Well, its about time for another Batman movie. Every couple of years the only really good superhero franchise has to be milked to make up for the general mediocrity that otherwise condemns the genre. I am aware that whilst I say that there are also a couple of sour grapes in the otherwise ripe fruit basket of the franchise.
Batman Forever starred Val Kilmer in yet another of his Most Wooden Actor Of The Year roles opposite Ace Ventura in a Gotham that could have been spawned by any 1970's pornographer. I'm being harsh, in the actual role of Batman Val Kilmer is actually quite good, it's only the directing (thanks Joel Schumacher), production and inclusion of the God-awful Chris O'Donnell that really make me dislike this movie.
Batman and Robin took everything that I hate about Batman Forever and then put Arnold Schwarzenegger in the middle of it all as one of the most preposterous villains of Gotham. And they gave the Batsuit nipples.
So, rushing past this tripe we come to Batman Begins. The franchise was saved in a delightfully dark manner that captured the very essence of decay and despair in Gotham and the darker side of Batman. Christian Bale, one of the true method actors of our time is perfect for the role of the Billionaire Playboy by day, masked vigilante by night Batman.
From the first hour of The Dark Knight I was beginning to feel that the movie had perhaps been mis-titled. "Joker: Also Starring Batman" might have been more appropriate. But don't be under any illusion, that is not an insult to the film.
Batman as a character has already been well developed, what with a back catalogue of comics and previous movies no longer being counted as canon it is safe to say that everyone gets the idea. Batman Begins was just there to refresh the concept of Batman, to bring his old origin story into the modern age (and the movie representation is far closer to the comic origin than Tim Burton's attempt was).
The Dark Knight focuses more on the other characters in the story, the Joker, Harvey Dent, Rachel etc, and it all works perfectly. We didn't need to be told who Batman was and so were given plenty of time to experience the growth and development of the supporting cast. And I really can find no fault in any of their performances.
I don't want to give away any of the story, that's not my job, but I will tell you that Aaron Eckhardt is superb opposite Christian Bale, and for his final performance Heath Ledger has shown what a real talent he was. The character of the Joker has the same nutty personality that we have come to expect since Jack Nicholson first donned the lipstick, but Heath Ledger brings such an undeniably sinister undertone that you can't help but love it.
Technically we have three DC villains in The Dark Knight, but unlike that bukkake session that was Spiderman 3 in which Sam Raimi tried to satisfy everyone in a great cinematic circle jerk but ended up only giving a phenomenally unsatisfying experience, this one actually works well. One gets defeated relatively early, one is the main antagonist and the other... well, its hard to really think of him as a "bad guy" in the strictest sense. You'll know what I mean after having seen it.
There are plenty of OhMyFuckingGod I can't believe that he just did that ROFL moments, and I am not just referring to Batman or the Joker when I say that, The Dark Knight manages to give all the supporting cast depth, something which is shockingly rare in modern cinema.
Some of the dialogue is just as astounding as it's delivery, but then it was written by Jonathan Nolan and his brother Christoper. One we already know to be the man who rejuvenated the franchise, the other (Jonathan) boasts 'Memento' and 'The Prestige' as his previous writing credits.
As far as complaints go, the BatBike is a fucking wank concept from the moment that you first see it, and then it appears throughout the movie. That's my second biggest gripe.
In summary, The Dark Knight is a fantastic film marred only by the most pants-on-head retarded closing monologue that I have ever heard since Michael Bay's Transformers.
Story great, directing great, production great, sound great, acting great, plot great. Closing monologue wank.
Rating: A
Thursday 24 July 2008
Wednesday 23 July 2008
BloodRayne
...only kidding. I'm not actually going to sit down and watch this crap.
Rating: U (Automatic U because it's Uwe Boll. If anyone wishes to dispute my rating I will don the Malcom in 'Clockwork Orange' gear and try to sit through it and give more detailed assessment, but you better make a bloody convincing argument for it. Don't go trying to appeal to my ego either, I'm not that fucking dumb).
Rating: U (Automatic U because it's Uwe Boll. If anyone wishes to dispute my rating I will don the Malcom in 'Clockwork Orange' gear and try to sit through it and give more detailed assessment, but you better make a bloody convincing argument for it. Don't go trying to appeal to my ego either, I'm not that fucking dumb).
Friday 18 July 2008
Snakes On A Plane
Well it had to happen eventually.
For pretty much all of my life I have been a fan of film, a 1000+ dvd library is a testament to that (I truly dread the forthcoming obsolescence when the next big thing comes around, and don't even try to tell me that Blu-Ray is the next big thing, the quality improvement is not great enough to warrant such accolade). In my early teens I discovered a love for the old B-Movies of the 50s and 60s, ie Them, War Of The Worlds, and some movie involving giant mutant killer snails that I can't actually remember the name of (I suspect that it was called 'They').
I even like most modern B-Movies. Lake Placid (commonly known as Lake Shite amongst my friends) I actually quite enjoyed. 8 Legged Freaks, awesome. Slither, pure gold. I think that you can see where I am going with this. The very definition of a B-Movie is some preposterous monster situation being fitted into a real life scenario.
With that in mind you have to take SOAP as a B-Movie, and it is. And it is quite great. People mainly hate this movie because they were expecting a Hollywood blockbuster starring Samuel L Jackson as James T Hardass, a man so cold bloodedly awesome that the snakes would shy away from the very sight of him lest they become lethargic and weak (reptiles being cold blooded).
I like this movie for many reasons. It is a B-Movie through and through. The gay guy had a plot twist. The film-makers involved the fans in a nigh on unprecedented level. They added an extra 5 days of shooting so that Sammy J could swear more (he liked the fan-trailer line "I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane" so much that he insisted it be added). Plus to quote another line from a fan trailer, "It's called Snakes On A Plane because Samuel L Jackson said so!", that's right, he said that he would walk if they changed the name from that of the working title.
It's your typical B-Movie fare really, a bit of implausible back story in order to swiftly get to the monsters. Followed by a lot of death and despair. And swearing.
The acting generally isn't bad, the comic moments are nice, the action is good. For everything else I have to refer you back to the fact that it is a B-Movie and meant to be implausible.
Overall, I like Snakes On A Plane and I think that you will too so long as you take it as a B-Movie (you may have noticed that I am trying to stress this fact). If you are expecting some Hollywood blockbuster/masterpiece I guarantee that you will be disappointed.
Rating: B (rather appropriately I think)
For pretty much all of my life I have been a fan of film, a 1000+ dvd library is a testament to that (I truly dread the forthcoming obsolescence when the next big thing comes around, and don't even try to tell me that Blu-Ray is the next big thing, the quality improvement is not great enough to warrant such accolade). In my early teens I discovered a love for the old B-Movies of the 50s and 60s, ie Them, War Of The Worlds, and some movie involving giant mutant killer snails that I can't actually remember the name of (I suspect that it was called 'They').
I even like most modern B-Movies. Lake Placid (commonly known as Lake Shite amongst my friends) I actually quite enjoyed. 8 Legged Freaks, awesome. Slither, pure gold. I think that you can see where I am going with this. The very definition of a B-Movie is some preposterous monster situation being fitted into a real life scenario.
With that in mind you have to take SOAP as a B-Movie, and it is. And it is quite great. People mainly hate this movie because they were expecting a Hollywood blockbuster starring Samuel L Jackson as James T Hardass, a man so cold bloodedly awesome that the snakes would shy away from the very sight of him lest they become lethargic and weak (reptiles being cold blooded).
I like this movie for many reasons. It is a B-Movie through and through. The gay guy had a plot twist. The film-makers involved the fans in a nigh on unprecedented level. They added an extra 5 days of shooting so that Sammy J could swear more (he liked the fan-trailer line "I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane" so much that he insisted it be added). Plus to quote another line from a fan trailer, "It's called Snakes On A Plane because Samuel L Jackson said so!", that's right, he said that he would walk if they changed the name from that of the working title.
It's your typical B-Movie fare really, a bit of implausible back story in order to swiftly get to the monsters. Followed by a lot of death and despair. And swearing.
The acting generally isn't bad, the comic moments are nice, the action is good. For everything else I have to refer you back to the fact that it is a B-Movie and meant to be implausible.
Overall, I like Snakes On A Plane and I think that you will too so long as you take it as a B-Movie (you may have noticed that I am trying to stress this fact). If you are expecting some Hollywood blockbuster/masterpiece I guarantee that you will be disappointed.
Rating: B (rather appropriately I think)
Monday 14 July 2008
There Will Be Blood
Don't let the title fool you, there isn't that much, and what little there is could never be considered gratuitous enough to warrant such a title. I am well aware that this movie is based on the novel "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair and that it was the neighboring set to "No Country For Old Men" and I can only come to the conclusion that the combination of these to factors encouraged Paul Thomas Anderson to try and make the most pretentious movie possible.
I cannot fault the acting, but then how could you when Daniel Day Lewis is the lead, the plot itself is intensely satisfying and the script is good. The characters themselves are well developed, and you can appreciate their situation and motives.
Plus there are a couple of times when you really start wanting a particular thing to happen because you know that it is for the best, and then it does happen and you will smile. I'm sorry for being vague there but you are best experiencing those moments with virgin eyes just so that you can really appreciate how fucking sweet they are.
There, that's the praise out of the way.
The score of There Will Be Blood is a bit unusual, and I mean that in the sense that on many occasions it has little to do with what is actually happening on screen. I'm told that this is a subtle hint at the madness going on inside Daniel Plainview's head as he grows ever more greedy and lustful, but even that doesn't make sense most of the time.
Long drawn out camera shots and entire scenes with no dialogue or explanation. Yes I am smart enough to figure out that he was mining for silver when he happened upon his first well, but I see no reason why the entire cast should have their heads down and mouths shut as if they were in some Nazi concentration camp. That is not artful movie making, it is conceited, arrogant and unrealistic.
It is a sad blight upon the modern movie industry that directors are now so interested in filling their movies with such lengthy mundanities in the hope that some wizened old geriatric with a stick up his bum on the Cannes selection board will pick up the movie and nominate it for the Film To Masturbate Your Soul And Being Over. I'm willing to bet that James King said this movie is one of the movies of the year, but I find it hard to respect the opinion of a man who could sing such high praises for that P.O.S. Spiderman 3.
And speaking of James King leads me nicely into saying that there has been a lot of band wagon jumping on this movie, but don't let the sheep fool you, whilst well scripted and supremely well acted you will find yourself struggling to maintain interest throughout the movie.
There Will Be Blood is an over-rated movie, and the people who are holding it up to such high praise I can guarantee are the same people who point out to you just how much they like Citizen Kane, A Clockwork Orange and Foreign Movie With Subtitles.
Rating: C (And I'm truly disappointed to have to do so)
I cannot fault the acting, but then how could you when Daniel Day Lewis is the lead, the plot itself is intensely satisfying and the script is good. The characters themselves are well developed, and you can appreciate their situation and motives.
Plus there are a couple of times when you really start wanting a particular thing to happen because you know that it is for the best, and then it does happen and you will smile. I'm sorry for being vague there but you are best experiencing those moments with virgin eyes just so that you can really appreciate how fucking sweet they are.
There, that's the praise out of the way.
The score of There Will Be Blood is a bit unusual, and I mean that in the sense that on many occasions it has little to do with what is actually happening on screen. I'm told that this is a subtle hint at the madness going on inside Daniel Plainview's head as he grows ever more greedy and lustful, but even that doesn't make sense most of the time.
Long drawn out camera shots and entire scenes with no dialogue or explanation. Yes I am smart enough to figure out that he was mining for silver when he happened upon his first well, but I see no reason why the entire cast should have their heads down and mouths shut as if they were in some Nazi concentration camp. That is not artful movie making, it is conceited, arrogant and unrealistic.
It is a sad blight upon the modern movie industry that directors are now so interested in filling their movies with such lengthy mundanities in the hope that some wizened old geriatric with a stick up his bum on the Cannes selection board will pick up the movie and nominate it for the Film To Masturbate Your Soul And Being Over. I'm willing to bet that James King said this movie is one of the movies of the year, but I find it hard to respect the opinion of a man who could sing such high praises for that P.O.S. Spiderman 3.
And speaking of James King leads me nicely into saying that there has been a lot of band wagon jumping on this movie, but don't let the sheep fool you, whilst well scripted and supremely well acted you will find yourself struggling to maintain interest throughout the movie.
There Will Be Blood is an over-rated movie, and the people who are holding it up to such high praise I can guarantee are the same people who point out to you just how much they like Citizen Kane, A Clockwork Orange and Foreign Movie With Subtitles.
Rating: C (And I'm truly disappointed to have to do so)
Sunday 6 July 2008
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
People seem to have been given this jewel encrusted crown handed down from God to be distributed among the masses as a sign that there really is a promised land that we can all aspire to through peace and love and gumdrops.
I think that they must be thinking of a different movie however because The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is just boring. It wants to be epic and you can really feel it. If there is one blockbuster you see this year then TAOJJBTCRF wants to be that movie, and it has all the artsy camera angles and close-ups of Brad Pitt's left eye to prove it can be that movie.
I can't fault the performance of Brad Pitt, nor even does Casey Affleck leave himself open for abuse (if only his brother would try to do the same).
There are times when this could be a really inspired western, but then you're forced to watch another shot of clouds whipping by swiftly as the sun sets or random shots of trees because in the modern climate change obsessed world we need to be reminded that nature is a star too.
If you want to watch a good western get 3:10 To Yuma instead, it is shorter and better, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is just not worth the time investment. Alternatively you can watch the first half hour then skip ahead to the last half hour and you will still learn everything that you need to know to appreciate the ending (which actually isn't bad).
Rating: C
I think that they must be thinking of a different movie however because The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is just boring. It wants to be epic and you can really feel it. If there is one blockbuster you see this year then TAOJJBTCRF wants to be that movie, and it has all the artsy camera angles and close-ups of Brad Pitt's left eye to prove it can be that movie.
I can't fault the performance of Brad Pitt, nor even does Casey Affleck leave himself open for abuse (if only his brother would try to do the same).
There are times when this could be a really inspired western, but then you're forced to watch another shot of clouds whipping by swiftly as the sun sets or random shots of trees because in the modern climate change obsessed world we need to be reminded that nature is a star too.
If you want to watch a good western get 3:10 To Yuma instead, it is shorter and better, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is just not worth the time investment. Alternatively you can watch the first half hour then skip ahead to the last half hour and you will still learn everything that you need to know to appreciate the ending (which actually isn't bad).
Rating: C
Hancock
Hancock is a movie that asks the all important question "How can we cash in on the most recent spate of superhero movies? And can we put Will Smith in it since he now draws more followers than God?"
Overall though, Hancock isn't a bad way to pass a couple of hours. The idea of a dick superhero is quite amusing and there are plenty of comic relief moments in the film, the one most prominently in my mind being when Hancock proves that he is a man of his word.
Will Smith gives an excellent performance that is mired only by some of the weaker dialogue and general lack of depth to the explanation of his origins. The story itself isn't bad, apart from the aforementioned lack of depth in places, and the movie is well paced. I must admit to giving a slight chuckle of glee when in one scene the music very briefly bore an uncanny resemblance to John Ottman's take on the Superman theme, that was a nice touch.
Without giving too much away I would wonder what exactly the antagonists thought that they were going to do at the end since they didn't know (or at least certainly had been given no opportunity to know) of Hancock's mandatory debilitating weakness, maybe they thought that they were just getting lucky.
The ending is just a little too happy happy for my taste, though it is nowhere near as intensely beams-of-sunlight-out-of-the-arse joyful as those face-melting last minutes of Mission Impossible 3.
Rating: B
Overall though, Hancock isn't a bad way to pass a couple of hours. The idea of a dick superhero is quite amusing and there are plenty of comic relief moments in the film, the one most prominently in my mind being when Hancock proves that he is a man of his word.
Will Smith gives an excellent performance that is mired only by some of the weaker dialogue and general lack of depth to the explanation of his origins. The story itself isn't bad, apart from the aforementioned lack of depth in places, and the movie is well paced. I must admit to giving a slight chuckle of glee when in one scene the music very briefly bore an uncanny resemblance to John Ottman's take on the Superman theme, that was a nice touch.
Without giving too much away I would wonder what exactly the antagonists thought that they were going to do at the end since they didn't know (or at least certainly had been given no opportunity to know) of Hancock's mandatory debilitating weakness, maybe they thought that they were just getting lucky.
The ending is just a little too happy happy for my taste, though it is nowhere near as intensely beams-of-sunlight-out-of-the-arse joyful as those face-melting last minutes of Mission Impossible 3.
Rating: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
