Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

→ in
Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I was in awe the first time I watched this. Simply beautiful filmmaking and influential beyond comprehension.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Welcome to the human race...
#662 - Warm Bodies
Jonathan Levine, 2013



In the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse, a male zombie experiences a radical change to his existence when he eats the brain of a human and develops an attraction to his victim's girlfriend.

The market for zombie entertainment is considerably saturated to the point where even the comedic variations on the normally-horrific sub-genre are also starting to become afflicted by fatigue. Though Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead was hardly the first zombie comedy, it definitely proved groundbreaking enough for other people to try putting out their own parodic takes on the mindless flesh-eaters. Much like Wright's film, Jonathan Levine's Warm Bodies is a romantic comedy that takes place during the zombie apocalypse - however, it offers a distinct variation on that it makes it about the relationship between a human and a zombie. This is at least explained away by the world-building that draws a line between the everyday zombies who still have some semblance of intelligence (yet will still go after humans wherever possible) and the "boneys", which are extremely rotten and skeletal zombies that are only driven by their killer instinct (much like the feral ghouls from the Fallout game series). Nicholas Hoult plays one of the regular zombies whose rich yet nervous internal monologue is a far cry from the lumbering corpse that he is in reality. When he joins a group of other zombies on a search for humans to feed on, he encounters a group of human scavengers. After killing one (Dave Franco) and eating his brain, Hoult starts to develop an affection for his victim's girlfriend (Teresa Palmer) due to his ingesting of Franco's memories and proceeds to rescue her from his undead comrades. He brings her back to his makeshift home inside a passenger plane and, though she is understandably distrustful of him, she gradually warms to him. Meanwhile, her father (John Malkovich), who just so happens to be in charge of the human resistance, is willing to stop at nothing to find her...

I think that a film that's primarily classified as a comedy (even if it's arguably parodying a separate genre and thus ends up taking said genre's conventions seriously) can get away with not generating much in the way of laughter if the rest of it is handled well enough, and Warm Bodies definitely doesn't strike me as a bad movie when all is said and done. The twists on the zombie lore are interesting enough, but the same can't really be said for the fairly standard plot that only offers the slightest variations on familiar rom-com tropes. They don't delve into totally predictable cliché but they never rise above their station to become truly interesting in their own right. There are some fairly capable performers in the cast and none of them turn in truly bad performances (except possibly Malkovich, who really does seem like he's going through the motions here). The production value's not too bad and things are kept rolling along at a decent pace across its brief running time, but there doesn't feel like a whole lot to recommend to it. It's got heart and it doesn't go overboard in painting Hoult's zombie hero as a hipster (even when it justifies his preference for vinyl records by saying that it sounds better to zombie ears) but I'd hardly call it essential.

__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Welcome to the human race...
#663 - A Few Good Men
Rob Reiner, 1992



When two U.S. Marines are accused of murdering one of their comrades, a team of Naval attorneys is assigned to defend them.

A Few Good Men is another one of those films that's leaked into the cultural consciousness to the point where sitting down and actually watching it feels like a formality more so than a genuine cinematic experience. It's got a decent enough plot as far as legal dramas go thanks to its concerns with a military trial, especially when the seemingly straightforward case of two Marines murdering a third at Guantanamo Bay is complicated by the fact by not just their motives but also the origins of said motives. The defence counsel consists of a mismatched group in Tom Cruise's cocky legal hotshot who's never actually had to enter a courtroom, Demi Moore's upstanding professional who's looking to do right by her clients, and Kevin Pollak's morally conflicted individual who definitely seems to think his clients are guilty and is not all that enthused about defending them. The proceedings put Cruise up against a friendly rival (Kevin Bacon) who shows no mercy when it comes to prosecuting. Meanwhile, the colonel (Jack Nicholson) in charge of Guantanamo consults with his subordinates (J.T. Walsh and Kiefer Sutherland) over how best to handle the crisis on their hands.

There's nothing too spectacular about A Few Good Men but that doesn't make it bad. Rob Reiner's early career definitely showed a lot of versatility across multiple films thanks to his handling of richly developed characters, which makes him a good choice for directing Aaron Sorkin's dialogue-heavy screenplay. Nobody here comes across as out-of-place - not even Cruise, who proves himself fairly worthy of the material because his dedication to his craft is enough to compensate for his potentially alienating A-list status. Nicholson doesn't have all that much screen-time here but he definitely makes the most of what he gets in a way that also compensates for his iconic presence, earning the film's defining moment in the process. Other capable performers fill out the roles well and definitely don't draw negative attention. Though the fact that I can't really think of anything overly negative to say about A Few Good Men should signal that it's really good, it's also a sign that I can't really say too much that's overly positive either. It's about as dependable as a film can get with its reasonably compelling legal drama and the big names that demonstrate how they managed to become big names, but it doesn't exactly feel like a classic. Paradoxically, it proves very watchable but it definitely doesn't feel like I really need to watch it again.




Welcome to the human race...
#664 - Sugar Hill
Paul Maslansky, 1974



When her boyfriend is killed by a group of gangsters, a woman turns to voodoo and raises an army of zombies to help her take revenge.

Delving into obscure grindhouse cinema beyond the most beloved cult classics proves to be quite the gamble because you never know if you're going to get an obscure piece of fun or a film that deserves to be forgotten. Sugar Hill came out during the early years of the blaxploitation boom and it obviously wants to distinguish itself from all the other low-rent crime dramas that use revenge as the drive behind their extremely basic plots. To this end, it has its titular protagonist decide to get revenge on the criminals who murdered her boyfriend by contracting a local voodoo practitioner, who puts her in touch with the mysterious forces at play. As a result, Sugar Hill gets herself an army of voodoo zombies that are raised from the dead to do her bidding, and so begins a whole movie worth of supernatural vengeance. To be fair, I do appreciate that this film attempted to do something different to the usual blaxploitation films and it definitely seems like the premise has some potential due to its inclusion of the paranormal - that's what made Sugar Hill seem halfway promising.

Unfortunately, the problem is that Sugar Hill fails to provide much in the way of genuine entertainment. I'd even go so far as to say that it fails to provide anything in the way of genuine entertainment. While you can sort of accept that '70s blaxploitation is naturally going to have some fairly unimpressive production values, you kind of hope that it'll at least prove to be fun in one way or another. Sugar Hill isn't fun at all. It's an incredibly dry and boring film that runs the blaxploitation playbook page by page. The problem is that its main gimmick of the heroine getting her revenge using voodoo ultimately doesn't work. Whereas films like Coffy or Foxy Brown showcase the heroine taking revenge on her own and ultimately generate some tension thanks to her putting her life on the line, Sugar Hill lacks any serious tension due to its heroine being able to take down all her enemies using voodoo, which mainly involves zombies with the occasional variation such as the use of a doll. Even the warning that doing so will force her to sell her soul to Baron Samedi doesn't seem to mean much to the rest of the film. The use of zombies is neutered by the near-total lack of violence featured in the film - though some villains' demises are implied to be horrific (one of them gets fed to pigs, after all), there is barely anything remotely resembling the pulpy thrills associated with your typical blaxploitation flick. What kind of blaxploitation film has a PG rating? As a result, there is nothing to recommend about Sugar Hill. The nicest thing about it is that it's at least kind of short, but that doesn't seem to matter when it can't generate anything of even the slightest worth. Only worthwhile for blaxploitation die-hards; even then, it still seems to lack just about everything that makes blaxploitation films worth watching.




Welcome to the human race...
#665 - Go West
Edward Buzzell, 1940



A trio of fools travel to the Wild West and get caught up in a dispute over ownership of a valuable tract of land.

I guess you could sum up every Marx Brothers movie with a single sentence. The Marx Brothers run a small country, the Marx Brothers work at a prestigious college, the Marx Brothers interfere with an opera company...you get the idea. Though things started off with bizarre titles like Horse Feathers or Duck Soup, eventually the titles just got much more straightforward, and that's how we ended up with Go West as the title for the movie where the Marx Brothers...go west. It once again involves the core trio of Groucho, Chico, and Harpo as they all board a train headed for the West with the intention of seeking anything better than what they're leaving behind. This naturally plants them right in the middle of a land deal that ticks a lot of the usual narrative devices common your average Marx Brothers movie - the young couple whose struggle provides the crux of the narrative, the extremely determined and greedy antagonist, the conflict involving the acquisition of money, etc. I know you're not really supposed to watch Marx Brothers movies for the plot - what matters is everything else.

While Go West is hardly going to be much of a stand-out as far as Marx Brothers movies go, it's at least a step up from the blandness of the brothers' previous outing, At the Circus. The Western genre is one that is eternally ripe for parody and even the waning comedic success of the Marx Brothers isn't immune to the comedic potential that the Western offered even in the late-1930s. There are a lot of the usual tropes being reduced to shallow mockeries such as bar brawls with murderous bandits or safe-destroying robberies. Of course, one can easily find that the brothers' interactions with a tribe of Native Americans don't exactly fly these days (especially when they don't yield any laughs anyway). There's even a suitably Marx Brothers climax where the trio commandeer a train and do their best to shut it down, which does end up being a genuinely entertaining sequence. Unfortunately, it comes on the tail-end of some disappointingly standard Marx Brothers antics and thus proves one of the very few saving graces about the film at large. Just like At the Circus, it's only really recommended to major fans of the brothers, though it's arguably better than that thanks to just how easy the Western is to parody.




Welcome to the human race...
#666 - Bram Stoker's Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992



During the Victorian era, an English lawyer meets with a Transylvanian nobleman who is revealed to be a vampire.

I took a stab at reading Bram Stoker's Dracula a few years ago for academic purposes but I never managed to finish it, though I always intended to do so. Of course, that intention has been diminished somewhat by my viewing of Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation, which seeks to translate the iconic Gothic novel into an appropriately decadent early-1990s film complete with lurid colour schemes and dramatic camerawork. I haven't really bothered to watch much Coppola outside of his Big Four (with the exceptions being the underwhelming Rumble Fish, the tolerable The Godfather Part III, and the haven't-seen-it-since-the-age-of-seven Jack) but it sounded like Bram Stoker's Dracula might just be one of the most worthwhile films he'd made since Apocalypse Now. Its blending of supernatural horror and torrid romance proved an initially intriguing combination but that intrigue was definitely worn down as the film played out. Bram Stoker's Dracula ultimately proves a bit of a frustrating experience because the vivid nature of its technique is so often undermined by the ways in which the film opts to handle its interpersonal element.

Things start off alright with a fantastic prologue before jumping to the hilariously miscast Keanu Reeves as he plays the Englishman tasked with looking into the affairs of a Count Dracula (Gary Oldman). While Reeves is effectively trapped by his ancient-looking master, Oldman himself soon sets about heading to England in search of fresh blood. This puts him in touch with Reeves' fiancée (Winona Ryder), who just so happens to look exactly like the woman whose suicide led to Oldman becoming a vampire. Some more supernatural shenanigans take place before the renowned Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is brought in to handle affairs regarding the vampire scourge now plaguing London. It's enough plot to guarantee my interest (when else am I likely to see Richard E. Grant and Tom Waits share a scene?) but the lurid visual aesthetic only does so much when it comes to building an effective film. Blending of various different colours, to say nothing of the ways in which shadows play across the wall, definitely makes for a consistently interesting style that also extends to the sharp costume design and production value.

Of course, Bram Stoker's Dracula is arguably undone by the haphazard quality of its cast. Reeves is an easy one to single out thanks to a stiffness that goes beyond his usual acting stereotype, but Ryder isn't much better as she gets even more screentime as the Victorian lady who falls prey to Oldman's slick maneuvers. Given how much the film didn't exactly skimp on British (or convicingly British-sounding) performers for the rest of its production, sticking these two in some prominent roles does feel like a bit of a misstep. Otherwise, everyone does well. Oldman channels career-sustaining menace as both the older Count and his much more affable younger self, while Hopkins chews considerable scenery as the heavily accented doctor whose expertise proves invaluable in defeating vampires. Even Grant and Waits get stuff to do in relatively minor roles, whether it's the former as a drug-addicted physician harbouring an unrequited love or the latter as a bug-eating servant of darkness whose raspy howl appropriately communicates his sycophancy and despair.

The aesthetic brilliance of Bram Stoker's Dracula certainly makes it worth an acknowledgment beyond the limitations of its story and performers. Costumes naturally alternate between silky European decadence and prim English stuffiness. Colours are strong and often balance red and blue in eye-boggling combinations. While Bram Stoker's Dracula is a sumptuous visual feast packed out with all sorts of period-appropriate detail, it still feels extremely straightforward even as it tries to mix complex romantic plotlines with a more palatable horror story about a vampire. It arguably hasn't aged all that well, but it's such an obvious extravaganza that one can't help but pay it some attention. It may not be scary to your typical modern viewer, but being scary is arguably the least of this film's concerns. It's bringing an old tale to the screen in a way that hasn't quite been seen before and it shows underneath the widely varying ability of each performer. Whether such an experience is worthy of your attention is debatable, but I think if you have any interest in film as a purely artistic medium then you might find something of worth here - even if it isn't the plot or acting.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
What kind of blaxploitation film has a PG rating?
The Legend of *igger Charley
Boss *igger
Blacula
Scream Blacula Scream
Cleopatra Jones
The Spook Who Sat by the Door
Black Eye
Together Brothers
Darktown Strutters
Sugar Baby
The Last Dragon
(PG-13)
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Welcome to the human race...
Fair point (and presumably one that's posted in the knowledge that I was being rhetorical), but how many of those films are any good? The only one of those I've seen is The Last Dragon (which I covered in this thread a while back), and while it wasn't outright awful like Sugar Hill it was still a pretty flawed film.



I really enjoyed your review of The Seven Samurai, a masterpiece if there ever was one.

I thought Warm Bodies had an interesting concept, but I would've liked to have seen a more serious, adult film, if that would even be possible.



Welcome to the human race...
#667 - Primal Fear
Gregory Hoblit, 1996



When an archbishop is brutally murdered, a high-profile attorney offers to work pro bono to defend the timid young altar-boy suspected of the murder.

On the surface, Primal Fear does not look particularly great. Part of the problem might be that I did know the film's big twist ahead of watching it so of course my perspective was going to be altered as a result. Still, I figured that if the film was good enough then it wouldn't be dependent on the twist. Primal Fear has a fairly simple set-up in that it centres on a renowned clergyman dying a gory death, seemingly at the hands of the mild-mannered altar boy (Edward Norton) who is seen running away from the scene of the crime while covered in blood. Enter Richard Gere as a hotshot lawyer who offers to defend Norton for free, drawing the ire of various players (especially Laura Linney as an ex-girlfriend who ends up taking the opportunity to prosecute Norton in order to spite Gere). Underneath his cocky attitude, Gere sincerely wants to do right by whoever his client is and works with his team in order to either determine Norton's innocence or at least provide a plausible defence in case he really is guilty.

Knowing the final twist does undercut the effect of Primal Fear quite a bit, which is a bit of a shame since there's not that much more to the proceedings. There's a decent collection of actors in the mix to elevate this very standard material. Norton earned an Oscar nomination for his turn as the extremely unlikely prime suspect who does more than just play a mumbly hayseed, while Gere proves reasonably convincing as a lawyer whose superficial smarminess hides some surprising depth. The rest of the cast is serviceable enough as they play a number of extremely rote roles such as the no-nonsense judge (Alfre Woodard), the vindictive prosecutor (Linney), Gere's put-upon assistants (Maura Tierney and Andre Braugher), or even the businessman (John Mahoney) with a vested interest in seeing Norton die. Unfortunately, the solid cast is basically all that the film really has going for it as it proceeds through a none-too-remarkable blend of legal drama and psychological thriller that hasn't aged all that well.




Welcome to the human race...
#668 - Cube
Vincenzo Natali, 1997



A handful of strangers wake up inside a giant maze built out of cube-shaped rooms and must work together in order to survive.

Cube is an exercise in low-budget ingenuity that uses its limitations to its advantage as it crafts one very tight piece of sci-fi horror. The premise alone is very unsettling; waking up in a mysterious situation with no memory of how you got there is bad enough, but the Cube really is something else. Between the lack of food and water, the fact that the maze is filled with thousands of rooms that cover three dimensions rather than the standard two, and the randomly-placed booby-traps that sporadically appear in certain rooms, the Cube promises to be quite the horrifying experience. That's without factoring in the possibility that, despite the fact that you're being made to co-operate with total strangers, there's no way that you can truly trust them. This is the predicament facing the seemingly random collection of people who are dressed in monogrammed jumpsuits and dumped into the Cube within close proximity of one another. They end up fitting a number of survival-horror archetypes, such as the confident leader (Maurice Dean Wint), the shifty coward (David Hewlett), the old expert (Wayne Robson), the brainy problem-solver (Nicole de Boer), the conspiracy theorist (Nicky Guadagni), and the helpless innocent (Andrew Miller). The film then becomes about them trying to survive the Cube, whether it's by avoiding dangerous traps or trying to solve the mathematically-based logic on which the Cube is based.

Though it could very well have proved a potent basis for philosophical sci-fi, Cube decides to leave things deliberately vague by having characters ponder the nature of the Cube in between moments of narrative tension; even then, that falls by the wayside pretty quickly as the group is endangered from within by friction between its members. I do like it when the characters in a horror movie are up against a single threat to their collective safety only for the resulting tension between them to end up proving a significant threat on its own (my favourite example of this naturally being John Carpenter's The Thing). The film's detractors are usually quick to point out the apparently weak acting on display here, citing Wint in particular as an overly melodramatic offender whereas the rest of the cast is a bit too flat. While I can see where these complaints are coming from, I think they are sufficiently justified within the film's context. Being trapped in the Cube would take its toll on anyone's psyche (provided they lived long enough, of course) and these are supposed to be ordinary people who are trapped in an extremely horrible situation so I don't think the performances are weak enough to cause a major set-back. That much is down to the writing, which I think is generally smart enough to survive the occasional contrived development or clunky line of dialogue.

Cube does offer plenty of shocks in its brief running time, though some of them don't quite hold up a second time around; the most obvious example of this being the unbearably tense scene involving a room with a sound-activated trap, which is extremely nerve-wracking when watched once but not so much when watched twice. Certain late-stage reveals do make the film interesting to re-watch, plus the interpersonal drama still holds up anyway. One also has to admire how well the film compensates for its small scale by not only reusing the same cube-and-a-half set for pretty much the entire film (alternating the colour of the lighting in order to differentiate between rooms) but makes it so that even the poorly-aged CGI barely registers as a major flaw. While it's obviously not perfect, Cube provides quite the watchable experience. It may lose a little something on a repeat viewing as the more enigmatic aspects of the Cube and its unlucky prisoners become known to an audience (though I still haven't seen the other two Cube films that apparently explain the Cube's back-story) but there's still enough quality on display so that it proves a solid film.




Welcome to the human race...
#669 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Philip Kaufman, 1978



A health inspector and his co-worker start to notice that people around them are acting strangely and work to unravel the mystery behind it.

Another contender for a remake that is equal or superior to its source (even if it's more of a new adaptation of the source novel than a straightforward remake), Invasion of the Body Snatchers also holds up on a second viewing. Having a good horror concept is usually enough to carry a film even when the shocks of an initial viewing wear off (especially when the film's most shocking moment has become the stuff of legend, if only because it admittedly looks ridiculous when taken out of context). Body-snatching and variations thereof do tend to make for an appropriately terrifying prospect. At first, it's something as simple as noticing that the people who are close to you have undergone radical personality changes and don't seem to be the same people that they were before (especially when normally vibrant and upbeat individuals become cold and emotionless). There's also the fact that the body-snatchers work their magic while their victims are sleeping, and the prospect of going to sleep and never waking up doesn't sound pleasant; a horror concept based on the idea that you must forgo a mundane yet vital activity like sleeping in order to keep yourself alive is always a potent one, even if such concepts have been run into the ground a bit in recent years. Assuming you survive long enough to figure out the truth of what's going on...what then? Who can you trust with this information? What do you do when more and more people become the enemy? Where can you run to? Where can you hide? How long can you go without sleep? Questions like that are the main reason why both the 1950s version and 1970s version of the story hold up very, very well.

Of course, in the case of the '70s version, the inclusion of a solid ensemble cast and the relatively chaotic filmmaking afforded by the period definitely serve as icing on one very disturbing cake. Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams make for believable leads as the schlubby yet sharp-witted health inspector and his equally competent colleague respectively, while Jeff Goldblum and Veronica Cartwright (who would both go on to star in certain other sci-fi horror classics) make for good foils to the lead duo, though Goldblum does admittedly play to his trademark brand of charismatic neurosis (or is that neurotic charisma?). Leonard Nimoy is obviously best-known for playing the comically serious Mr. Spock on Star Trek, so seeing him not only play against type as an affable pop psychologist but also subvert his most famous role as an emotionally distant and coldly logical alien is a treat (especially since I'm pretty sure I first saw this film before seeing any of his Trek-related work, so I can say that it works both ways). These particular players may serve to seriously cement the film in its era, but I find that that works quite well. What really interests me is how best to interpret the subtext behind the creatures this time around. The '50s version was open-ended enough to suggest that the murderously hive-minded body-snatchers could serve as a metaphor for either the insidious infiltration of communist insurgents or the oppressive paranoia spurred on by the inception of McCarthyism. Being made in the late-'70s, I'm sure that there's a similarly ambiguous divide when one takes into account factors such as continued Cold War paranoia and post-Watergate fears of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, there's a few jabs at New Age fads and beliefs, such as the irony in that Nimoy's cheery psychologist seems more concerned with his book launch running smoothly than the concerns of an emotionally distraught woman whose husband has become a body-snatcher.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers definitely has a strong story and the star power to back it up, though it arguably could have used a little trimming here or there. The effects used to depict the body-snatchers being "born", their victims "dying", or even the opening sequence depicting the alien life making its way to Earth still stand out; even seemingly goofy creations are handled well enough to come across as unsettling (case in point - the man-dog). The verité style of filmmaking that alternates between static formalism and quasi-documentarian Steadicam meshes well enough to provide an appropriately disorienting and discomforting experience even when depicting something as mundane as Sutherland trying to use a phone booth. The sound work also deserves a mention simply because of how horrifying the body-snatchers' cries of alarm sound. It may be a little on the long side and have the odd moment that threatens to either bore you or take you out of the proceedings, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers more than earns its reputation as not only a good remake but a good example of sci-fi horror. It hasn't gotten horribly dated either - if anything, the signs of its era only serve to grant it a distinctive personality all its own.




Welcome to the human race...
#670 - Incendies
Denis Villeneuve, 2010



After their mother's death, a pair of twins are made to unravel her dark and troubled past in the middle of the war-torn Middle East.

Man, this Villeneuve guy really doesn't like making nice movies, does he? I've only started to watch his films this year, but so far he's made movies about subjects as harrowing to watch as child abduction, the war on drugs, and evil doppelgangers. On the surface, Incendies almost sounds like it could have been an easier watch but I obviously knew better than to expect anything easy from Villeneuve. Incendies focuses on the adult twin children of a woman named Nawal who has immigrated from the Middle East (it's not specified exactly where and the cities mentioned by name tend to be fictitious) to French Canada. Nawal has recently died and the public notary for whom she worked has summoned her children Simon and Jeanne to read Nawal's last will and testament. Her final wishes request that her children deliver two letters that she had written; one is to be delivered to their father, while the other is to be delivered to their brother. While Simon stubbornly refuses to go through with it, Jeanne obliges and so the film divides into two storylines. One follows Jeanne as she travels to the Middle East with the intention of delivering the letters, while the other traces Nawal's tragedy-filled journey through the incredibly harsh reality of life during wartime.

I thought Incendies was going to be something special right from its opening slow-motion scenes set to the anguished crescendo of Radiohead's "You And Whose Army?" (which admittedly did undercut a later scene that also featured the song). The premise proves solid enough as the naturally-opposed twins must deal with a side of their mother that they never knew even as the film shows in excruciating detail what kind of ordeals she had to face in the old country; the first flashback scene shows Nawal's husband being gunned down by her brothers as part of an honour killing, and her troubles only get worse from there. This arguably proves to be the more obviously interesting storyline as it involves Nawal enduring hardship after hardship such as giving up her newborn child, bearing witness to acts of religiously motivated genocide, and so forth. The scenes are frequently painful to watch even when Villeneuve opts to use discretion and cuts away from more heinous acts such as rape or child-murder. The present-day storyline doesn't involve anything nearly as graphic, though scenes where Jeanne hears first-hand accounts of what happened to Nawal can frequently prove to be as emotionally lacerating as any straightforward depiction of shocking material. That's definitely effective enough to carry the film as it heads towards its conclusion - however, the build-up is handled so well that when it finally piles on reveal after reveal, it's easy to think of them less as shocks than as thuds because there is no way that the reveals could measure up to the established atmosphere (even if they do make sense within the narrative).

Outside of the story's debatable tightness and varying levels of discretion, Incendies proves a technically decent film that can wring some uncomfortable levels of tension out of some unlikely scenarios. Villeneuve's eye for strong cinematography is evident here even without a distinctive veteran like Roger Deakins behind the camera, plus the ways in which he stages external action are still full of considerable suspense (such as one scene where a group of young boys try to make their way down a bombed-out street while avoiding sniper fire). I definitely respect the ambitious nature of the storytelling, though it is undercut by the fact that it isn't concluded all that well. It's weird when you watch a film and understand that its conclusion is quite simply the most logical and understandable progression from the rest of the narrative yet still can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. Otherwise, it's a solid film with generally good performers who can sell individual moments well and accentuate the script's strengths. I wouldn't automatically think of this as my favourite Villeneuve film, but it does come awfully close as it showcases the horrors of war (both secular and religious) and the effect it can take on untold generations in all sorts of unsettling manners.




Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
I find it impossible to try and keep up with this thread! Anyway I love Invasion of the Body Snatchers, that's a real favourite of mine. I think Kaufman does a fantastic job of creating this creepy, tense atmosphere. I love some of the weird, unsettling touches he includes such as Robert Duvall's priest or background images like someone running for their life or glaring at our protagonists through a glass door.

I also really enjoyed Cube though I've only seen that once and fancy giving it a rewatch sometime



I disagree with the rating you give for Primal Fear but I do like your review because I do think you're one of the best reviewer here
__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif



Welcome to the human race...
#671 - Batman Begins
Christopher Nolan, 2005



After his wealthy parents are murdered by a mugger, a young man join a clan on ninjas and decides to use the skills he learns to become a masked vigilante.

Batman Begins kind of gets lost in the shuffle when it comes to discussing Christopher Nolan's trilogy of films dedicated to bringing the caped crusader to life. It does take up the burden of setting up an all-new origin story for the world's greatest detective, which becomes especially notable given how the previous set of films only alluded to his origins through brief flashbacks rather than dedicate an entire film to them. The series arguably needed a proper reboot after the campy shambles of Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin derailed the cinematic side of the franchise, and in the hands of the capable director who was then best known for delivering clever thrillers like Memento and Insomnia it stood to reason that this film might just work despite being an origin story. It does so by building an interesting story out of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) being met by an enigmatic gentleman (Liam Neeson) while serving time in a Bhutanese prison. Neeson then recruits Bruce into joining a secret clan of ninjas dedicated to dispensing justice, training him to do everything from close-quarters combat to controlling fear and making it a weapon to be used against one's enemies. When the clan's draconian brand of justice proves to be too severe for Bruce's liking, he bails on his newfound comrades and returns home to Gotham City. Once there, he teams up with trusty manservant Alfred (Michael Caine) and proceeds to invent Batman, the secret identity under which he plans to bring true justice to Gotham.

Though the origin-story angle is ultimately what keeps it from being a classic film in its own right, Batman Begins still handles a lot of other stuff right. Stacking the cast with good actors regardless of the part's size seems to be a quality that Nolan has developed, and it is especially pronounced here. Bale proves adept at playing both Bruce Wayne and Batman, though I do wonder if he's just recycling his work as American Psycho's Patrick Bateman in scenes where he plays the former (and as for the latter's incredibly hoarse attempts to disguise his voice...enough said). Neeson's rough yet soothing type of charisma guarantees him an X-factor that makes him a pleasure to watch even in the most dire films; this pleasure definitely extends to virtually every line of dialogue he spits out in this film. Old-school veterans like Caine and Morgan Freeman serve well as Bruce's trusted offsiders, especially when they work as articulate foils who challenge their youthful superior in a number of ways. The same goes for Gary Oldman as he makes the most of a restrained heroic role to make up for all the hammy villains he played during the '90s. Cillian Murphy also proves to be quite the saving grace as the handsome yet deranged villain of the piece whose silky yet sinister delivery does give way to manic overacting from time to time but never without reason. In this company, it's very easy to see Katie Holmes as a weak link in the chain, though she holds her own well enough as the idealistic attorney whose own attitude towards Batman is complicated by her desire for justice that doesn't resort to vigilantism.

The action on display is admittedly the weakest of any of Nolan's three Batman films. His attempts to capture hand-to-hand fighting definitely seem more than a little flat when the camera spins around the fighters and cuts a lot, effectively obscuring any actual skill on the participants' parts. Everything else seems to go just fine, whether it's anything involving the Batmobile or any sort of chases. Even the choppy scene of a series of crooks being picked off one by one is handled well. I also like some of the more interesting angles such as Murphy's usage of a highly powerful hallucinogen to scare people into insanity, which gives way to some impressive-looking effects (especially when one sees Batman through the eyes of an infected person). Though I was watching the villains' main plan unfold with more than a little incredulity, I can't really deny that it was shot through with care as it blended practical effects with CGI landscapes in a way that worked. I still take issue with how it gets a little bogged down in developing the story in a way that makes me forget that it is the shortest of the three Batman films, but it provides enough subtext to its tale of a city in economic despair and the many unfortunate consequences of such a situation. Though I'm going to be boring and still give the edge to The Dark Knight, I still think Batman Begins is arguably the second-best film in Nolan's trilogy. Despite clearly being set up as a building block towards a bigger and better sequel, it still holds its own well enough in a way that other origin-story superhero movies could definitely stand to replicate.




Welcome to the human race...
#672 - The Dark Knight
Christopher Nolan, 2008



A masked vigilante must face off against not only a variety of criminal organisations but also an anarchic madman.

Original review found here.

(Additional notes: wow, that review really is something. Anyway, I don't think quite as highly of it as I used to and I honestly get a little bored from time to time during various scenes designed to develop the plot. However, the various action sequences and actors like Ledger and Caine are definitely enough to make up for it. Most of that review is still pretty applicable. That being said, the typically Hans Zimmer music actually annoys me - apart from the drones of dread that play from time to time, those are still good.)




Welcome to the human race...
#673 - The Dark Knight Rises
Christopher Nolan, 2012



Eight years after giving up his double-life as a masked vigilante, a reclusive billionaire is forced back into action when an army of dangerous fanatics threatens to destroy his hometown.

I've noted before how difficult it is to deliver the final part of an intended trilogy and The Dark Knight Rises really isn't any different in that regard. Granted, it does have to do something very difficult in that it must follow up the extremely popular and acclaimed The Dark Knight, which became the stuff of legend for a wide number of reasons. The most unfortunate of these reasons being the untimely passing of Heath Ledger, which does admittedly put a bit too much of a damper on the proceedings here that the film must work around. Credit must go to the makers for soldiering on and having the trilogy come full-circle by re-introducing the shadowy cult of extreme justice that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) had fought against in Batman Begins. Though Ledger's creepily maniacal Joker was always going to be a tough act to follow, they certainly seem to have given it a serious shot by introducing a masked mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy), who is introduced as part of an elaborate plane-jacking that seems explicitly designed to rival the astounding opening heist from The Dark Knight. Despite the lapses in logic involved (how do you try to fake a plane crash that involves blowing the wings off the plane?), it definitely stands out as the best scene in the whole film - unfortunately, this causes problems when the rest of the film fails to measure up to the standard set by this sequence.

Having it so that Bruce has gone into hiding following the events of The Dark Knight Rises is hardly the worst start, but it never seriously pays off. The introduction of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) is a good one that plays into the plot reasonably well as her street-smart cat-burglar proves quite the foil to Bruce's damaged sense of idealism. However, it's cancelled out by the presence of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Officer Blake, who is also relevant to the plot but what personality he receives outside of that just feels awkwardly inserted and occasionally redundant (such as the inclusion of an orphanage in Blake's back-story, even if it is intended to draw parallels between Bruce and Blake). Gordon-Levitt is a capable actor but his character isn't interesting enough on his own and can't even make the most of being a foil to either Bruce or Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). While I can understand Nolan wanting to reuse several of the actors who made the ensemble acting of Inception a key strength of that film, even Marion Cotillard feels quite wasted in her role as an elegant philanthropist with a mysterious past. Recurring characters such as Gordon, Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius (Morgan Freeman) still get to play their usual roles. Caine in particular once again shoulders a lot of narrative weight here despite his screen-time being extremely limited, but his tearful confrontation with a recalcitrant Bruce is another one of the few highlights that this film features.

Making the final installment in the trilogy the most out-and-out epic is an admirable pursuit, but upping the scale is no longer enough. Repeated viewings do expose an awful lot of holes in this film, with the most obvious instance being Batman's sudden ability to use knockout darts that would certainly have proved very useful in many other instances (and it's pretty noticeable how, in a film that runs for nearly three hours, there isn't a scene dedicated to explaining away this egregious instance of narrative convenience). The film hits a lot of the action beats established in previous Nolan films to various effects, though the escalation that was promised in the second film isn't quite delivered despite Gotham City being terrorised like never before. It seems like Nolan has finally managed to provide some decent hand-to-hand fighting as Batman faces off against Bane, though the introduction of yet another Bat-vehicle for him to use to either pursue wrongdoers or evade the law (as embodied by Matthew Modine as the smarmy Javert-like police chief who wants to catch Batman at all costs) doesn't yield results that are entertaining so much as merely appreciable on a purely technical level. Even then, the considerable length of the film paces things too far apart for anything to truly take hold even with its admittedly impressive behind-the-scenes work.

The Dark Knight Rises still has enough quality to it so as to prevent it from being a truly awful movie, but it's still an extremely difficult film to genuinely like. There are definitely elements that I can appreciate about it, whether it's the memorable villain or the attention provided to making the action set-pieces look as slickly proficient as possible. Unfortunately, what does make The Dark Knight Rises fall apart for me is the extremely loose ways in which it tries to justify various scenes that constantly break my suspension of disbelief, to say nothing of the varying levels of interpersonal drama that range from conflict between an embittered man and his surrogate father or the somewhat convoluted love triangle that develops at one point (because introducing a love triangle worked so well in Spider-Man 3). Say what you will about Batman and Robin, at least it wrung an engaging sub-plot out of Alfred potentially dying from a supposedly incurable illness; the relationship between Bruce and Alfred is a potent one and it's disappointing how this film doesn't quite provide the best conclusion to the connection built between Bale and Caine's versions of the characters. While it is arguably the best existing example of a superhero-based "threequel", it still doesn't manage to escape the same expectations that sunk previous threequels. To this end, it must rely on the solid technical capabilities of its crew and the talent of its performers to carry what is ultimately a very underwhelming and overly contrived script. As such, it's not so much a bad film so much as a disappointing one, and it is here that the Dark Knight does not so much rise as fall.