 ratings. :)

cricket

01-15-14, 11:23 PM

I agree with your assessment of The Big Lebowski JayDee. I don't think it's great or even that funny, but it is a lot of fun and it's a lot more rewatchable then many better movies.

I like Heat an awful lot, but that type of movie with that cast should be in my top 25, and it just isn't. Top 200, yes.

JayDee

01-16-14, 05:21 PM

Second batch of micro musings. Will perhaps try and get another batch up later on but photobucket is playing up for me just now, meaning that it is taking quite a bit of time to get it all organised.

Micro Musings

mirror mirror
Year of release
1992

Directed by
Rob Reiner

Starring
Tom Cruise
Demi Moore
Kevin Bacon
Jack Nicholson
Kevin Pollack

A Few Good Men

3.5 +

I think that as a film, the iconic status of A Few Good Men probably outweighs its actual quality; its acting can be rather overblown and the central romance that develops doesn't exactly satisfy. Despite these flaws it is still a very good crowd pleaser. Cruise's performance is pretty good and certainly grows as the film goes along. Early on I found him a bit irritating as his character required him to be the smug, arrogant, showboating Tom Cruise which I've never been a fan of. I often feel that with a role like this he often just phones in his performance, relying solely on his star quality to be adequate. As his character changes so does his performance however and by the end he had won me over in fine style with his showing during the trial. Alongside him the other performances are a bit mixed. Kevin Pollack I felt was good and I always enjoy the work of Kevin Bacon; in fact those two probably deliver the strongest performances. On the negative side of things however I felt Demi Moore was pretty awful. Her performance to me just felt so wooden and lifeless. I'm not a big fan of Jack Nicholson but he does what is required of him here and is rather entertaining in his big angry rants. Though his big revelation at the end does feel like it was obtained a bit too easily. You would think that someone who has risen to the position that Nicholson's charcter has would be able to put up more of a fight against Cruise's tricks. That said though A Few Good Men remains a solidly entertaining courtroom drama
.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1999

Directed by
Michael Mann

Starring
Russell Crow
Al Pacino
Christopher Plummer
Diane Venora
Phillip Baker Hall

The Insider

3.5

A compelling thriller, I probably found this to be more frightening than at least 90% of the horror films released today. I think it's extremely troubling the level of power and influence that big tobacco, oil companies, gun manufacturers etc have. Pacino gives a very good performance, and given the levels he can sometimes reach he deserves huge praise for the amount of restraint he shows. I'm not sure I've ever seen him so laidback as he is for much of this film. Star of the show however is definitely Russell Crow who is absolutely excellent as the whistleblower. Oh and Christopher Plummer also impresses as 60 minutes reporter Mike Wallace

mirror mirror
Year of release
1997

Directed by
Gus Van Sant

Starring
Matt Damon
Robin Williams
Minnie Driver
Stellan Skarsgard
Ben Affleck

Good Will Hunting

4 ++

I've caught bits of Good Will Hunting on TV a bunch of times, including the “how do you like them apples?” scene three times I believe. I had never seen it from start to finish however until now, and it turns out that most of it was not at all familiar. It also turns out that it's a rather excellent film. It may not exactly cover much new ground in terms of its story but it does it all so well that it feels really fresh and invigorating. Van Sant directs the excellent script with assurance and it is wonderfully acted. As has been seen in the likes of One Hour Photo and supposedly Dead Poet's Society (I personally have not seen it) Williams once again proves that he can deliver when it comes to a dramatic role. He is excellent as the unconventional therapist who takes on Will as a patient. As good as Williams is though, I'd have to say that this is without a doubt Damon's film. He is absolutely terrific as Will, so raw and natural a performance. He is just bursting with an unrelenting energy as the guy with a massive chip on his shoulder. The scenes that Damon and Williams share together are fantastic. They just crackle with chemistry, with both men given the chance to deliver some great monologues. Williams' speech that convinces Will to give therapy a go is wonderfully inspiring, while Damon's rapid-fire speech about why he won't work for the NSA is terrific. Hell for once not only did I not find Minnie Driver exceptionally irritating, but even somewhat appealing. It's a slow burner of a film, but so much more involving that you could imagine a film about a mathematics genius in therapy ever could be.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1998

Directed by
Todd Solondz

Starring
Jane Adams
Dylan Baker
Lara Flynn Boyle
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Cynthia Stevenson

Happiness

2 +

Well this film somehow made it onto the top 100 of the 90s list, and on that evidence there must be a lot of sick people on this board! :D Personally I thought this was pretty damn trashy. To me it just felt like one cheap, self-conscious shock tactic after another (rape, paedophilia, on-screen ejaculation etc) with a half-hearted excuse of a theme/message as an attempt to justify it. What I will give the film is that it was fairly well made for what it was, had a few dark laughs and it was also extremely well acted by its cast, most notably in the form of Dylan Baker and Philip Seymour Hoffman. But other than that rather distasteful and certainly not for me.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1999

Directed by
Anthony Minghella

Starring
Matt Damon
Jude Law
Gwyneth Paltrow
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Cate Blanchett
Jack Davenport

The Talented Mr Ripley

4

A superior, classy slice of a psychological thriller. Matt Damon is absolutely excellent here as the sociopathic chameleon that is Tom Ripley; it's actually quite unnerving watching him slip so easily in and out of the various identities that he has either created or stolen. He really does grab a hold of the film and lead it. Although he does have some strong support helping him along the way. I've never been especially enamoured with either Jude Law or Gwyneth Paltrow but I actually found both of them to be very good, Law in particular I thought was actually pretty great. And then of course there is the terrific Philip Seymour Hoffman who rarely, if ever, disappoints. The film is really quite gorgeous to behold, Minghella's camera and John Seale's cinematography beautifully capturing the 50s era Italian backdrop of the film, seemingly shot almost exclusively in natural light. If I had a complaint, its pace dips a bit in the middle and as a result feels perhaps just a slight touch too long. Overall though this is a sharp and intelligent movie, one I look forward to revisiting in the future.

Miss Vicky

01-16-14, 05:43 PM

Happiness

2 +

Well this film somehow made it onto the top 100 of the 90s list, and on that evidence there must be a lot of sick people on this board! :D Personally I thought this was pretty damn trashy. To me it just felt like one cheap, self-conscious shock tactic after another (rape, paedophilia, on-screen ejaculation etc) with a half-hearted excuse of a theme/message as an attempt to justify it.

*Adds Happiness to her watch list*

Frightened Inmate No. 2

01-16-14, 06:15 PM

As I've said before with the likes of Nicholson and De Niro I think it's those macho, aggressive types that I find a turn-off

isn't die hard one of your favorite movies? and don't you consistently give schwarzenegger and stallone movies really high grades? they seem far more "macho" that nicholson or de niro ever are, and nicholson and de niro are infinitely better actors.

seanc

01-16-14, 06:34 PM

You hit three of my 100 faves there. Few Good Men, Good Will Hunting, and The Insider. I have always liked Ripley quite a bit as well. I dont see me visiting Happiness anytime soon, it sounds awful.

The Gunslinger45

01-16-14, 07:35 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I will go one step further with A Few Good Men and say that the romance between Cruise and Moore is unneeded altogether! Why is it in the film? I think it is so Cruise can look straight. ;)

Sexy Celebrity

01-16-14, 08:06 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=12572&stc=1&d=1389917145

JayDee

01-16-14, 10:32 PM

I think this is the last of my micro musings for the 90s films, still got a bunch of others to get through though

Micro Musings

mirror mirror
Year of release
1994

Directed by
Robert Redford

Starring
Ralph Fiennes
John Turturro
Rob Morrow
David Paymer
Hank Azaria

Quiz Show

3.5

A very classy, old-fashioned slice of cinema. Quiz Show is directed with a real elegance by Redford and impressively acted by its cast, especially n the case of John Turturro who jumps back and forth from being a real dork on the show and a bit of a snivelling weasel in real life. Ralph Fiennes is also in fine form. Quiz Show's smart script uses the cheating scandal to tackle larger issues and values in American at the time such as prejudice fuelled by race or the class system, and how intelligence was viewed with great esteem back then, whereas these days we have the likes of Honey Boo Boo, Jersey Shore etc. And it has to be said that these days in the era of reality TV it would be more surprising to me if a show was not rigged. A very sharp and elegant movie, it's one I could see growing on me over time. Very surprised it only got one measly point on the 90s list.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1992

Directed by
John Woo

Starring
Chow Yun-fat
Tony Leung
Teresa Mo
Philip Kwok
Anthony Wong

Hard Boiled

4 -

I struggled to really get into the story of Hard Boiled to any great extent, but when it comes to what is required to enjoy the film the story would probably be quite low down in the criteria. The main thrust of Hard Boiled undoubtedly arrives in the form of its astonishing action sequences. They are thrilling, balletic, mind-boggling feats of agility, staging and direction. Completely outrageous but oh so satisfying. The action throughout is fantastic but there is one sequence which stands out as being truly incredible. It sees our two heroes (Yun-fat and Chiu-Wai) walking along one corridor, blasting away a series of goons, entering an elevator and coming off on another level into another assault of bullets. The whole thing is shot in one tremendous take. And the duo's battles with Philip Kwok's Mad Dog are stupendous. The film features all of Woo's signature touches and it's no surprise that this is held up as one of the great action films.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1994

Directed by
Stephan Elliott

Starring
Hugo Weaving
Terence Stamp
Guy Pearce
Bill Hunter
Sarah Chadwick

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

3.5 ++

A whole lot of fun. While it's as camp and colourful as I expected I also found it to be surprisingly tender and touching. It also makes for a very enjoyable example of the road movie. Priscilla has got three great performances at its core. Guy Pearce is a riot as the stupendously camp Felicia Jollygoodfellow, while Terence Stamp is really quite moving as the gruff Bernadette. And Huge Weaving does a nice job as the in between sort of character, treading the line between the two. While it's always enjoyable the moments where the film really comes alive are certainly to be found in the musical performances. They're a lot of fun and the costumes that the characters wear during them are absolutely fabulous! I loved Weaving's dress made of flip-flops!

mirror mirror
Year of release
1992

Directed by
Mick Jackson

Starring
Kevin Costner
Whitney Houston
Gary Kemp
Bill Cobbs
Mike Starr

The Bodyguard

3

The Bodyguard is undoubtedly cheesy and pretty damn melodramatic but I found it to very watchable and pretty good fun. The film certainly attempts to rely very heavily on the star power of its two leads, and just about succeeds on that front, even if I did not get any sense of chemistry between Costner and Houston whatsoever. The fact that I've always liked Costner certainly helps with me being able to enjoy the film despite its many, many flaws.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1990

Directed by
Tony Scott

Starring
Tom Cruise
Robert Duvall
Nicole Kidman
Michael Rooker
Cary Elwes

Days of Thunder

3.5

I wasn't entirely sure what to expect of this film but, and don't judge me too harshly for this, I found Days of Thunder to be a great deal of fun. It's certainly a pretty daft and cheesy film but all the better for it! Its plot certainly isn't going to tax you a great deal, it's a very simple and straightforward affair. And as the comedian Rich Hall brilliantly pointed out it's the same plot in just about every Tom Cruise film ever! :D Oh and while I'm not a fan of NASCAR in any what whatsoever I don't think this is a particularly accurate representation of it. The races seem more akin to Mario Kart than NASCAR given the amount of contact that seems to be allowed. That said though they are rather thrilling and well executed affairs with some impressive stunt work on show. Cruise really isn't stretching himself all that much, just giving us his big movie star style of performance, but it works well. Both Duvall and Rooker are good value in their roles with Duvall in particular scoring quite a few laughs with his gruff performance. Unfortunately that's pretty much where the goodwill to the cast ends. The reason? Nicole Kidman. She is absolutely woeful in this! I honestly can't remember the last time I saw such a poor performance from a well known performer in a 'big' film. She is so incredibly flat and insipid. The idea that her performance generated for me was that she must be an alien who had only just been informed of this human notion of 'acting' about two seconds before the cameras started rolling. Just awful! Oh and I forgot to mention the name of Tom Cruise's character - Cole Trickle. That's just funny every time I heard it. :D

mirror mirror
Year of release
1996

Directed by
Andy Wachowski /// Larry Wachowski

Starring
Jennifer Tilly
Gina Gershon
Joe Pantoliano
Christopher Meloni
John Ryan

Bound

3.5 ++

Slick, stylish neo-noir that marked the directing debut of the Wachowski brothers and set them on their way towards The Matrix. I felt that there was definitely a Tarantino-esque vibe to Bound as it delivered a mix of violence, sex, noir and pitch-black humour but found it to be more satisfying than many of QT's efforts. Its opening stretch sets it out as a bit of cheap, trashy softcore flick whose sole selling point is its lesbian relationship and the extremely vivid sex scenes between Tilly and Gershon. After that however the film transforms into a very solid thriller laced with black humour. Much of its plot and characters may be rather derivative but it remains good, energetic fun thanks to the performances and the Wachowski's vibrant style of fancy camera work and style over substance mentality. While the cinematography does a nice job of creating a very noirish atmosphere. Gershon and Tilly are both very good; Gershon as the butch anti-hero and Tilly as the classic femme fatale, but star performer for me would have to be Joe Pantoliano as the twitchy, paranoid and slimy Caesar. Bound is of course most notable for its steamy, provocative sex scenes between Gershon and Tilly. And I've got to admit that I did find them rather.....interesting. :D Damn sexy movie.

cricket

01-16-14, 11:44 PM

Happiness is a favorite of mine; it's too bad you didn't enjoy it.

I Forgot about The Talented Mr. Ripley; that's an excellent film.

Bound, The Insider, A Few Good Men, Quiz Show, and Good Will Hunting are all favorites of mine to different degrees.

I liked Days of Thunder a little less than you, but it's entertaining no doubt about it.

The Gunslinger45

01-17-14, 10:25 AM

Sexy Celebrity

01-17-14, 10:49 AM

OMG. Gunslinger, that's another I need a commentary with you for. If not during your first watch, then your second watch.

The Gunslinger45

01-17-14, 10:50 AM

OMG. Gunslinger, that's another I need a commentary with you for. If not during your first watch, then your second watch.

I think the first watch will be more fun!

Sexy Celebrity

01-17-14, 10:54 AM

I watched it with Miss Vicky during her first watch.

The Gunslinger45

01-17-14, 10:55 AM

I watched it with Miss Vicky during her first watch.

Well I just ordered the DVD so now we wait.

honeykid

01-17-14, 12:32 PM

I will go one step further with A Few Good Men and say that the romance between Cruise and Moore is unneeded altogether! Why is it in the film? I think it is so Cruise can look straight. ;)
It's there for the other 50% of the population. Seriously. That's, pretty much, the reason for all pointless romances in Hollywood films and/or English language films in general. The moneymen worry about how they'll sell their product to women and think that a romance is the easiest/best sell. If they can get a woman that other women like to watch, so much the better.

Loving these films, JD. Shame you're not watching stuff as good or as interesting as this of late. :p:D I'm also pleased to see how much you enjoyed Good Will Hunting. :)

JayDee

01-17-14, 06:52 PM

Another batch, this time just a general mix

Micro Musings

mirror mirror

Year of release
2009

Directed by
Jac Shaeffer

Starring
Emma Caulfield
Michelle Borth
John Patrick Amedori
Desmond Harrington

Timer

3

Talk about a film going out on a sour note! I had been greatly enjoying this little film right up until the ending which left me completely dejected. It had perhaps been heading for something around the 3.5 mark but had to drop it to at least a 3 after that conclusion. Up until then Timer had provided a novel, interesting and fun twist on the romantic comedy, replete with quite a few laughs and a sweet romance. The plot details a piece of technology, a timer, which informs you when you are going to meet your soul mate. The film never really explains how it works but that's probably for the best. After all there's no really plausible reason to explain it. The film's greatest asset is Emma Caulfield. Known to most people on here I assume as bunny-hating Anya from Buffy she is just lovely. With beauty, charm and comic timing she really does deserve to be a much bigger star than she is. The reason that the ending was such a punch in the gut for me was that in my eyes the film had been a tale of not taking a scientific approach to love, about following your heart and not your head and not restricting yourself to a certain type of individual or circumstance. And then the ending just went completely the opposite direction with it.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Jonathan Levine

Starring
Nicholas Hoult
Teresa Palmer
Analeigh Tipton
Rob Corddry

Warm Bodies

3.5 -

Warm Bodies is fun and surprisingly sweet little flick. I certainly wouldn't call it a hilarious film but I did find a few laughs in there. And I liked some of the film's little facets such as the zombies eating brains to gain the memories of their victims, and the fact that R is a bit of a pack rat just like Wall-e. Considering that for much of the film he is unable to string together a sentence of more than 3 words, Nicholas Hoult does a very good job at creating a pretty endearing character in his zombie, R. Teresa Palmer is lovely and attractive as the apple of R's eye, Julie, and together they actually form a rather sweet romance despite how ridiculous it sounds. Rubbing blood and guts on someone's face has never been so romantic! :D With their forbidden love and even a balcony scene Warm Bodies is very much like Romeo & Juliet. Except you know, with zombies! Analeigh Tipton is also a bit of a delight as Julie's friend. I was rather expecting a small, cheap little effort for some reason so I was pleasantly surprised to find that on a number of technical levels the film was really quite impressive at creating a decent zombie world. The make-up, special effects and set design all did a nice job.

mirror mirror
Year of release
2012

Directed by
Ang Lee

Starring
Suraj Sharma
Irrfan Khan
Tabu
Adil Hussain
Rafe Spall

Life of Pi

3.5 +

I'll be honest and say that the rating I've given there is a little bit of a guess. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this film as it certainly wasn't your typical movie experience. It's story is really quite minimal as are its levels of characterisation, relationships etc. And I didn't really form any great connection to its story, I didn't find it to be a life-changing, religious experience like some people appear to. Though just on the simple level of an adventure film it works quite well. While I can understand the need for the narrator in terms of framing the story it feels rather clunky on occasion and maybe it was just me but I felt that the end was a little lifeless. All of that is rather redundant however because of one thing. It looks absolutely astonishing! I'm honestly struggling to think of anything I've ever seen before that is anything like it. Its cinematography and its mind-blowing effects create some truly stunning images. The CGI that brings the animals to life, the luminescence that frequently envelops the screen, the fantasy sequences, the moments where the ocean and the sky seem to merge. It is a truly beautiful thing to behold and in terms of its visuals Life of Pi is a ground-breaking, landmark film. For me they created a sort of hypnotic, soothing, peaceful sensation within me, making it a very pleasing experience to watch it. I can see why people love this film, and perhaps one day I will as well.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2011

Directed by
Gavin O'Connor

Starring
Tom Hardy
Joel Edgerton
Nick Nolte
Jennifer Morrison

Warrior

4 +

You're unlikely to be blown away by the originality of The Warrior, or even find any originality whatsoever for that matter. We've seen the story numerous times before and it's basically Rocky set in the MMA world; except that this time out we don't just have one underdog story, but two. We know exactly where the story is going to go at every turn and you have to suspend your sense of disbelief to go along with its rather far-fetched developments. And it ends up in a rather sentimental, corny place. However in a way the plot doesn't matter all that much, it just acts as the background to tell this story of how your childhood can define you. The two men nearly destroy each other as a result of their past with their father. And it's all told with such a raw intensity and a guttural power. And its fights are pretty damn brutal. The performances across the board are impressive and very powerful. Tom Hardy is like a wild, uncompromising animal as Tommy while Joel Edgerton brings a lot of heart as Brendan. As their father, Nolte gives a very emotional showing, although thank goodness for subtitles otherwise I don't think I'd have understood a single thing he said. While I was also rather impressed by Jennifer Morrison in the role of Brendan's wife.

mirror mirror
Year of release
2009

Directed by
Wes Anderson

Starring
George Clooney
Meryl Streep
Jason Schwartzman
Bill Murray
Owen Wilson

Fantastic Mr. Fox

4 ++

Delightful! Absolutely, positively delightful! I've fancied this one for a while and it certainly lived up to my hopes and expectations for it. The stop-motion approach that is employed for the film works tremendously well for the material, so much so that afterwards it's impossible to picture the film being made in any other fashion. Even in its unique form there is really no mistaking Fantastic Mr. Fox for anything other than a Wes Anderson film. By populating the world created by Dahl with his typically quirky characters and dysfunctional family dynamics he has perhaps made the most satisfying film of his career. It even looks like one of his films in terms of set design and colour schemes etc; he does a great job with the direction that makes the film a whole lot of fun. There are also some great touches on the soundtrack, particularly with some fun nods to Ennio Morricone's spaghetti westerns work. Given the story's roots it may seem like the obvious choice for the voice cast was to go very British, and casting the likes of George Clooney may seem strange. But it works perfectly, particularly in the case of Clooney. He's got a voice that is easy to picture belonging to some con man of the 1930s or 40s (in fact there's more than a touch of O Brother Where Art Thou going on here) and it fits perfectly for the daring thief that Mr Fox is. I'd say that Fantastic Mr. Fox has a chance of becoming a real favourite of mine. Excellent stuff

Godoggo

01-17-14, 07:06 PM

I'm with ya on Life of Pi (although I think I liked it a bit better than you did) and Fantastic Mr. Fox (I so love that movie, but you lost me with The Warrior. I didn't like that much at all.

Daniel M

01-17-14, 07:08 PM

Life of Pi is a very good film, one of my favourites from the year, and Fantastic Mr. Fox has always been a favourite of mine, great film.

The Gunslinger45

01-17-14, 07:45 PM

It's there for the other 50% of the population. Seriously. That's, pretty much, the reason for all pointless romances in Hollywood films and/or English language films in general. The moneymen worry about how they'll sell their product to women and think that a romance is the easiest/best sell. If they can get a woman that other women like to watch, so much the better.

Loving these films, JD. Shame you're not watching stuff as good or as interesting as this of late. :p:D I'm also pleased to see how much you enjoyed Good Will Hunting. :)

There is much wisdom in this post

honeykid

01-17-14, 07:56 PM

Back to the C21st. Back to virtually zero interest levels. Sorry. :)

The Gunslinger45

01-17-14, 08:10 PM

Miss Vicky

01-17-14, 08:16 PM

Have only seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I didn't care for at all.

cricket

01-17-14, 08:56 PM

The only one I saw from your last set is Warrior; I watched it only because it's Masterman's favorite movie, and I absolutely loved it. I usually don't like movies like that, and everything you said about it being corny and predictable is accurate, but it blew me away and it felt great.

Cobpyth

01-17-14, 09:44 PM

Fantastic Mr. Fox is just plain awesomeness. It's probably in my top ten favorite animated films of all time and next to Moonrise Kingdom, it's my favorite Wes Anderson film. LOVE it!

I'm very glad to see that you enjoyed it just as much.

JayDee

01-19-14, 02:55 PM

Think this will do for the micro musings just now. Still got a few more recent ones kicking about but this is all those that have been kicking about for months and months

Micro Musings - Dumb Action Special

This little batch of flicks was from a few months back when I was feeling a bit run down and fed up, certainly not in the mood for anything too challenging. So I had a little series of really dumb, trashy action flicks. And the scores are most certainly reflective of my enjoyment rather than their quality.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1998

Directed by
Mikael Salomon

Starring
Christian Slater
Morgan Freeman
Minnie Driver
Randy Quaid

Hard Rain

4 -

Best film ever? Well maybe not quite but contrary to general opinion I thought this was actually great fun. A large factor on that front is certainly its cast. Slater and Freeman aren’t exactly stretched to the limits of their ability but both are very fun and likeable. And there’s the delightful bonus of having the legendary Betty White pop up in a sort of extended cameo as a crotchety resident of the town. She’s brilliant. In technical terms Hard Rain was actually very impressive, to a really surprising level in fact. It opens with an epic and rather astonishing tracking shot that sweeps over the town's dam, across large areas of flooded farmland, into the town and through the flooded streets in a single take. It's like Orson Welles is in charge of this s*it! And then throughout the whole film I was constantly left wondering “how the f*ck did they do that?!” The whole film takes place under three feet of water, not just one location like a ship as we’ve seen before but everywhere; every location and throughout every street of the whole town. Over the decades loads of action films have been released, and I’ve seen my fair share, so it’s rare that you ever come across something original. Well Hard Rain features a water ski chase through the flooded corridors of a school. That was most certainly something I had never seen before, and outside of this film I doubt anyone else has either. I’m really surprised that there doesn’t seem to be a bit more love for this film. I’m not saying in general it’s a great film but as an action film I think it’s got a lot going for it and I’m surprised it’s not more popular amongst fans of the genre. I will say that I wouldn’t be surprised if my score dropped (perhaps considerably) with future viewings. I think I just caught it in the perfect mood, it was exactly the film I was looking for at the time. If I were to watch it again in a few months time I might ask myself what the hell I was thinking/smoking!

mirror mirror

Year of release
1990

Directed by
Craig R. Paxley

Starring
Dolph Lundgren
Brian Benben
Betsy Brantley
Matthias Hues

Dark Angel
(aka I Come in Peace)

3.5 +

A ridiculous but highly enjoyable film. It's very much a standard cop crime film concerning drugs, except that a couple of aliens crashland on Earth and instigate themselves in the story. The aliens using humans as guinea pigs to create a drug is a great concept. It's got some fun over-the-top action and decent performances from Lundgren, Benben and some of the supporting cast. It's also pretty funny in places. Whenever I watch an old Dolph Lundgren film I always wonder, why didn't this guy ever become a bigger star than he did? I mean let's compare him to Arnold Schwarzenegger for instance. Both big guys, both foreign, but on a few levels I'd say Dolph tops him. Lundgren may not have quite the same screen presence but I'd say he was perhaps a more natural actor (certainly at this stage), he had good comic timing, a much softer accent and while Arnold only had his muscles to convince us he was a bad-ass Lundgren had his background in karate, meaning he could bring a real interest to his fight scenes. I think he just didn't have luck on his side, he never got his great movie that would have made him a star. Yes there was Rocky IV but that was still Stallone's film. Had he gotten something along the lines of a Terminator (Schwarzenegger), a Die Hard (Willis) or a First Blood (Stallone) he could have been right up there alongside them instead of getting the films they had usually passed on.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1994

Directed by
Luis Llosa

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Sharon Stone
James Woods
Eric Roberts
Rod Steiger

The Specialist

3

This is a pretty bad movie. Scratch that, it's a very bad movie! And yet it's so dumb and cheesy that I couldn't help but enjoy it to a degree. The Specialist is almost like a blending of two completely different movies. When Stallone or Woods are on screen you have very much a classic example of the action movie, if a rather pedestrian one. Whenever Sharon Stone appears however the film frequently has a tendency to take on the appearance of a softcore adult movie (not that I'd know what one looks like of course! :D). The picture tends to go rather steamy and sexy, the camera gropes its way along her body and we get constant little tempting glimpses of sex and nudity. It makes for an interesting partnership between the two styles. Stallone is solid enough in the lead role although he really isn't given a great deal to work with to make us care for the character. He has no emotional backstory, he doesn't deliver one-liners in the classic action movie tradition etc. James Woods and Eric Roberts prove to be quite good fun with their despicable characters, Woods in particular giving his character a lot of charisma.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Chuck Russell

Starring
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Vanessa Williams
James Caan
Robert Pastorelli
James Coburn

Eraser

3 ++

This seems to one of Arnold's lesser loved and talked about films, and admittedly just a lesser film in general, but I've got to say I found it really rather enjoyable. The main hook of Eraser certainly comes in the form of its hi-tech, futuristic weaponry, and I have to admit they were pretty cool in terms of design and how they were realised on screen through the special effects. It's just a shame that they weren't featured more often and that there wasn't a larger variety of weapons. All we get are the awesome rail-guns which produce a sort of sonic wave blast like something out of a sci-fi flick, and the drillbit launcher which is like a grenade which fires out dozens of nasty spikes. As I said the effects that render the features of the rail-gun work well, and there are a few other occasions where the effects still hold up. There are also occasions unfortunately where they look decidedly ropey, most notably in the form of some CGI crocodiles. It's got a couple of great, nicely choreographed action set-pieces including a rather ridiculous sequence aboard a plane. While the film is not as heavy on one-liners and puns as the typical Arnie film, Eraser does still retain a sense of humour, mostly found through Robert Pastorelli's mobster turned witness. There's also a fun moment where Arnie crash lands after jumping out of a plane and a kid treats him like an alien. Oh and I just remembered Arnie does actually get to deliver a single one-liner...to a crocodile! After shooting the croc Arnie remarks to it, “You're luggage!” Arnie is fine as always in a typical Arnie performance although I felt that Vanessa Williams was a touch bland but mostly ok. James Caan is good fun as the villain of the piece though, as is Pastorelli as the comic relief.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1991

Directed by
Russell Mulcahy

Starring
Denzel Washington
John Lithgow
Ice-T
Kevin Pollak

Ricochet

3.5

This is a really trashy, really clichéd slice of 90s action/revenge. So of course I really liked it! :D The film is immensely over-the-top and ludicrous, and somehow manages to get even more preposterous the longer it goes. What really makes it worthwhile is its two stars. Denzel Washington shows what it means to be a top actor, getting a great deal of mileage out of a very simplistic character. But without a doubt the main draw for me was another chance to see the great John Lithgow once again hamming it up in a deliciously evil villain role. He’s just so awesome as the bad guy. Oh and some of the dialogue that he is gifted by the script? Tremendous! At one point a prison guard jokes that he hopes Lithgow has remembered to floss. Lithgow’s response? “I did. With your wife’s pubic hair!” And then at his parole hearing when asked what he would do if he was released he tells the parole board official that he’ll pay a visit to his house to “f*ck your wife. And your daughter. Hell, maybe even your dog.” Those are just a couple of examples and Lithgow spouts each with absolute relish. The film also delivers some delightfully lurid thrills outwith its dialogue. There’s a bizarre gladiatorial battle between Lithgow and a fellow inmate where they tape magazines and books to themselves as armour before commencing the fight. And during a prison escape Lithgow and his fellow inmates attack their guards with power tools that include an electric drill and a buzzsaw. Nice and grisly. So Ricochet is cheap, trashy and stupid. And really rather fun! :D

mirror mirror

Year of release
1998

Directed by
Paul W.S. Anderson

Starring
Kurt Russell
Jason Scott Lee
Jason Isaacs
Connie Nielsen
Gary Busey

Soldier

2

Soldier clearly had a decent budget at its disposal, as can be seen from its impressive CGI and set design. And yet due to the amateurish nature of much of the film (directing, writing, acting etc) in the end it actually comes across feeling really quite cheap. Its plot is immensely simplistic and the whole film constantly feels like it has the ambition and intelligence of a plot from a first-person shooter video game. It hits every cliché of the genre and completely lacks in any creativity or original thought. Only the occasional bit of fun action provides some relief. One major problem with the film was how it utilised its cast and its characters. You cast Kurt Russell, a very charming and likeable actor, and then give him barely any dialogue or range of emotions. And even worse you cast Gary Busey and have him play a sensible, level-headed character! I mean the whole point of casting Busey in a film should be to get a fun, over-the-top, immensely colourful performance. Very poor.

mark f

01-19-14, 03:21 PM

Ricochet is definitely the best of that group, mainly for its sick sense of humor.

The Gunslinger45

01-19-14, 04:33 PM

cricket

01-19-14, 05:37 PM

I saw Ricochet when it came out, and you're right, it is good fun. That's the only one I saw from the last set, although I'm going to give Hard Rain a try; it's on all the time.

Sexy Celebrity

01-19-14, 06:42 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=12606&stc=1&d=1390171302

seanc

01-19-14, 07:09 PM

I don't know what to say about that set Jay Dee. The rep is for the effort of sitting through these films.:D

JayDee

01-23-14, 10:19 PM

Apologies for being MIA the last few days people. Will try and be back tomorrow

honeykid

01-24-14, 12:32 AM

I was wondering where you've been the last couple of days. I'm not planning on being around much this weekend. Don't worry, it's not you. :D

JayDee

01-24-14, 04:20 PM

Before a new review just want to catch up a bit. Thanks to everyone for the rep and feedback of all the micro musings. :up: Glad they went over pretty well. Was actually surprised to see a bit of support for my non-love for The Big Lebowski. I thought that was amongst the most sacred of sacred cows around here. Was especially surprised at your thoughts Gunslinger, I thought you had it on your 90s list no?

Also it just dawned on me that another film from the 90s I watched back at that time was Boyz n the Hood.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/BoyzntheHood_zps108b4a0a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/BoyzntheHood_zps108b4a0a.jpg.html)

I remember writing up a little bit on it but don't know what happened to it, will try my best to remember what I can. Thought it was a great film and went with a 4 - I believe. Its story may seem a little bit more clichéd today than it was back in 1991 but was told with such a vivacious energy and verve that it still remained a powerful and thrilling film.

I remember it feeling rather like a sermon, as if its writer and director John Singleton is conducting a preaching session to all of the young African American individuals populating America. He appears to be trying to guide them with life advice on subjects such as violence, drugs, education, parenthood etc; providing them with a wake-up call. With the two brothers he showed the different paths you could take, and yet with the 'good' brother dying it highlighted the ridiculous futility of violence and the cycle of revenge which will never end.

The performances I also remember being damn great. The young actors (Cuba Gooding Jr., Ice Cube, Morris Chestnut) gave very raw, natural performances that were powerful. And opposite that rawness Laurence Fishburne's gravitas played very nicely for the character, making him seem like this wise moral compass for the film.

isn't die hard one of your favorite movies? and don't you consistently give schwarzenegger and stallone movies really high grades? they seem far more "macho" that nicholson or de niro ever are, and nicholson and de niro are infinitely better actors.

And who the f*ck asked you?! I've not seen your name repping or replying in months and now you come barging in here?!!!! :mad:

:p I kid!!! To be fair I don't think they are at all comparable. Stallone and Schwarzenegger portray much more over-the-top, cartoonish depictions of macho characters, quite often even playing into that image for laughs. Whereas Nicholson and De Niro are much more serious, harsh examples. I mean there's a million miles of difference between Travis Bickle and Cobra or Dutch from Predator. Also as regards to Nicholson I'll admit that the fact I don't like him in 'real' life undoubtedly colours how I see him on screen. He seems like an immense douchebag!

Back to the C21st. Back to virtually zero interest levels. Sorry. :)

:facepalm: Oh HK, you're so predictable! :p

Have only seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I didn't care for at all.

Aw really. With your love of the animation genre (I'm checking to see if Guap is about! :D) I thought that might be up your street.

Ricochet is definitely the best of that group, mainly for its sick sense of humor.

I love that my reviews thread is able to reduce you, our official Master of Movies, down to the level of assessing the quality of trash like Ricochet! :D

I don't know what to say about that set Jay Dee. The rep is for the effort of sitting through these films.:D

No great effort required. Had great fun doing it. Certainly a lot more enjoyable than watching Magnolia! :p

honeykid

01-24-14, 10:07 PM

Boys N' The Hood is a marvelous film. Looking forward to more reviews... So long as they're C20th, of course. :D

The Gunslinger45

01-25-14, 01:21 AM

Not an official review post, so no Bill and Ted. :p

Yes I had the Big Lebowski on my 90's list, but at number 25. It is a good movie and I like it and I can quote it easily. I just do not understand the LOVE for the film.

Miss Vicky

01-25-14, 01:26 AM

Aw really. With your love of the animation genre (I'm checking to see if Guap is about! :D) I thought that might be up your street.
'
I love a lot of animation but this is animated Wes Anderson. More specifically it's animated Wes Anderson starring George Clooney.

Couldn't stand it.

The Sci-Fi Slob

01-25-14, 09:52 AM

JayDee, both your Star Trek: First Contact and Revenge of the Sith Reviews are:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee35/mAnTiz_1/AWESOME.png

Daniel M

01-25-14, 10:37 AM

The Big Lebowski is a film that demands multiple viewings to fully appreciate its genius, guys :D

The Sci-Fi Slob

01-25-14, 10:44 AM

The Big Lebowski is a film that demands multiple viewings to fully appreciate its genius, guys :D

Shut the fu!k up Donny!

The Gunslinger45

01-25-14, 12:33 PM

I have watched it multiple times, still fun, just not joining the cult anytime soon.

JayDee

01-25-14, 05:07 PM

Sci-Fi Slob - Thanks for the awesome certification. As I alluded to last night however I'm pretty sure you won't be as positive about this review. :D

This is one of those old personal favourites that I will periodically be revisiting this year to check if they are worthy of my new top 100 list or not.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2002

Directed by
Kurt Wimmer

Written by
Kurt Wimmer

Starring
Christian Bale
Emily Watson
Taye Diggs
Angus Macfayden
William Fichtner
Sean Bean

Equilibrium

4.5 -

Plot - In a futuristic world, a strict regime has eliminated war by suppressing emotions: books, art and music are strictly forbidden and feeling is a crime punishable by death. Cleric John Preston (Bale) is a top ranking government agent responsible for destroying those who resist the rules. When he misses a dose of Prozium, a mind-altering drug that hinders emotion, Preston, who has been trained to enforce the strict laws of the new regime, suddenly becomes the only person capable of overthrowing it.

In Robert Altman's The Player, Tim Robbins played the character of Griffin Mills, a big time studio executive. A running joke throughout the film are the ridiculous pitches that he has to listen to, delivered to him in the form of 'meets.' So Ghost meets The Manchurian Candidate, Out of Africa meets Pretty Woman etc. Well I think I can sum up Equilibrium quite succinctly in a similar fashion - The Lives of Others meets The Matrix. Those might seem like quite disparate films but Equilibrium manages to bring both of them together to create its own individual experience. As with The Lives of Others, Equilibrium details the life of a man; in this case Christian Bale's John Preston, who is regarded as a superior agent for a highly fascist state. His job is to spy on and weed out people who are acting against the interests of the government, in this instance this means people who are experiencing emotions. While it wasn't as strict a line as that in The Lives of Others, both societies were prohibited from endorsing in artistic expression, whether it be in the form of literature, artwork, music etc. By removing that which would stimulate the mind and soul it was hoped that the people could be kept in check. In both films however the protagonist slowly becomes drawn into the world which he has previously been tasked with destroying. Both men get a taste of culture and become intoxicated by it, highlighting the power of art. While from The Matrix, the film has imported the vibe of science fiction and action. Both films share a similar attitude towards action, delivering some hyper-stylised and thrilling sequences which defy both belief and logic. Even the Clerics that populate the world of Equilibrium have a whiff of the Matrix's Agents about them. Both groups of individuals have been tasked with enforcing the regime that has been put in place, both are emotionless killing machines, both are uniformly dressed in an imposing fashion and both possess an almost supernatural level of fighting ability.

Of course I could just have gone with a more direct source and noted how similar it was to many dystopian tales that have appeared over the years both on the page and the screen; 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 for example. But what can I say, I had a direction I wanted to take the review in. :D Of course outside of the literary world it's easy to see inspiration for the story in real life. You could tie it into pretty much every fascist regime that has ever existed, however the easiest link would certainly be to Nazi Germany. Alongside the oppressive attitude and ominously uniformed officers, you obviously have the destruction of artwork, most notably the burning of books. Hell even the official emblem of Libria which can be seen on its flags is damn close to being a swastika just turned slightly on its side. While if you wanted to link it to a more modern day issue I suppose you could also see society's reliance on the Prozium to control their emotions as a commentary on the over medicating nature of our current society.

I've got to admit to not really been a great fan of Christian Bale but I think the nature of his character in Equilibrium means that he his put to very good use. His naturally stern intensity and frequent monosyllabic manner means that he is a prime fit for this world of stilted emotions. And once Preston begins to experience the emotions I think he does a nice job at conveying this and the power that they have on him. They really do hit him hard. When he is listening to an old vinyl album of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony you can see the impact it has on him for someone who has never felt anything before. And at the moment when he revisits the footage of his own wife's execution we can see the sheer horror on his face, not so much at the execution itself but at his own indifference and inactivity to it at the time. Though the thing that really alters Preston's way of thinking, and ultimately feeling? An adorable little dog. One of the sweeper teams finds a group of dogs and begins to destroy them one by one. Horrified by what is happening, Preston rescues one of the dogs and proceeds to risk his life for it. And really if you're going to risk your life for anything in this world, what better than a little dog?

Film Trivia Snippets - Equilibrium only made a rather miserable $1.2 million at the US box office, but it had a unique excuse – it was too successful! The film was actually denied a wide release when it made it to the United States. The reason for this was that it had already been released overseas and had already generated a profit. So Miramax then didn't want to risk turning a money-making film into a loss, meaning that they cut their outlay in terms of promotion and released it in just 301 cinemas. /// Eagle-eyed viewers may spot the fact that Preston's wife is actually played by two different actresses. The archive footage of her execution was filmed first and featured Alexa Summer in the role. When it came time to shoot the scene in which she was originally arrested however, she could not be found. As a result they had to hire another actress, Maria Pia Calzone, to take her place. So even though they are playing the same character in the closing credits there are two separate credits. Alexa Summer is credited as 'Viviana Preston', while Maria Pia Calzone was credited as 'Preston's Wife.' /// Originally Prozium, the drug that is used to suppress emotions, was actually named Librium in association with the state of Libria. However Librium turned out to be a real drug, the trade name for the anti-anxiety drug chlordiazepoxide. This necessitated a quick change to Prozium, a sly combination of Prozac and Valium, both of which have calming effects. /// Christian Bale's character of John Preston amasses a kill total of 118 characters, exactly half of the movie's 236 deaths. As of 2009, John Preston was in 3rd place in terms of the number of deaths caused by a single character. /// The puppy that was used in the film and which made such a vital contribution was a Bernese Mountain dog. Throughout the film we hear it barking, whining and yelping. However none of those noises were made by the actual dog. Instead they were made by an actor who specialises in dog impersonations. /// The unique martial arts style incorporating gunfighting that features in Equilibrium was created by its writer and director Kurt Wimmer in his backyard. The one area where Equilibrium really does carve out a rather unique little niche for itself is in the action. It has actually created its own original form of combat called Gun Kata. It is a form of martial arts which incorporates the use of a gun as part of its discipline. The main premise behind it is that the trajectories of bullets during a gunfight can be calculated and therefore predicted depending on the locations of his opponents. This means the practitioner of the art can fire at the most likely locations of the individuals without having to aim, and that they will also know the most likely lines of return fire so that they can avoid them. It tries to explain and justify it by applying physics to it, but basically it's a load of cobblers! :D However it does allow for some terrifically exciting and intricate fight scenes, wonderfully executed by fight choreographer Jim Vickers. Taking place in extremely close quarters and unfolding at lightning speeds they tend to evoke something of the elaborate Jackie Chan style. While there is certainly also a touch of John Woo flair to the gunplay with very dramatic and exaggerated action and movements. In fact there's one moment that I'm sure Woo may have utilised before, or at the very least I can imagine him doing it. Bale's Preston is faced with a hallway full of goons. Before starting out on his rampage he tosses two magazines of ammunition on to the floor in the middle of the room. He proceeds to take out a bunch of the goons, running out of ammo exactly as he arrives at the clips which allows him to reload instantly.

I'm certainly not oblivious to the numerous flaws that pepper Equilibrium. For a world where emotions have been removed, many of the performers aare really quite...well, emotional. The guiltiest party in this respect is most certainly Taye Diggs. Portraying Andrew Brandt, a fellow Cleric and Preston's partner, Diggs sneers and smirks his way through proceedings, his character taking quite the apparent glee in his duty. And while part of it turns out to be an act to entrap Preston he also appears really quite prone to bursts of anger. I suppose this could be explained away if it transpired that Brandt, like DuPont, had stopped taking the Prozium. That facet which can be seen as a commentary on how tyrants frequently break the own rules that they are imposing on the populus. But either way the obvious displays of emotion do still hurt the film. I don't really know where the blame lies, whether it was born out of the script or whether it just developed on the set. While it would be easy to blame Diggs for this element in his character you would really have to ask questions of Kurt Wimmer in terms of his handling of Diggs' performance. There are also a couple of quite sizeable holes in its story. Once Preston has stopped taking Prozium and allowed emotions to enter into his life the film completely ignores his home life and how he hides this change. We don't see how he acts around his kids and how he keeps from arousing their suspicion, nor do we see how he actually hides and takes care of the little dog that he has adopted. It's quite a glaring omission. Speaking of glaring omissions there is a massive error in the film. To frame Brandt for murder Preston swaps his government-issued gun with his so that it was Brandt's gun he used for the killing. Except that the switch actually comes after he had already killed them. :facepalm: The reason this occurred was that during editing the narrative was shuffled in an attempt to improve the pacing. This did however mean that it didn't make a damn bit of since, but Kurt Wimmer decided to let the plot hole slide.

The film makes quite nice use of set design, colour and lighting to help tell its story. The domains of the Tetragrammaton Council are vast, soulless locations draped in all fifty of E.L. James' shades of grey. While the streets of Libria are about as drab and lifeless as you could possibly imagine. This is contrasted by the sanctuaries of emotion that we come across, the hidden retreats of those that have chosen to embrace art and feeling. Jam packed with knick knacks and relics of a bygone time they just ooze a charm and a character that is completely absent from the rest of the world. While perhaps not completely absent. The office of DuPont has touches of artistic expression in the form of statues and art, hinting at his true nature. Another device to highlight the differences is the way in which the people who have freed themselves from the oppressive regime, and the places they reside in are much more colourful, with the people bathed in a warm and rich glow. This is particularly true of Emily Watson's character and Preston's wife. Such touches are also used to highlight the change in Preston's character. Clothed all in black for the large majority of the film, when the time comes for the final showdown he reverts to an all white attire, showing the enlightenment he has attained through opening himself up to his emotions. And at the film's conclusion the last shot sees Preston looking out over the city he has fought to free, and having spent so much time in the darkness and the shadows, his face is now bathed in brilliant sunshine.

Conclusion - I have no problem acknowledging that Equilibrium is a flawed film. It takes nearly all of its ideas from films and books that are superior to it, and it is almost bereft of any originality whatsoever....but it's just so cool and shiny! :D Having been released in its shadow it is often compared unfavourably with The Matrix, and while it may pale in comparison it's a damn fine and immensely entertaining film in its own right. And come on, who couldn't love a film which features a guy's face slowly sliding off his head after getting it sliced by a katana?

The Gunslinger45

01-25-14, 07:38 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I have never seen this movie, but I have watched a review for it. It tended to focus heavily on the flaws. I will have to watch this on my own to determine for myself how I feel. But I can tell ya now I do not like the look of th whole gun-kata thing.

gandalf26

01-26-14, 06:10 PM

Great review! I have always loved Equilibrium from the moment I saw it. The problem with modern martial arts movies has always been the fact that in the modern world we have guns, therefore martial arts are basically pointless. Then Equilibrium comes along and invents its own form of martial art incorporating a firearm. Genius! They totally pull it off too. The puppy defence and final showdown are among the greatest most stylish set pieces put to film. Yes as you say the film is flawed especially certain characters displaying emotions but it's just so fun.

Agree with the 9/10

Don't **** with a Clerics puppy!

JayDee

01-27-14, 09:16 PM

Looking forward to more reviews... So long as they're C20th, of course. :D
Well I've got some bad news for you HK. And bad news for Skepsis. But good news for Rodent and Gunslinger. I am now about to commence on a season of comic book movie reviews!!! :D

To help me with the upcoming comic book movies list being organised by Rodent I had a big marathon of comic book movies, filling in some gaps in my viewing as well as taking the chance to revisit some favourites for my top 100 list. And we're kicking off with one I had not yet watched. In the past I've talked about reviews getting away from me; well this is the most extreme example of that so far! In fact I'm pretty sure this is far and away my longest ever review. As such I don't really expect anyone to read all of it. Just leave me rep and move along! :D

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Christopher Nolan

Written by
Jonathan Nolan
Christopher Nolan

Starring
Christian Bale
Tom Hardy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Anne Hathaway
Gary Oldman
Marion Cotillard

The Dark Knight Rises

3.5

Plot - 8 years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and we find Gotham at a time of peace. This is in large part down to Batman (Bale) having taken the fall for the actions of Harvey Dent and his subsequent murder; the Bat has not been seen since that night. Bruce Wayne may be forced to dust off the old batsuit however when an evil new force arises in the form of a terrorist named Bane (Hardy). Bane's aim is to take over the city and expose the truth behind who Harvey Dent really was. It seems like the ideal calling for Batman to return, but Bruce has become a near-crippled recluse who rarely leaves the estate. Unable to ignore the city's need for a hero however Bruce bring the Bat out of retirement. Bane proves to be a more formidable foe than any he has previously faced however, necessitating the need for allies. Alongside his old friend Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) he finds a new ally in John Blake (Gordon-Levitt), a young and idealist cop under Gordon's command. Then there is the elusive jewel thief Selina Kyle (Hathaway). She could provide the key to bringing Bane down, but exactly whose side is she on?

I HATE Christopher Nolan's supposed 'masterpiece' The Dark Knight!!! Ok that's not actually true, but I bet it got your attention. :D As I've stated several times before however it's not a film that I really like to any great degree. It's not that I think it's a bad film, I just struggle to form any sort of emotional connection with it whatsoever. I just found it to be a very bleak and joyless experience, which largely explains why despite my love for superhero movies it has taken me well over a year to finally watch its sequel.

As I've mentioned previously one of my main gripes in regards to Nolan's efforts, and particularly the two sequels, is the balance he tries to assert between creating a serious, realistic world and then populating it with characters who wear Halloween outfits and play with outrageous pieces of technology. A film like Thor I give the benefit of the doubt to when it comes to ridiculous, out-of-this-world touches because it's a film that asks you to suspend your disbelief at the door. By attempting to make a serious, 'grown-up' film however Nolan opens himself up to be judged by a different set of criteria. So there are things which appear to have been executed purely for coolness but which feel so preposterous and out-of-place with the rest of the world he has created. The opening set-piece for example where Bane commandeers and crashes a plane. Yes it is a very eye-catching and impressive sequence but it comes across as absolute b*llocks! It seriously seems like a good idea for Bane to place himself in so much jeopardy? There wasn't an easier way to have orchestrated the crash? And the dungeon prison that Bruce finds himself trapped in is just ridiculous, makes zero sense and is completely unbelievable. But again it's pretty cool, a wonderful set.

I know Nolan's Batman trilogy has spawned a whole host of devotees who absolutely worship the films, and oh boy you really don't want to antagonise the Nolan fanboys. However one aspect of the films that I feel has been very much overrated is its writing. And I felt it was particularly flawed in this, the final part of the trilogy. The main instigator of many of the film's problems was that the story they were trying to tell was just too large in scope. It had so many threads and so many characters that it wanted to establish, that it ended up doing a poor job with many of these aspects. A number of points and revelations were either glossed over in the simplest of terms or just completely ignored. You know there's a problem when a film runs for 165 minutes and yet much of it still feels rushed. For example the fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character knew Batman's true identity just because he could 'see it in his face'? :confused: Pretty weak. I mean that should be a major moment for the film, and yet it's just sort of tossed aside very early on with absolutely no emotional impact created. Characters too are never really explored; I mean who really is Miranda Tate for example and where did she come from? And then you have issues like Bane's mask. While it's alluded to it's never actually explained what it's doing and how exactly it is keeping him alive.

Film Trivia Snippets – To prepare for his role as Bane, Tom Hardy gained 30 pounds in weight and studied various fighting styles that he could employ in the film. One thing he couldn't do anything personally about however is his height. Standing at 5'10” he had to wear 3 inch lifts to make his character Bane appear as tall or taller than his fellow co-stars Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. /// The Dark Knight Rises didn't receive a single Academy Award nomination, making it quite a rare beast as Batman films go. It's the first Christopher Nolan Baman film that didn't get a nomination, and just the second live-action Batman film (discounting the 60s comedy) not to receive a single nomination. Rather unsurprisingly that fate befell 1997's Batman & Robin. /// The final fight scene marks the only occasion in either this series or the Burton/Schumacher films in which Batman is actually seen during the daytime. /// There's no denying that Christopher Nolan assembled quite the impressive cast for the film. In total there were five Oscar winners; Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Marion Cotillard, Anne Hathaway and a further three nominees; Gary Oldman, Tom Conti, Liam Neeson. Similar to The Dark Knight but to an even greater extent I also found a lot of the dialogue to be clumsy, melodramatic and way too heavy on the exposition. Whole conversations go by without a realistic or natural sentiment being expressed, being merely just exercises in explaining what has come before and setting up what's to come in the most obvious and awkward ways. Nolan really does seem to be a director who wants to tell you everything that's going on, rather than just showing you and letting you work some things out for yourself. And then there are the numerous plot holes that disrupt the film, with some of them being truly horrible and gaping in terms of their logic; the worst being the question as to how Bruce Wayne managed to return to Gotham after escaping the pit. And several characters seem to have knowledge that they just couldn't possibly have, as well as acting outwith their nature. Outside of these huge plot holes there were also a number of smaller little niggles which just bugged me. For example what's the deal with The Joker? He is just completely ignored throughout the entire film. Obviously the tragic fate that befell Heath Ledger makes it a little tricky, and I'm certainly not saying they should have recast the role or used archive footage from The Dark Knight so that the character could make an appearance. However surely a mention or two wouldn't have gone amiss considering the impact he had upon Batman and Gotham at large. All of the villains who Batman had faced so far either appear or are referenced (Ra's Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Two-Face) so his exclusion seems strange. Especially when you consider that Bane opens up Arkham Asylum and all the jails, which presumably would have meant the Joker's freedom. There are just so many little issues that bothered me, taking me out of the film so that I struggled to really invest in Nolan's world - the security at Wayne Manor is laughably bad, the fact that the stock trades would be allowed to stand is preposterous, that every single cop in the city would be sent to one location (the sewers) is beyond stupid, that it's ok to put Selina Kyle in jail with loads of guys just because she can do a cartwheel etc.

I thought the writing of the Bruce Wayne/Batmn character in particular was very rough and in need of work. To start with the story makes his character go through the exact same arc twice! He begins the movie physically hampered by a significant limp, and has to recover both mentally and physically before he can once again take up the mantle as Batman. He is significantly helped on the latter issue by a hi-tech electronic brace supplied to him by Lucius Fox, even if I'm not sure how that helps out when you have NO cartilage left in your knee whatsoever. He doesn't seem to be on his feet for all that long however before Bane annihilates him, leaving him a completely broken man. Left to rot in a pit Bruce once again has to recuperate and build himself up so he can meet Bane again. Putting him through the exact same arc on two occasions just feels redundant and as if the film is being needlessly drawn out. And the actual recuperations seem completely implausible. So he's been near crippled for 8 years and all he needed was a fancy new brace and he's fixed. Then after Bane breaks his back it doesn't tale all that long before he is back on his feet thanks to being hung up on some ropes and receiving a hard punch to his back which puts his protruding spinal discs back into place. Really? Now I'm no doctor (no really, I know you're shocked) but both the methods that aid his recovery and the short time it takes seem....well I'll be kind and just say a touch unrealistic. Oh and somehow his treatment in prison also appears to have fixed his knee. Previously he could hardly walk before getting his new knee brace, but now he is able to escape the pit and fight Bane without it? Unless Bane decided to somehow leave him with the brace despite stripping him of everything else.

In terms of the performances in The Dark Knight Rises I actually found them to be a bit of a crap shoot. A number of them left me really quite unmoved, but there was one that I thought was rather excellent. Before I move onto that however I just have to ask, what is it with Nolan's batman films and silly voices? First there was Christian Bale's silly growl which had already become pretty damn infamous by this point. And now in this film, we get something that somehow tops it in terms of how ridiculous it is - the 'oh my god what is that' voice that Tom Hardy affects for the character of Bane. Never before has the match of visuals and audio seemed so off to me. It just seems like such a bizarre creative choice. The character of Bane is meant to this destructive force, the man who in the comics become famous as the man who broke Batman's back. And yet the voice they go with is this fey, camp quasi-English debacle being delivered by somehow who sounds like they've got a cold! I thought it was just an awful choice. It's the kind of voice South Park would come up with to parody the film, and yet it's real! It reduced this character of supposed great threat to someone I just couldn't take seriously. It completely sabotaged any attempt at menace and just as with Bale's growling it produced numerous moments of unintentional humour for me, and pretty much killed any chance I had of truly loving this film.

Film Trivia Snippets - Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Gemma Arterton, Kate Mara, Charlotte Riley and Keria Knightley all auditioned for the role of Selina Kyle. After the initial audition process they were cut down to a shortlist of Hathaway, Biel and Knightley who all screen tested. It was of course Anne Hathaway who ultimately landed the role. Although Hathaway has since revealed that during her audition she thought she was actually auditioning for the role of Joker's on again-off again girlfriend/partner-in-crime Harley Quinn. It was only after she had a discussion with Christopher Nolan that she found out it was Catwoman she was auditioning for. Hathaway would go on to base her performance on Hedy Lamarr, who was the original inspiration for Catwoman. /// And it's actually not the first feline-based character she had been cast as in a superhero film. Back when Sam Raimi was involved with Spider-Man 4, Hathaway was cast as Felicia Hardy, aka Black Cat. That production eventually fell through.In Batman Begins I thought that Bale delivered a great performance, but I have to say that in the sequels I really struggled to like him and the character whatsoever. I understand that events in his life necessitate a change in his character but he became someone I didn't want to spend any time with, never mind whole movies. And I felt that in this final instalment he took his performance and the character in such a direction that at times it almost started to resemble a self-parody, especially when it came to his growling Bat-voice. It didn't even make sense a lot of that time, he would use the voice (which is apparently to cover his real identity) with people who already knew who he was, and then in other instances where he should be using it he doesn't. At one point I think he even used the voice when he was talking to himself! In addition to that voice which becomes more overblown than ever and completely undermined the seriousness he was going for, he just mopes around for the whole film with this glum look on his face. It's like Edward Cullen has come to Gotham! “Oh I miss you so much Bella--I mean Rachel!” Even a number of his line deliveries just come across as so flat and lacking in emotion – his “no I came back to stop you” riposte for example. Opposite him was Tom Hardy as the man-monster Bane. With the bizarre accent to try and overcome Hardy struggled to really make much of an impression in my mind, except in a physical capacity; his hulking, colossal frame helps to sell that this is someone who really could hurt anyone put in his path. The mask that he wears obscures much of his face and encumbers just how much he can do in an emotive sense.

I found Marion Coutillard to be quite a flat addition to the series as Miranda Tate. In the early stages I didn't get a sense of any great charisma or life about her performance, she really failed to engage me to any great degree. And then once the true nature of the character is revealed I really couldn't assoicate her with being that individual. I struggled to buy into the fact that she could be this character who had achieved such a great feat, there just wasn't any of the required strength and determination I felt. And the romance that blossoms between her and Bruce comes out of absolutely nowhere and didn't feel convincing in the slightest. It seems to be an accepted construct in Hollywood films that if two characters get caught outside in heavy rain then they just have to have sex! The other female character of note faired slightly better. Anne Hathaway gave quite a good performance I felt considering the character she was handed. Her Selina Kyle/Catwoman felt like a slightly bland interpretation of the character, particularly when compared to the iconic version that Michelle Pfeiffer delivered to the world in 1992's Batman Returns. The item that gives Catwoman her main impetus in the story, the Clean Slate program, feels really quite weak when you consider just how easily Selina Kyle can create fake identities for herself and hack super-encrypted passwords. Surely she could have done something about it herself. And what exactly was the point of Juno Temple's character, Jen? Beyond hinting at some kind of lesbian relationship between the two there seemed to be no real purpose for her inclusion, and considering how bursting at the seams the film already is with plot points and characters surely dropping her would not have harmed the film whatsoever. Speaking of superfluous characters, how about Matthew Modine's cop? The writing and performance are so forced in a blatant attempt at making him villainous that he ends up coming across as a boo-hiss panto character. And then thanks to some atrocious staging and editing he is given an off-screen death which actually made me sure he was faking and that he was about to get back up.

There was one fantastic performance to be found in The Dark Knight Rises however, unsurprisingly coming from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as young police officer John Blake. He's one of the hottest young actors in Hollywood at the moment and once again shows why, bringing a charisma and a level of interest that I just found to be missing amongst a number of the other performers. JGL always seems to either make very interesting films or is the best thing about more conventional films, and yes I do have quite the man crush on him! :D I thought he was excellent; a really magnetic presence who just stole your attention whenever he was on screen. And that really needs to be the case because Nolan makes the decision to actually sideline Bruce Wayne/Batman for a great deal of the running time, leaving the likes of Blake, Commissioner Gordon, Bane and Selina Kyle to carry the story. Depending on your point of view this move on Nolan's part can either be seen as brave, visionary, disappointing or insane. Thanks to my Levitt man-crush and lack of warmth towards Bale's Bruce Wayne I actually enjoyed this aspect of the film, with Blake's thread of the story being the most interesting for me.

Film Trivia Snippets - The Dark Knight Rises marks the first time in any live action Batman film that the Bat-signal was never used. /// When it came to the role of Miranda Tate, alongside Marion Cotillard both Naomi Watts and Rachel Weisz were considered for the role before Cotillard finally won it. And Nolan was so desperate to have her involved that he modified the shooting schedule to accommodate her pregnancy. Cotillard started filming her scenes just two months after giving birth. /// Turns out the life of a movie star or extra isn't all that glamorous. During the football stadium sequence, the cast and extras all had to wear heavy winter clothing even though the scenes were shot in the summer of 2011 during a massive heat wave. /// Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling and Mark Ruffalo were all considered for the role of John Blake before Nolan ultimately cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It was actually the second time that DiCaprio had been considered for the role of Batman's 'sidekick'. He had been in consideration for the role of Robin in 1995's Batman Forever before Chris O'Donnell was cast. /// There's a great deal of symmetry going on in the openings of each film in Nolan's Batman trilogy. In the early minutes of each film the main villain (Ra's Al Ghul, Joker, Bane) disguises themselves as one of their own henchmen. /// Both Chloe Grace Moretz and Jennifer Lawrence auditioned for the role of Jen which eventually went to June Temple Alongside the script problems and some unappealing performances I've got to say that I think Christopher Nolan deserves a little bit of grief for his contribution. Some of the direction, staging and editing throughout the film was extremely flawed I felt (on at least one occasion events switch within moments from occurring in daylight to seemingly the middle of the night), becoming most evident in the action sequences. Several times there were instances where one of the actors quite clearly hit nothing but air and yet their opponent would react. And I'm sure that once or twice when Batman was taking on a group of thugs one of them would just hit the deck for absolutely no reason as if they had been hit. The worst example however was certainly the big face-off between the cops and the criminals that occurs around the final confrontation between Batman and Bane; it was woefully staged I felt. On this tight street you've got these two opposing forces facing up to each other; hundreds of criminals armed with automatic rifles and thousands of cops who appear mostly unarmed. The cops charge down this narrow street straight into the firing line of the cops; it should be an absolute massacre, a turkey shoot! And yet all the criminals manage to hit are a small handful of them. They must be the worst marksmen of all time! And then all of a sudden the criminals seem to forget the weapons they have and just descend into a fist fight. I just found it to be utterly stupid. There are a number of scenes that I think had they been directed by any other director, especially the likes of a Michael Bay or a Brett Ratner, would have had a number of critics and fans ripping them apart but because it's Nolan he seems to get the benefit of the doubt.

As with The Dark Knight I found the conclusion to this film, and in particular to the big feud with Bane, to be a rather underwhelming affair. After building him up as this great villain throughout the entire film and having him destroy Batman earlier in the film, to the point where Bruce Wayne is only alive because he allowed it, I felt that the resolution of their conflict was pretty insipid. The fight doesn't last all that long and was sorely lacking in any great drama I felt. This should be a battle for ages, and yet it just....wasn't. The way its shot I also felt was very poor in its execution. Nolan is well known for having quite a rapid nature when it comes to editing, but this is the complete opposite. As opposed to the chaotically edited fights in Batman Begins it is presented in just a small handful of cuts and presenting it in bright daylight doesn't do it any favours. It leaves it looking clumsy and awkward, and on more than one occasion I'm sure I spotted instances where the characters actors quite clearly missed each other when they were supposed to connect. In fact a great deal of the film's final act felt under-developed. Bane's big plan seems really quite convoluted, while the whole race against the clock angle the story takes on feels like a generic, lazy lift from any run-of-the-mill action film. And the fact that these events are going for 5 months and yet everything, the cops' plan and Batman's return, is left to the last possible second feels very clichéd. I was expecting someone to stop the bomb with just 1 second on the clock to complete the cliché. And I hated the twist that the film throws our way. In an attempt to hark back to the villain reveal twist of Batman Begins this one just comes off as weak, forced and wholly unconvincing. Another problem I had was how Gotham was depicted after Bane's plan is invoked. So he has taken control of the city and unleashed hundreds/thousands of criminals to tear the city apart; and yet not a thing seems to have happened. The streets for the most part are pristine and quiet places with barely a sign of disorder or crime. The city just comes off feeling rather fake. And The Dark Knight Rises has a great shot at becoming the Return of the King of comic book movies in regards to multiple endings. I kept thinking the film was finished and then another scene would pop up. And at least RotK gave each 'ending' time to breathe, here they are all smashed together in the final few minutes, with some of them really not making a great deal of sense.

I'm aware that it does seem that all I've done in this review so far is to criticise it by pointing out its flaws. For all those many flaws however The Dark Knight Rises does still have some tremendous moments; some staggering set-pieces of huge scope that leave your jaw on the floor and really stirred up the fanboy within me. The attack at the football stadium for example and the subsequent destruction of all the bridges is an astonishing sequence, while the final scene for Levitt's John Blake did put a smile on my face. A huge plus in creating these feelings can be found in Hans Zimmer's excellent and grandiose score which really swells and stirs the emotions

Conclusion - The Dark Knight Rises is a grand and ambitious attempt at bringing to a close one of the biggest film trilogies of the 21st century. For all its ambition however I felt it came up some way short of being the great film that it seemed so desperate to be. Instead it's a film of great moments which is frequently undermined by sloppy and clumsy execution, much of it as a result of poor writing. While I can appreciate that it is a more flawed and ultimately poorer film than its predecessor, thanks to the level of focus given to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the fact that it's not quite as grim means that I perhaps may actually have 'enjoyed' it more the The Dark Knight.

.

Godoggo

01-27-14, 09:35 PM

I like comic book movies. Not particularly the one you just reviewed, but generally I do.

mark f

01-27-14, 09:40 PM

Hey, what's with the encyclopedia?

The Sci-Fi Slob

01-27-14, 09:54 PM

I'm not being funny or anything mate, but your reviews are becoming a bit lengthy for my taste. Well written and thought out, just too long. They are bordering on essay length.

seanc

01-27-14, 10:07 PM

I can appreciate the flaws that people see in this film, and maybe even the Dark Knight...maybe. I love every minute of them both. I was in on Nolan's world from the get go, so the second two movies could do no wrong. I have watched all three at least twice and they hold up for me. Very entertaining well done trilogy.

Miss Vicky

01-27-14, 10:10 PM

Good lord that's a lot of text. I hated The Dark Knight Rises so I don't know that I'll ever actually read all that you have to say about it, but +rep for the effort.

cricket

01-27-14, 10:15 PM

Great review JayDee; a whole lot of good points there. I just watched the trilogy for the first time 2 weeks ago. Some of the stuff I noticed myself, like the voices, wondering how he got from the pit to Gotham, Catwoman in a men's prison, etc. Some of the stuff I didn't notice, like the total absence of the Joker, but you are right on. I like your point about the movie trying to be realistic, and then having totally unrealistic things happen. This is something that ruins quite a few movies for me. For whatever reason, it didn't bother me in this series, and I enjoyed all 3 films. The only thing I don't see eye to eye with you on is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He's ok to me, but I don't get the fascination with this guy. I've seen a few of his movies and I always feel the same; he's a decent actor but has no star power. I just don't see the charisma that you and others see. I thought he looked outclassed being in the same movie as great actors like Bale, Oldman, Caine, Freeman, Hardy, Hathaway, etc. Other than that, many great observations.

The Gunslinger45

01-27-14, 10:58 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I will admit, I thought Dark Knight Rises was okay. The Dark Knight being FAR superior. And the difference between the two only add to the flaws or greatness of the respective film. Namely Nola's vision.

Nolan wanted to set Batman in reality. And The Dark Knight works the best out of the trilogy by showcasing that fits in a real world scenario better then the rest of Batman's rogues gallery. The Joker has nothing to his character that is supernatural or super powered. Hence he works in The Dark Knight. Also credit to Ledger's performance. Bane however? Criminal mastermind born into a prison, trains to physical limits and gains superhuman abilities thanks to the super steroid venom and breaks out so he can break the bat? Works better in Knightfall. Also couldn't they just find a gigantic Hispanic actor for Bane? Or an I asking too much here? In addition this does suffer from Spiderman III syndrome by having to many villains or possible villains. Also, too many love interests.

I will say this though given the fact that they actually pulled back on the fight scenes as compared to Batman Begins is a huge improvement. But they totally dropped the ball on Bane. But overall, it was still okay. Way better then Spiderman 3 IMO.

With that in mind, how about some laughs and The Dark Knight Rises expense? Working this has some foul language. Most likely NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOHraf3LEk

gandalf26

01-29-14, 07:57 PM

Agreed about some of the nonsensical plot holes of TDKR but despite all that it's still a 9/10 movie with Begins and TDKR either 9.5 or 10/10.

I think the elaborate Plane intro was Nolan's personal audition tape for making a Bond movie.

Hathaway/Catwoman and Gordon Levitt are both fantastic, as is Bane/Hardy the first real physical threat to Batman in the trilogy. The first fight with Bane is amazing.

I never liked the criticism of "how did Wayne cross the ice". He is a trained ninja who can sneak back into places without being seen. We even see him training on thin ice in Begins. Did people who criticise this not watch Begins?

Perhaps because the previous 2 films were so successful we feel the need to pick apart the film so much or perhaps Nolan took his eye off the ball a wee bit in finishing this "greatest comic book series". Hard to decide which.

I wasn't a great fan of the ticking bomb finale cliche that feels like its been done a thousand times before. Perhaps this was all done to provide Batmans escape/death.

The Alfred/Wayne scenes were very powerful in this film tying in perfectly with the ending.

Mmmm Donuts

01-29-14, 09:49 PM

Bane/Hardy the first real physical threat to Batman in the trilogy. The first fight with Bane is amazing.

That's for sure. Most likely the best fight of the year of 2012. (Based on the movies that I've watched) You felt every punch, every reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDuetklFtDQ

JayDee

01-30-14, 06:40 PM

Just a quick note before the review. As part of my comic book season I watched The Dark Knight Rises first followed by Batman Begins. However I wrote this review first, and wasn't sure I'd even do one for TDKR. As a result there is quite a little bit of overlap between the reviews.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2005

Directed by
Christopher Nolan

Written by
Christopher Nolan
David S. Goyer

Starring
Christian Bale
Michael Caine
Liam Neeson
Cillian Murphy
Gary Oldman
Katie Holmes
Morgan Freeman

Batman Begins

4.5

Plot - As a young boy, Bruce Wayne (Bale) witnessed the tragic death of his parents at the hands of a criminal. This traumatic event forever changed his life, so much so that as an adult he travels the world seeking to understand and fight injustice. His travels take him to central Asia where he meets a mysterious figure named Ra's Al Ghul and joins his group called the League of Shadows. Trained by Henri Ducard (Neeson), Bruce eventually rejects the group when he learns about their true intentions. Returning to Gotham, he takes an interest in his father's legacy; Wayne Enterprises. There he meets Lucius Fox (Freeman), the head of Wayne Enterprises' Applied Sciences division, and with his help he creates a new persona to fight the crime that has polluted his city - Batman. As Batman takes on the criminals and organised crime underworld of Gotham, a sinister new threat emerges; The Scarecrow, a masked villain who induces fear in his victims through the use of toxins who in reality is Dr. Jonathan Crane (Murphy), a psychologist who is using his position at Arkham Asylum for nefarious means. Battling against all these foes Batman comes to rely on the assistance of a local cop, James Gordon (Oldman). Unbeknownst to him however there are secret plans and individuals lurking in the background, including an old friend he could never have envisaged meeting again.

This might prove to be quite a controversial view but I have to ask, am I the only one who thinks that Batman Begins is actually the best film of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? I know for definite that it's certainly my personal favourite, which I will admit puts me very much in the minority. Hell I may even be the only person on this whole board who feels that way. As a result this review is going to be slightly different from the norm. As well as reviewing Batman Begins I'm going to be dipping in and out of the sequels to help make certain points about this film.

One thing that I personally never quite 'got' was the amount of praise that Nolan got for grounding his Batman in reality. For all of its serious and real-world issues, and its foundation as a gritty crime drama when you boil it all down what you basically still have are guys dressed up as bats, clowns and scarecrows doing stuff that shouldn't exist in a 'real' world such as cars that can fly across rooftops. It made for an awkward marriage at times and it almost felt like Nolan was too embarrassed just to embrace the film for what they were - comic book films. It gives them the occasional air of pretension and arrogance, as if he feels they are above it. And with The Dark Knight Nolan took things into such a dark place that while I can appreciate some of its qualities (namely Ledger's tremendous performance) I don't think I could say that I actually like it; I just found it so grim and depressing that it was actually quite a tough watch first time out. In contrast I felt that Begins managed to find the best balance for a Batman film between the dark and gritty tone of the character, whilst still retaining the colourful and pulpy nature that should be inherent in a comic book movie. I think it's got some of the most fantastical moments of the trilogy such as the scene towards the film's conclusion where Batman flies along the streets of Gotham to confront Ra's al Ghul and his men.

That more fantastical element is also true of the film's setting. Another element where Begins is my favourite of the series is in regards to how they present Gotham. In the sequels I find Gotham to be a rather dull and bland place; it comes across just like any generic major city in the US. While you could argue once again that this is part of Nolan's attempts to ground the film in reality, as well as helping to place us in the action by having it take place on streets which look just like the ones we walk every day, I just found the Gotham we get here to be a much more vivid, interesting and unique place. It's got a much more gothic, even steampunk flavour to it with its monorail, billowing smoke and architecture. While the Narrows has the feel of a dystopia slum of a sort. All in all it was just a much more fascinating place to spend time in. And considering how iconic a part of Batman's story Gotham is I think that should be more of a character in its own right.

Film Trivia Snippets - While there are some questions over the story's authenticity, David Boreanaz was apparently the first choice for the role of Bruce Wayne but turned it down. Once he did many other actors were put under consideration. Keanu Reeves and Ashton Kutcher were both considered, with Kutcher reportedly being the studio executives' top choice. Nolan wasn't enthusiastic about this, resulting in the studio heads dropping the idea. In the end it was cut down to a shortlist of 8 actors who were asked to audition just days before the role would eventually be cast. Those involved were Christian Bale, Joshua Jackson, Eion Bailey, Hugh Dancy, Billy Crudup, Cillian Murphy, Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal. While Bale obviously won the part, Nolan was so impressed with Cillian Murphy that he cast him as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow on the strength of that audition. /// While his work on the Batman films has won him the adoration of many viewers, they could easily have been made without the participation of Christopher Nolan. Before he took on the project, Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct with Frank Miller set to write the screenplay based on his own classic tale “Batman: Year One.” In the end Warne Bros. decided not to put the project into production, apparently because the screenplay strayed a considerable amount from the source material, making Alfred an African-American mechanic named Big Al, the Batmobile a souped-up Lincoln Towncar and Bruce Wayne homeless. Also approached to direct were The Wachowski brothers, who even wrote their own treatment also based on “Batman: Year One.” In the end though they turned down the offer to make the Matrix sequels instead. /// The language used in the film by Ken Watanabe is neither Japanese nor Tibetan, or in fact any known language at all. It is actually just some gibberish he says he made up himself for the role. /// While shooting on the streets of Chicago, a person accidentally crashed into the Batmobile. The driver was apparently drunk, and said he hit the car in a state of panic, believing the Dark Knight's vehicle to be an invading alien spacecraft.While I perhaps wouldn't go as far to say that Nolan began to suffer from delusions of grandeur with the two sequels I do feel that they had the tendency to feel quite bloated as they strived to become more and more epic. In comparison I find that Begins is by far the most streamlined, focused and economical of the trilogy. Like its successors it moves along at a fair pace and features a decent amount of action but I just felt that there was more room to breathe. It allowed the actors to flesh out their characters and have conversations which actually aided in that, as opposed to just being huge dumps of exposition. I felt that TDKR was particularly guilty of this. It tried to cram in so much story that so many issues were either glossed over, forgotten about or dealt with in the most simplistic and quickest of ways (Levitt's character knows Bruce Wayne is Batman because he can see it in his face? Really? :suspicious:) I think that in general the writing on this film is just a lot tighter in terms of both the storyline and the dialogue. The interactions that Bruce has with other characters are better written and carry more of a purpose than in the following films. So often in the sequels it felt like the conversations where merely there to move the film and the character along and that the words could have came from anyone. But here I felt that Bruce had some great character moments with just about everyone - Alfred, Lucius Fox, Ducard, Gordon etc. Moments such as the first time Bruce visits Gordon in his office, when Alfred asks Bruce “why do we fall” as his home burns to the ground around him, all of his discussions with Ducard up in the mountains which create depth and build Bruce's character etc.

I think the writing was stronger in regards to the characters it creates. It makes the motivations for the characters a lot more clear; Bruce has to overcome his fear to become a defender of the city, as Batman he has to overcome his desire for vengeance to become the defender the city needs, Ra's al Ghul wants to wipe out Gotham and its extremes of decadence etc. In comparison I found the plans of Bane and the Joker to be more convoluted and confusing. I also felt that their actions matched their characters; quite often in the later films I felt that characters were just doing stuff out of character and for dramatic effect. The origins of the character are really well established. Along with showing us how the suit and the Batmobile come to light the film shows us who Bruce is and what it is that drives him. I also like how Batman seems to rely on his wits and intelligence a bit more in this film, alluding to the detective side of his persona, as opposed to the constant use of fists and gadgets in the sequels. The film not only introduces us to the real Bruce Wayne but to both the Dark Knight he becomes and the playboy facade that he creates to help mask his secret identity. One of my main problems with the writing of the sequels, particularly TDKR, was the amount of gaping plot holes. If I'm going to be honest however Batman Begins has a whopper of its own. While the central idea of the fear toxin in the water is interesting it makes no sense whatsoever. The bad guys have been introducing the fear toxin into the water for weeks in preparation for it being activated by the microwave emitter which will turn the toxin into a steam that will go airborne. So why in those weeks is no one affected when they boil their kettle or have a hot shower? And the film completely glosses over the fact that most of the human body is made of water, but the emitter has absolutely no effect on the people when it is set off. Unlike in the sequels however I loved everything else about this film so much that I can overlook and forgive the film for that.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film's title went through a number of changes. Initially it was known simply as “Batman 5” before becoming “Batman: The Frightening” for a while. To help prevent script leaks the film was then titled “Intimidation Game” to throw off the public. In fact when actors were initially approached they were not told it was a Batman movie as the script they were sent carried the title of “The Intimidation Game.” Michael Caine commented that when he first saw the title he assumed the script was for some kind of gangster movie. /// Some very esteemed actors were considered for roles in the film. For the role of Henri Ducard (which eventually went to Liam Neeson) Guy Pearce and Daniel Day Lewis were considered while Viggo Mortensen was actually offered the role and turned it down. For the role of James Gordon Chris Cooper, Kurt Russell and Dennis Quaid were all considered. While when it came to the role of Dr. Crane/The Scarecrow actors under consideration were Christopher Eccleston, Ewan McGregor, Jeremy Davies and most interestingly Marilyn Manson. Laurence Fishburne was considered for the role of Lucius Fox, while Anthony Hopkins was actually offered the role of Alfred but declined. /// During the scene where Christian Bale and Liam Neeson fight on the frozen lake, both actors could hear the ice cracking beneath their feat. The next day, the ice had broken and completely melted. /// The voice that Christian Bale puts on when he becomes Batman has become very famous, or indeed infamous. And it had its problems on set as well, with Bale actually losing his voice three times during filming due to the alterations he would make in his voice. /// The role of Batman proved to be very physically demanding on Christian Bale. Following his part in The Machinist, Bale was vastly underweight (about 120 pounds) when he was under consideration for the role of Batman. After he was cast Christopher Nolan told him to go away and become as “big as you can be.” Bale underwent a 6 month dietary and exercise regime which resulted in him weighing in at 220 pounds (about 40 pounds heavier than his normal weight). This time however it was deemed that he had become too large (friends of his on the crew dubbed him 'Fatman'), and he had to then shed 20 pounds very quickly to finally get in the correct shape. Bale has described the whole experience as being an unbearable physical ordeal.One of the main problems that I had with the sequels is that I was unable to warm up to Christian Bale's performance in them. While I understand that the character developed and that the longer he was around the more he carried the weight of the world upon his shoulders but he became a character that I just didn't enjoy spending time with. He just growled and moped his way through the films. And we've not even gotten on to the issue of his silly Batman voice. That was a large reason why my favourite part of TDKR was Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story thread. Here however I find Bale to be a much more charismatic and likeable presence. He comes across as a much more vulnerable and relocatable character with more restraint on the half of Bale, things which all but disappeared in the sequels. And for a little while at least he seems to actually enjoy donning the suit and has a little fun with it, as opposed to it being the burden of later films. Hell he even smiles quite a few times throughout the film. In fact the film as a whole just has so much more humour about it. It may not go to the lengths that Marvel's efforts have (most notably Iron Man, Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers) but there are quite a few laughs to be found here, just making it a much more pleasurable viewing experience for me.

Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman all give very humorous and warm showings, with the only disappointment amongst the cast being Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes. It's just a very bland performance completely lacking in any substance with every line apparently a struggle for her. Though the script doesn't help, giving the character some rather bitchy moments such as slapping Bruce and then turning him down at the end for some reason that I'm still not entirely sure on. And then there's the villains of the film. While they may have been overshadowed by Tom Hardy's Bane and especially Heath Ledger's Joker I think it should be remembered just how strong the villainous performances are in Begins. Both Neeson and Murphy are excellent. Neeson brings a great deal of strength and mystery to the role, and is helped greatly by the strong writing of his character. Initially he is set up as a mentor and surrogate father figure for Bruce before becoming his enemy, reflecting what Bruce could become if he allows his need for vengeance overwhelm him. I also thought the twist reveal of Neeson's character was well handled and really surprised me the first time I saw the film. It was a move that Nolan attempted to pull again in TDKR but that time it came off as very clumsy and unconvincing. While as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow I really loved Murphy's creepy, unhinged performance; a very charismatic showing. I also loved how the film portrayed the effects of the fear-inducing toxins that Murphy's Dr. Crane/ Scarecrow had at his disposal. Showing us the viewpoint of the affected party the picture becomes very twitchy and shaky, while some of the monstrous images the people imagine are great in their creativity. The demonic Batman is a particular highlight, being quite simply bad ass!

I think that Batman Begins may also perhaps be the strongest in terms of the action set-pieces. For a start Batman's rescue of Rachel from Arkham Asylum I thought was the best of all the vehicle-based action sequences across the trilogy. It's a thrilling sequence that sees the Tumbler flying across the rooftops of Gotham and destroying every bit of the city's infrastructure that stands in its way. I also preferred the way that the fighting scenes were presented here. The first time around I actually wasn't a fan of those scenes, finding the shaky camera and breathless editing quite irritating and tiresome. However I've come to appreciate the scenes a lot more compared to the action in the sequels, particularly being a fan of the attack at the warehouse. The stylistic choices and the hit and move strategy show us the actions of Batman from the perspective of the thugs he is attacking, showing him in a stealthy and terrifying way. Though I will admit that some of the later fights against the minions of Ra's Al Ghul are almost indecipherable thanks to the editing. I certainly think this film comes out on top when compared to the final confrontations of the sequels. In both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises I felt that after so much build-up the finales were rather disappointing and underwhelming. In TDK the tension surrounding the two bomb-laden boats I felt was a little flat and the actual fight between Batman and the Joker was really weak. These two are meant to be amongst the greatest adversaries of all time and yet their final fight lasts for about 30 seconds and its most interesting aspect were a few dogs. The film then rushes in a conclusion to the story of Harvey Dent/Two-Face whereas I think it would have been a lot more satisfying to have saved that for the 3rd film. TDKR's final battle was equally lacklustre I thought, not helped by how it was staged. In general I don't think that the hand-to-hand combat in the trilogy was all that exciting. It may have been more realistic but with just a series of elbow and knee strikes I didn't find it very dramatic. And in the fight with Bane it is presented in clear daylight and with little editing, making it seem duller and on occasion making it appear really obvious that they aren't actually hitting each other. Both just came across as lacklustre, convoluted, illogical and very anti-climactic. But in Begins I felt that the whole train sequence was a more eventful and dynamic conclusion told on a grander scale and one that carried a more emotional impact.

Conclusion - One of the iconic elements of Batman Begins is the line that Bruce's father, and later Alfred, delivers; “Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves back up.” Well after the giant fall that was the risible Batman & Robin, this film showed that Batman could get back up. And in some style. For me it's the best of all the Batman films yet to hit the big screen, perfectly capturing the tone and delivering a rollicking good time at the movies.

The Gunslinger45

01-30-14, 10:49 PM

cricket

01-31-14, 06:47 PM

Another great review JayDee! I also think that Batman Begins is the best all around film of the trilogy. My least favorite is actually The Dark Knight, mostly because I do not like Aaron Eckhart. But like I said, I really like all 3 films.

gandalf26

01-31-14, 06:58 PM

Wayne: "what's that"

Fox: "Ohhh the Tumbler, You wouldn't be interested in that"

BBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRR,,,BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

JayDee

02-01-14, 09:30 PM

Shut the fu!k up Donny!

No no no!!! :mad: We already had a spate of these a while ago; no more Big Lebowski quotes!!! :D

I'm not being funny or anything mate, but your reviews are becoming a bit lengthy for my taste. Well written and thought out, just too long. They are bordering on essay length.

:suspicious: You're not another of Sexy's alter egos are you? :p

Not to be fair I know I can get carried away and quite often admit it, especially when it comes to comic book movies.

Another great review JayDee! I also think that Batman Begins is the best all around film of the trilogy. My least favorite is actually The Dark Knight, mostly because I do not like Aaron Eckhart. But like I said, I really like all 3 films.

Really? Great to hear! I'm not alone any more! :D

And thanks for the compliments cricket and everyone else

JayDee

02-03-14, 04:36 PM

Well after a couple of Nolan's efforts it's time to go back and look at one of Tim Burton's visits to Gotham

mirror mirror

Year of release
1992

Directed by
Tim Burton

Written by
Daniel Waters

Starring
Michael Keaton
Michelle Pfeiffer
Danny DeVito
Christopher Walken
Michael Gough

Batman Returns

4 +

Plot - After successfully defeating the Joker the caped crusader known as Batman (Keaton) has emerged as the protector of Gotham city. And the city is going to need him, for in the depths of the city's sewers a new villain is set to emerge - the Penguin (DeVito); a deformed individual who was rejected by his parents as a baby and is now intent on being accepted into Gotham society. A possible path to this acceptance comes in the form of crooked businessman Max Shreck (Walken) who aims to make the Penguin the new mayor of the city, and manipulate events to pain Batman in a negative light in the process. Everyone buys into the tragic story of the Penguin except for Batman, who aims to uncover the truth behind his intentions. His attempts are hindered however by the appearance of another costumed figure, Catwoman (Pfeiffer).

Man I had forgotten just what an odd little duck of a movie this was. I have seen this before, several times I think, but not for many years and I really wasn't able to recall much of it. And it really was a surprise to find just how weird and bizarre a creation Tim Burton concocted here. And coming on the back of watching Christopher Nolan's Batman films it makes for a real culture shock. It's hard to believe that they could have come up with two such distinct and disparate films whilst using the same source of inspiration. In fact even if Eli Roth was to direct a Batman film, followed by an effort from Pixar, it's hard to believe they could come up with two films which are more different. While Nolan strived for reality and a serious edge, Burton embraces the fantasy element of the material, delivering something that has a tendency to move into the realm of a surrealistic nightmare. In fact there's a touch of the Brothers Grimm fairytale about the whole thing, particularly in regards to the film's villains. Both The Penguin and Catwoman are much more paranormal, elemental like creations than their comic book counterparts. And Danny Elfman's excellent, ethereal score which sounds like the soundtrack to a dark fairytale is a perfect fit for this tone.

I'm actually really stunned at just how much the studio allowed Burton to get away with. I mean this is a really dark flick. Actually no, dark isn't the right word. Nolan's Batman films were dark; this is just f*cked up!!! I mean within the first two minutes alone you've got a mother and father dumping their infant son over the side of a bridge and into a river below, seemingly with the intent of killing him. It's only through a stroke of luck that he manages to survive. So that's one twisted supervillain origin. Then you've got Selina Kyle being thrown out of a window to her death, attracting a load of cats who seemingly try and eat her lifeless corpse. Only for her to come back to life! I'm telling you, it's f*cked up!!! And that's not even mentioning some of the other depraved touches that Burton throws our way - Catwoman attempting to eat a live bird for example or The Penguin's plan to kill all of the first born infants of Gotham.

Film Trivia Snippets - The script for Batman Returns went through several rewrites; in one version it was to be discovered that Max Schrek was actually The Penguin's older brother. /// Talking of rewrites, the character of Max Schrek was a pure rewrite of Harvey Dent. As such some of the film's plot points would perhaps have made more sense if Schreck had been a District Attorney as opposed to a corrupt businessman. The explosion at the film's end was to have scarred Dent and lead to his transformation into Two-Face for the third movie, Batman Forever. Billy Dee Williams apparently took the role of Harvey Dent in 1989's Batman as he knew he would eventually become Two-Face. It is rumoured that Williams' contract to appear in this sequel was bought out by Warner Bros. at a very heavy price. /// When it came to the character of The Penguin, Warner Brothers' first suggestion was Dustin Hoffman, while other names that were considered included Marlon Brando, John Candy, Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd. /// When it came to the role of Selina Kyle/Catwoman it seems that just about every name in Hollywood popped up at one point or another. In fact Michelle Pfeiffer was not the original actress to be cast. Annette Bening had been cast but was replaced when she became pregnant. Demi Moore and Nichole Kidman both rejected offers, while Susan Sarandon showed great interest in the role but was considered too old. Other actresses in the frame included Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster, Lena Olin, Madonna, Raquel Welch, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ellen Barkin, Cher and Bridget Fonda. At one point, even Kim Basinger was considered despite the small fact that she had appeared in the previous instalment as Vicky Vale. /// Talking of alternates for Catwoman, here's one to get you thinking. A possibility for slipping into the film's famous Catsuit was Meryl Streep! Tim Burton rejected her however because he considered her too old for the role. The mental image that's creating in my mind isn't pretty. Batman Returns is able to navigate two very different tones within its story. On the one hand the film feels very much like the spiritual successor to the campy delights of the classic Adam West TV show from the 60s, with much of the production design apparently grabbed straight from that day-glo world. The cronies at The Penguin's disposal in the film are the Circus Gang; a group comprising of clowns, circus performers and sideshow freaks that feels very much like the henchmen that Batman and Robin would usually dispatch on the TV show with the aid of a biff! a bam! and a pow! The Penguin's choice of transportation is a huge, mechanical rubber ducky; arguably even more ridiculous than something the TV show would conceive of. And then there's the film's conclusion. To start with there's the sight of Christopher Walken's Max Schrek being held captive in a massively oversized cage hanging from the rafters; a situation that the Caped Crusader and Boy Wonder seemed to stumble into every week. And then The Penguin's big plan consists of sending out a series of penguins with missiles strapped to their back. :eek: Yes really!

So you've got that on one had, and you then sprinkle it with a touch of Burton's unique stylings. Of all the directors out there, few have a more recognizable and unique style than Burton. And you can see his hand at work throughout the entire production. I've already talked about the darkness inherent in the film's storytelling, and the other extremely Burtonesque touches are to be found in the film's tremendous set and art design. In 1989's Batman, the Gotham that we see was much closer to that presented in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. It may have been quite gothic but it still felt like a real city. The Gotham here however is pure escapist fantasy, with German expressionism being a very heavy and obvious influence on the city's design. In fact you'd be forgiven for thinking that Batman had started fighting crime in Fritz Lang's Metropolis as the buildings stretch towards the skies, looming over him ominously and with great menace. The set design throughout the film, for both the interiors and exteriors really is fantastic in its creativity. It is made all the more expressive and gothic by a colour palette largely dedicated to blacks and greys and some great use of shadows. One thing I'd say about the set design is that at no point are you ever in any doubt that the action is taking place on a soundstage. It's obvious that none of the buildings are actually 'real' and that they have all been purpose built for the film, while the whole city of Gotham feels like it consists of just two or three blocks. I'm sure that some people may see this as a weakness as a result of some shoddy lighting, cinematography or direction that highlights these shortcomings. In general I would likely be inclined to agree but I think it really works for this particular film. Burton is attempting to tell a story that is so very, very out there that if he had set it amongst the real world there's a good chance it would not have worked. This grand, operatic stage that he has built however suits it to a tee.

Tim Burton assembled quite the cast for this sequel, arguably the most eclectic and interesting cast put together for any of the Batman films, or superhero films at large for that matter. To begin with you've got one of the most unique actors around in the form of Christopher Walken, taking on the role of business mogul Max Schrek. Of all the actors out there few seem to deliver the exact same performance more often than Walken. Time and ttime again he seems to just merely play himself on screen. But then when you're such a unique and oddly captivating individual why wouldn't you? His character is arguably the most evil of the film's villains. Whereas both The Penguin and Catwoman have tragic origins which explain their behaviour, Schrek is just a sleezy, piece of s*it politician. In the role of The Penguin, Danny De Vito is absolutely terrific. Talk about someone being born to play a specific role. With his diminutive stature and natural aptitude for playing creepy and sleezy characters while somehow still remaining funny and likeable makes him a perfect fit. Despite his wicked, villainous ways I can't help actually liking the character however. Through a combination of his tragic story and the sheer conviction with which De Vito plays the role, I find that an unavoidable sense of sympathy is created for the loveable little gargoyle. And the moment where he slides off into the water with the penguins after his demise I find to be oddly touching. The Penguin is also a fine example of great make-up and costume work. I remember when I watched this as a kid being genuinely scared of DeVito's Penguin.

Film Trivia Snippets - According to the book 'Movie Magic' by 'Robin Cross', Penguin's army consisted of real penguins, actors in glass fiber suits, animatronic puppets controlled by puppeteers, and computer animation. A technique called flocking was used where several penguins would imitate a master penguin, allowing control over large numbers. /// There's quite a noteable scene in the film where Catwoman grabs a pet bird belonging to The Penguin and attempts to eat it. Michelle Pfeiffer did actually put a live bird in her mouth and hold it there for the scene, greatly impressing Tim Burton. /// David Bowie was actually the first choice for the role of Max Shreck, but turned it down in favour of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Christopher Walken was subsequently cast and it's not the first time Walken has beneffited from Bowie passing on a role. The role of Max Zorin in Bond flick, A View to a Kill, was also offered to Bowie first. Incidentally Bowie had also been considered to play the Joker in Batman. /// Burgess Meredith, who saw memorably played the Penguin in the 60s TV show, was asked to play the part of The Penguin's father in the film's opening but he was unable to due to illness. /// Michelle Pfeiffer became such a sex icon thanks to Catwoman's iconic PVC suit that she actually caused a crime wave. Warner Bros. had to constantly submit new Catwoman posters for various cities as so many of the bus stop ads were being stolen. It soon got so bad that police officers had to patrol bus stops in order to catch perpetrators before they could break the Plexiglas containers. I don't really like to think what the thieves where using the posters for. /// Batman Forever and Batman & Robin come in for a lot of grief from fans, but it turns out that they could actually have been a lot worse. As inconceivable as it may seem Marlon Wayans had actually been signed to play Robin in both this movie and Batman Forever. It had even gotten to the stage where he went through costuming for the movie. When the script was rewritten the character was dropped, and when Joel Schumacher took over as director for Batman Forever the role was instead given to Chris O'Donnell. Wayans was still paid for both movies.
As awesome as DeVito is however, the most iconic element of this film inarguably belongs to Michelle Pfeiffer and that outfit. That leather/PVC suit that she wears really is quite something, pushing the kinky/BDSM nature of the character right to the limit and creating an image that was seared into the minds of pubescent boys the world over. Beyond the suit however there is still a great deal to enjoy about her performance. Pfeiffer really goes for it, following the character's initial geekiness she delivers a terrifically sexy, sultry and alluring performance. It's enough to get the Bat hot under the collar, and I'm guessing every red blooded male watching was in a similar predicament. Her Catwoman is just so much more interesting than the rather flat creation that Anne Hathaway got lumbered with in The Dark Knight Rises. Up against all those strong performances and colourful characters Batman himself actually fades into the background a touch and struggles to make anywhere near the same kind of impact. There's almost a sense that Burton was bored with the goody-two-shoes character, instead devoting the large majority of his time and creative juices to the villains. As a bit of conjecture perhaps the studio told him that Batman was off limits, he couldn't mess about with him, so instead he decided to have his ghoulish fun with the villains. I mean there's one point where I noticed the running time (I think it was around the 35-40 minute mark) and realised that Bruce Wayne/Batman had only featured for a total of about two minutes up until that stage. I may have put Michael Keaton's name first in the credits but it really is only out of courtesy. He would come very low down on the list of things that you remember from this film. While I know that he has quite a number of fans for his turn as Batman I don't find him all that special, but it's not really his fault. Neither of his films really gave him enough of a chance to shine and create a character. The first was dominated by Jack Nicholson's Joker while this sequel was also all about the villains. That said he still does a nice job and does admittedly have some great chemistry with Pfeiffer.

For all of his fans, Tim Burton also has a great number of critics. One of their main gripes is that too often he allows his films to slip into the trap of being very much a case of style over substance. And while Batman Returns is undoubtedly stylish, these characters that I've been discussing also allow the film some of the substance that those critics accuse Burton of being incapable of finding. All three of the main characters (Batman, Catwoman, The Penguin) were created through tragedy; their lives were destroyed and forever changed by the cruel society in which they live. The Penguin was abandoned as an infant by his parents; Batman was robbed of his parents due to senseless murder; and Catwoman was first oppressed and trodden upon by her male superiors, before being killed by said oppressor. These traumas caused a split in all three characters, creating dual personalities. In particular the characters of Batman and The Penguin are very similar. Both have suffered traumatic experiences in their childhood related to their parents. The difference comes in their reactions. While The Penguin seeks revenge against the society that inflicted this pain upon him by targeting the innocent, Batman has vowed to protect the innocent from men like The Penguin. In Star Trek there was something called the mirror universe; a parallel world where everyone and everything where the exact opposite of that in the 'normal' universe, so good became evil and vice versa. In a way The Penguin acts as the dark reflection of what Batman could become if he were to allow his sense of justice and vengeance to get the better of him. He could easily become the kind of criminal that he is seeking to stop with temptations frequently presenting themselves to him. And in this case the temptation comes in the rather comely figure of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Following her apparent death a new side to her character is born. Alongside the meek secretary that was Selina Kyle there is now the supremely confident and vivacious Catwoman. As Selina struggles to reconcile these two wildly different personas, so too does Batman struggle to resist her enticing and seductive ways.

Conclusion - Several times on here I've stated that I'm not a particularly big fan of The Dark Knight, citing its darkness as being the main reason. So it might seem rather odd and even hypocritical that I'm such a fan of Batman Returns. While this film is just as dark as TDK, if not even more so, it's a different type of darkness; it's a ghoulish and playful kind of darkness compared to TDK which I found to be dark in a very dreary, grim manner. This one is just so much fun though with some wonderfully inventive set design and costume work, and some great performances. By far my favourite of the original Batman films, and second only to Batman Begins as my personal favourite.