If there’s one franchise that has been truly reinvigorated and reinvented in the last decade, it is the Batman trilogy. Under the directorship of Christopher Nolan, this franchise has shown that smart, interesting and intelligent films can come from a comic book.
I’m only going to outline the basics of the plot as I would hate to reveal any spoilers.
The film is set eight years after the The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a recluse in his home, refusing to see anyone other than loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). His financial wealth has disintegrated due to an investment in a machine which produces clean energy. Unfortunately as the machine can also be used an a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands, Wayne decides to mothball the project, despite the objections of Wayne Enterprises board member, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).
The City of Gotham, however is experiencing a relatively peaceful era, with a number of organised crime participants having been locked away thanks to the Dent Act which was created in honour of Harvey Dent.
However Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is finding it more and more difficult to cover up the crimes of Dent, but decides to go along with it.
In the meantime, Bane (Tom Hardy) who is hell-bent on destroying Gotham, begins his reign of terror and control, starting with crash of Gotham’s Stock Market and culminating with Gotham effectively being under military rule.
Another strand to the story involves Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) a cat burglar who entices Wayne out of his self-imposed exile and leads him to Bane.
One of the major flaws of this film (and cinema chains have to bear some responsibility as well) is how incredibly difficult it is to work out what Bane, in particular, is saying. This character has a mask which completely covers the whole of his mouth and the voice is very over-synthesised making it near-impossible for a deaf or hard-of-hearing to be able to follow. Alongside this, you have persistent drumming which is great in terms of building up an atmosphere, but also happens to be at the same tone and sound level as Bale’s speaking pattern when he is Batman.
My fault with cinema chains is that there were too few screenings of a subtitled version of this film. In London, from 9.30 pm on Monday 30th of July to Sunday 5th of August, at one cinema chain, there will be 511 screenings of this film. Of these 511 screenings, only 4 will be subtitled, which is a total of 0.8% of screenings available. There are 9 million deaf or hard of hearing people in the UK, which is approximately 15% of the general population. I am not a deaf/HOH person with a chip on my shoulder, but this does seem to be incredibly disproportionate. I have asked the four main cinema chains to tell me why this is so, unfortunately none of them could come up with a satisfactory answer.
Anyway, off my soapbox and time to review this film.
As you would expect from Nolan, the film flows well and holds your attention for its entire length (a whopping 2hrs 40mins). It is action-packed with some great fighting scenes and the usual slick mechanical inventions, although I thought 'The Bat' was the ugliest fighting machine I’ve seen.
Hardy was great as Bane (despite the issues understanding what he was saying), and for someone who had half of his face covered up, he was incredibly expressive with both his face and his body. All of the other characters were excellently played and although there wasn’t the time to delve deeply into the characters background, they were shown to be fully rounded with backgrounds, fears and hopes.
The story goes off on various tangents which aren’t explained, but it does all tie up nicely at the end. Although, I would argue that the ending was a tad predictable.
Lots of people have asked me whether this is the best of the trilogy and I would have to say that The Dark Knight is the better of the three and it is for a very simple reason. Although you have Bane who is a fantastic physical presence in the film, the disappointment when you realise that he is more brawn than brain is quite immense. I felt that The Joker in The Dark Knight was a much better character, a more interesting role and a more intelligent adversary for the Batman. Obviously that film was totally eclipsed by the performance of Heath Ledger, and despite The Dark Knight Rises being a really excellent ensemble piece, it doesn’t have the standout performance that The Dark Knight has in The Joker.
Verdict: Nolan once again provides an intelligent action film which has excellent performances from all involved. However, issues with understanding Bane and the lacking of a standout bad guy, means that while this is a highly enjoyable film, it’s not quite as good as The Dark Knight. Will be very interesting where this franchise now goes.
Monday 30 July 2012
Saturday 14 July 2012
The Amazing Spiderman
Although I am not a fan of comic books themselves, I seem to enjoy the film versions. Films such as Superman and Batman have kept me entertained for many years and I recall enjoying the first Spiderman starring Tobey Maguire which was released in 2002. I don’t remember watching the second (which some critics claim is the best) and I never saw the third.
However, I was looking forward to this version, Andrew Garfield is an interesting actor and I have liked everything that Emma Stone has been in recently.
The film is a reboot of the Spiderman origins story and seeks to cast a little more light on the disappearance of the parents of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and in particular the work of his father.
After the disappearance of his parents, Parker is brought up by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and his Aunt May (Sally Fields). He is a typical teenager in that he has concerns about school, girls and bullies.
The story really starts with the discovery of his father’s briefcase which contains papers which reveal his work with another scientist, the one-armed, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). The papers reveal how to regenerate parts of the human body using DNA from other animals, specifically lizards.
In order to meet Dr Connors, Parker blags his way as an intern at the company that Dr Connors works at, OsCorp where he finds genetically modified spiders and consequently gets bitten by one of them.
The story goes on to show how Parker copes with his new superpowers in both school and at home. He then decides to meet Dr Connors, to explain who he is and to give him the papers written by his father. The papers turn out to be the final jigsaw piece for Dr Connors being able to create the formula which enable him to create a limb to replace his missing arm.
The film moves on as the formula goes wrong and instead of just creating the missing limb, it takes over the whole of Dr Connor’s body and turns him into very angry lizard hellbent on destructing the city. Obviously the only person who can save the city is Spiderman.
The main problem I have with this film is its complete lack of originality. There is nothing here that I hadn’t seen in other films and this, in my opinion, is its major flaw. The cast are good, Garfield is excellent as the teenage Parker but I did feel that both Stone and Ifans were completely wasted in their roles. Stone had very little to do part from being disapproving at times and Ifan’s villain had no real depth, reasoning or bite.
For me, some of the best films are about good vs evil. This film was very much ‘meh’ vs ‘meh’. The villain was totally lacking in any villainousness qualities, particularly when you compare him to Willem Dafoe in the first Spiderman film, who was excellent. Garfield was great playing the troubled teenager, but less great when playing the superhero and I can’t quite put my finger on why.
As per my film policy, I did not watch the film in 3D, but in 2D. However, I can see that it would have looked great in 3D, particularly the swinging through the streets scenes. But unfortunately this was not really enough.
I love Martin Sheen in anything and he was great as Uncle Ben and it’s been a while since I’ve seen Sally Fields in anything, so it was great to see her too.
Verdict: A hyped-up film that didn’t deliver in terms of original story or providing an engaging villain. A stellar cast that didn’t have too much to work with which leaves a rather disappointing film. A real shame.
However, I was looking forward to this version, Andrew Garfield is an interesting actor and I have liked everything that Emma Stone has been in recently.
The film is a reboot of the Spiderman origins story and seeks to cast a little more light on the disappearance of the parents of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and in particular the work of his father.
After the disappearance of his parents, Parker is brought up by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and his Aunt May (Sally Fields). He is a typical teenager in that he has concerns about school, girls and bullies.
The story really starts with the discovery of his father’s briefcase which contains papers which reveal his work with another scientist, the one-armed, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). The papers reveal how to regenerate parts of the human body using DNA from other animals, specifically lizards.
In order to meet Dr Connors, Parker blags his way as an intern at the company that Dr Connors works at, OsCorp where he finds genetically modified spiders and consequently gets bitten by one of them.
The story goes on to show how Parker copes with his new superpowers in both school and at home. He then decides to meet Dr Connors, to explain who he is and to give him the papers written by his father. The papers turn out to be the final jigsaw piece for Dr Connors being able to create the formula which enable him to create a limb to replace his missing arm.
The film moves on as the formula goes wrong and instead of just creating the missing limb, it takes over the whole of Dr Connor’s body and turns him into very angry lizard hellbent on destructing the city. Obviously the only person who can save the city is Spiderman.
The main problem I have with this film is its complete lack of originality. There is nothing here that I hadn’t seen in other films and this, in my opinion, is its major flaw. The cast are good, Garfield is excellent as the teenage Parker but I did feel that both Stone and Ifans were completely wasted in their roles. Stone had very little to do part from being disapproving at times and Ifan’s villain had no real depth, reasoning or bite.
For me, some of the best films are about good vs evil. This film was very much ‘meh’ vs ‘meh’. The villain was totally lacking in any villainousness qualities, particularly when you compare him to Willem Dafoe in the first Spiderman film, who was excellent. Garfield was great playing the troubled teenager, but less great when playing the superhero and I can’t quite put my finger on why.
As per my film policy, I did not watch the film in 3D, but in 2D. However, I can see that it would have looked great in 3D, particularly the swinging through the streets scenes. But unfortunately this was not really enough.
I love Martin Sheen in anything and he was great as Uncle Ben and it’s been a while since I’ve seen Sally Fields in anything, so it was great to see her too.
Verdict: A hyped-up film that didn’t deliver in terms of original story or providing an engaging villain. A stellar cast that didn’t have too much to work with which leaves a rather disappointing film. A real shame.
Katy Perry: Part of Me
Now, before there are any judgements about why I went to see this documentary, let me explain. I planned on seeing The Amazing Spiderman, but it was sold out so I decided to see this film before seeing The Amazing Spiderman.
My knowledge of Perry is fairly scant, I only really know of her through her marriage to Russell Brand and I only like one of her songs, but I do have an interest in celebrity culture and thought that this potentially could tell me more about life being a pop star.
The documentary is basically following Perry on her mammoth world tour in 2011 and all of the trials and tribulations that that ensues. We see the stresses of being on tour as well as the highs that Perry experiences. She has a very dedicated crew around her and she appears to particularly enjoy the meet and greets with her fans after the shows.
The interesting aspect of the documentary is when Perry’s relationship with Brand breaks down and although we are not given any real reasons for the break-up by Perry herself; her crew make comments alluding that Perry was the person who did all the work in the relationship by constantly flying to wherever Brand was during her days off, the point being that Brand never made the effort to visit his wife.
Another aspect that the documentary shows is Perry’s progression from a christian rock singer to the bubblegum pop princess. It is clear that she found her childhood to be stifling and maybe that explains why at 27, she feels the need to act, dress and look like a teenager.
The documentary aims to show Perry ‘as she really is’ and to a certain extent it does, there is genuine heartbreak when she has to perform after realising that her relationship with Brand is ending. Some sectors of the British press have made a big deal about Perry being shown without make-up which I thought was quite endearing.
However, this is clearly a very controlled documentary and it does show Perry to be a very canny individual and she definitely knows her market. But it does raise the question, how does she move on from being the bubblegum pop princess? She is only a few years away from turning 30 and obviously her target market will also have grown up, where will she go when the bubblegum bubble bursts?
Verdict: Interesting, if controlled, documentary. I didn’t care much for the songs although I did enjoy the concert footage. The breakdown of Perry’s relationship with Brand was very well handled and it is clear that Perry is an ambitious young woman who wants to be a role model to young girls. If I was 12 years old, I would probably have loved this film.
My knowledge of Perry is fairly scant, I only really know of her through her marriage to Russell Brand and I only like one of her songs, but I do have an interest in celebrity culture and thought that this potentially could tell me more about life being a pop star.
The documentary is basically following Perry on her mammoth world tour in 2011 and all of the trials and tribulations that that ensues. We see the stresses of being on tour as well as the highs that Perry experiences. She has a very dedicated crew around her and she appears to particularly enjoy the meet and greets with her fans after the shows.
The interesting aspect of the documentary is when Perry’s relationship with Brand breaks down and although we are not given any real reasons for the break-up by Perry herself; her crew make comments alluding that Perry was the person who did all the work in the relationship by constantly flying to wherever Brand was during her days off, the point being that Brand never made the effort to visit his wife.
Another aspect that the documentary shows is Perry’s progression from a christian rock singer to the bubblegum pop princess. It is clear that she found her childhood to be stifling and maybe that explains why at 27, she feels the need to act, dress and look like a teenager.
The documentary aims to show Perry ‘as she really is’ and to a certain extent it does, there is genuine heartbreak when she has to perform after realising that her relationship with Brand is ending. Some sectors of the British press have made a big deal about Perry being shown without make-up which I thought was quite endearing.
However, this is clearly a very controlled documentary and it does show Perry to be a very canny individual and she definitely knows her market. But it does raise the question, how does she move on from being the bubblegum pop princess? She is only a few years away from turning 30 and obviously her target market will also have grown up, where will she go when the bubblegum bubble bursts?
Verdict: Interesting, if controlled, documentary. I didn’t care much for the songs although I did enjoy the concert footage. The breakdown of Perry’s relationship with Brand was very well handled and it is clear that Perry is an ambitious young woman who wants to be a role model to young girls. If I was 12 years old, I would probably have loved this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)