This is a great superhero movie. Not only is it a great superhero movie, but it's a great Batman movie, and not only is it a great Batman movie, but it's a great movie ... and not only is it a great movie, but it's a great film.
The Dark Knight is most definitely 'The Godfather II of superhero movies', and indeed so it is the T2 and Aliens of the Batman 'Nolan-verse' (to quote Kevin Smith, who recently ranted and raved passionately about how simply awesome the film is).
Now, at a hefty two and a half hours, you might think it's a tad long - but not once did I check my watch, or think "I wonder how far through is it now?" ... actually I tell a lie, about mid-way through I wondered how far through we were, and hoped that we were only a quarter through the movie, it was that good and I was enjoying it that much.
It's grand, it's epic, it's weighty and it packs a powerful punch.
Just the acting talent on show alone sets this movie high above all other films in its genre. Bale as the eponymous hero continues to rock copiously after his triumphant turn in Batman Begins. Oldman continues to paint Gordon with due care and attention, creating a character you truly respect. Caine again steps up to the plate as Alfred the Butler, the sort of chap anyone would love to have as their uncle, a man of pin-sharp wit and never-bending loyalty.
Now - the two villains - firstly, I'll have to say that Eckhart as Harvey "Two Face" Dent was fantastic, so much so that yes - I too believe in Harvey Dent. It is a shame that his sheer acting talent in this film will end up being kicked aside somewhat, due to the demise of Heath Ledger - who, quite simply, was astonishingly good at being The Joker.
Indeed, with this being Ledger's final full performance, he most definitely went out on one of the highest career notes in cinematic history. Just the scene where The Joker exits an exploding hospital (which was done for real, in one take), leaves you completely entertained as well as staggered. Jack Nicholson definitely created a legendary Joker in Batman 1989, one that was somewhat dark but mostly full of comic exaggeration. Indeed, Burton's Batman - often described as being dark and brooding - is comparatively light and fluffy when sat next to Nolan's shockingly bleak and complex entry. Only in the world of Nolan could The Joker be so exceedingly pitch black, while still managing to raise a wry grin and hearty chuckle from the audience - his "magic trick", or his fussing over a faulty detonator, exemplify this humorously dark tone that Ledger so beautifully captured.
Action wise - again - it leaves you staggered. From the technical marvel of a one-take, Ledger-involving, razing of a hospital, to Batman taking out a semi truck as only he knows how, to many other set pieces, you're just left nothing short of clamped to your seat.
Indeed, certain action sequences demonstrate such a potent and skillful understanding of tension building, that you are desperately strapped in position, and - when a character suffers a certain fate - you're genuinely blown away. In terms of the gloves coming off, I can only think back to the season five opener of 24 as being this shocking.
Why is the movie so involving? The script - which is truly adult in nature - no, I don't mean there are titties flopping around all over the shop. What I mean is, the issues at hand are often deeply complex, and there are some amazingly deep ethical scenarios played out throughout the film that left myself and a friend talking all the way back home again.
Through no action of my own, The Dark Knight remained one, two or three steps ahead of me. I barely was allowed room to stop for breath (or time to grow weary), and by the time the final shot cut to black and the title appeared before the credits, I was gagging for more.
I would have gladly watched another hour of something this well scripted, this well acted, this well directed, and this well assembled. Yes, there is a lot of hype surrounding the film - but try and forget about as much of that as possible - and just get swept away by literally the best film of 2008.
I'd previously said that WALL.E was my #2 of 2008 because I was holding #1 open specifically for The Dark Knight - I was not left disappointed, and am still swooning over how bloody brilliant it all was days later.
One final note - here in the UK it's a 12A, which is an advisory rating. As such there were kids as young as eight (guestimate) in the audience, and at times I did wonder (as Kevin Smith has also), what are they getting out of this movie? This film works on so many levels, most of which circle the depths of the grown up world, that you start to think - is this serving to entertain the kids as much as previous, far lighter installments did?
Well, it must do (at least for some), because when the trailer-bothering shot of the semi truck getting flipped over front-wards, some kid near the back just yelled out "WOOOOOOWWW!!!!", and indeed wow, it was a bloody cool sequence (especially Batman's idea of an about-turn).
Indeed, The Dark Knight stands up and shows the world that even a comic-book-based film can become something to be taken very seriously, that even ballsy box-office-owning entertainment can leave you mulling over a myriad of issues - from the superb acting, to the complicated ethical choices that characters must face throughout.
Now, actually finally, The Dark Knight is occasionally fairly shocking - the sheer detail in the revealing of Two Face alone made my jaw clatter to the floor (both in terms of Nolan's execution, and the CGI wizardry). Truly, this film won't be forgotten anytime soon - and yes, you miserable old farts on Newsnight Review, in a decade The Dark Knight will be looked back upon as a milestone in cinematic history and not just superhero movie history.
Truly great filmmaking, full stop. See it now.
...
Now gimme a top notch DVD to pre-order, chop-chop!
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Monday, 28 July 2008
The "Death Proof" Theory...
Having just watched Death Proof for the fourth time (same amount of times for the equally rocking Planet Terror), I thought I'd sit down and actually blog out my theory regarding one aspect of Death Proof, a theory which I've held since I first saw the film.
Right at the beginning of the flick you get a split second of the title, the 'real title', which is "Thunderbolt" if memory serves, but it obnoxiously cuts to a rough-as-a-badger's-arse white-text-on-black insert with "Death Proof" printed on it.
Now indeed, in the true nature of grindhouse cinema, many films would go by many names - flicks such as Last House on the Left or The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue would have a slew of names at different showings as they toured the country, seemingly seeking for the best, audience-pleasing moniker.
However - I have another theory, which links to this title change. In the world of 'the filmmakers who made Death Proof', or rather the filmmakers who rest somewhere between our reality (as we sit there and watch Death Proof, which was one half of the fantastic Grindhouse experiment) and that of the characters in the film (i.e. Stuntman Mike and so on).
In this world, there were at least TWO Stuntman Mike movies - most likely made a few years apart, considering the sheer volume of print damage to the first half of the flick (everything from the titles to the last frame of Earl McGraw's exposition-spouting hospital-walk).
Now, "Thunderbolt" - featuring the girls in the bar - was the first Stuntman Mike movie, but it would have only been quite short, most likely somewhere between 70 and 80 minutes. This film would have gone on to be quite successful, and obviously got a lot of wear and tear on the circulating prints.
Then - a new Stuntman Mike movie (perhaps simply "Thunderbolt 2") - featuring the girls from the set of the movie being shot in Lebanon, Tennesse. This second half of Death Proof, features far, far less print damage - so it's a brand new flick practically (maybe only touring a handful of states at this point).
So - we come to one particular exhibitor, and he fancies getting one over on everybody else, and creating what he'd class as some sort of third Stuntman Mike movie, which is actually a mish-mash of the two actual Stuntman Mike movies.
The second half of Death Proof, as I've said, barely features any print damage - except in the first few minutes (this is in the extended cut that you and I have been treated to by Tarantino). Why might this feature more print damage? Repeated viewing of this transition from first flick to second flick, by this phantom exhibitor who has spliced the two Stuntman Mike movies together into his own creation - titled "Death Proof".
As for the black & white chunk, who knows - perhaps there was an interesting story behind that. Perhaps the exhibitor, while cutting away in his fag-smoke-choked projector room, accidentally wrecked that portion of the print, and had to find another print as best he could - only sourcing a black and white version of the clip he needed. Either that, or it was just a mistake in his copy of the print for "Thunderbolt 2".
Death Proof is a film that is very divided, right down the middle. It's one set of chicks, then it's a new set of chicks - but always Stuntman Mike. The tone from one half to the next is different, the chicks are also very different - first half they're pure victims, the second half they're pure ass-kickers, as if they each represent a different era of cinema and female audience attendance.
This is how I like to think of Death Proof anyway. There have surely been cases of exhibitors making their own cuts to movies, indeed I swear I've heard/read such stories.
Also, considering that many of the movies from the era RR & QT were celebrating would focus far more on dialogue, but advertise mainly according to one or two key set pieces. In DP's case the trailers zoned in on the car action - mostly ignoring the chick-chat-out-and-about majority (which is actually in-keeping with grindhouse advertising).
I've always considered Death Proof to be a very shrewd, and perhaps more intricate movie in terms of referencing its source material.
Perhaps my theory isn't the case at all, but I think there's a strong case for that line of thinking, and I fancied sharing that ... it certainly fits the vibe of the film itself at least.
Right at the beginning of the flick you get a split second of the title, the 'real title', which is "Thunderbolt" if memory serves, but it obnoxiously cuts to a rough-as-a-badger's-arse white-text-on-black insert with "Death Proof" printed on it.
Now indeed, in the true nature of grindhouse cinema, many films would go by many names - flicks such as Last House on the Left or The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue would have a slew of names at different showings as they toured the country, seemingly seeking for the best, audience-pleasing moniker.
However - I have another theory, which links to this title change. In the world of 'the filmmakers who made Death Proof', or rather the filmmakers who rest somewhere between our reality (as we sit there and watch Death Proof, which was one half of the fantastic Grindhouse experiment) and that of the characters in the film (i.e. Stuntman Mike and so on).
In this world, there were at least TWO Stuntman Mike movies - most likely made a few years apart, considering the sheer volume of print damage to the first half of the flick (everything from the titles to the last frame of Earl McGraw's exposition-spouting hospital-walk).
Now, "Thunderbolt" - featuring the girls in the bar - was the first Stuntman Mike movie, but it would have only been quite short, most likely somewhere between 70 and 80 minutes. This film would have gone on to be quite successful, and obviously got a lot of wear and tear on the circulating prints.
Then - a new Stuntman Mike movie (perhaps simply "Thunderbolt 2") - featuring the girls from the set of the movie being shot in Lebanon, Tennesse. This second half of Death Proof, features far, far less print damage - so it's a brand new flick practically (maybe only touring a handful of states at this point).
So - we come to one particular exhibitor, and he fancies getting one over on everybody else, and creating what he'd class as some sort of third Stuntman Mike movie, which is actually a mish-mash of the two actual Stuntman Mike movies.
The second half of Death Proof, as I've said, barely features any print damage - except in the first few minutes (this is in the extended cut that you and I have been treated to by Tarantino). Why might this feature more print damage? Repeated viewing of this transition from first flick to second flick, by this phantom exhibitor who has spliced the two Stuntman Mike movies together into his own creation - titled "Death Proof".
As for the black & white chunk, who knows - perhaps there was an interesting story behind that. Perhaps the exhibitor, while cutting away in his fag-smoke-choked projector room, accidentally wrecked that portion of the print, and had to find another print as best he could - only sourcing a black and white version of the clip he needed. Either that, or it was just a mistake in his copy of the print for "Thunderbolt 2".
Death Proof is a film that is very divided, right down the middle. It's one set of chicks, then it's a new set of chicks - but always Stuntman Mike. The tone from one half to the next is different, the chicks are also very different - first half they're pure victims, the second half they're pure ass-kickers, as if they each represent a different era of cinema and female audience attendance.
This is how I like to think of Death Proof anyway. There have surely been cases of exhibitors making their own cuts to movies, indeed I swear I've heard/read such stories.
Also, considering that many of the movies from the era RR & QT were celebrating would focus far more on dialogue, but advertise mainly according to one or two key set pieces. In DP's case the trailers zoned in on the car action - mostly ignoring the chick-chat-out-and-about majority (which is actually in-keeping with grindhouse advertising).
I've always considered Death Proof to be a very shrewd, and perhaps more intricate movie in terms of referencing its source material.
Perhaps my theory isn't the case at all, but I think there's a strong case for that line of thinking, and I fancied sharing that ... it certainly fits the vibe of the film itself at least.
Thursday, 24 July 2008
WALL.E...
Finally! Pixar have returned to their best, with this superb effort. I was less than impressed by Cars (visually strong, but weak on the performances and story ... to be honest, I couldn't give much of a stuff about emoting vehicles) and Ratatouille (again, visually impressive, but lacking in the humour department with a story only moderately better than the forgettable Cars).
Riding to the rescue - Andrew Stanton (who directed Finding Nemo - Pixar's last properly good feature). WALL.E is both gripping for the eyes, but also gripping for the heart, it sucks you into the characters (especially the eponymous bot) and litters its running time with a variety of gags of varying intensity. You'll smirk, you'll grin, you'll chuckle and you'll out-right guffaw.
The pacing is spot on, you're never left wanting to get a move on, there's always something new to see and something new to ooh and ahh over.
Visually, the film is enthralling. It leaves you silent with wonder - whether it's the (actually somewhat depressing) destroyed planet earth, or the super-clean, lard-arse-infested Axiom ship (new home to mankind). It is, when you stop to think for a moment, quite damning of Western consumer culture (soon to become very much a staple of the Eastern world too, which for some it already has).
Quite rightly it pretty clearly says we need to look after our planet, but it never crosses into preachy, hemp-trouser territory as it's set several hundred years into the future, makes you giggle and looks incredible. In fact, it can at times become quite dark - the afforementioned enviro-disaster theme is one thing, but the Axiom's top secret directives (enacted by the all-powerful, Hal-9000 riffing 'Co-Pilot') are surprisingly complex and evil for a U-rated movie.
But then again, this is key to the movie's greatness. Like the best Pixar films, it appeals to kids and adults alike, all of whom get something different out of it.
Myself and a friend went to see it at a morning showing (when it's cheaper and less crowded) and we were quite possibly the only people there without kids, but we perhaps did the most laughing out of them all. Perhaps some kids might find it a tad dull in certain parts, indeed the generally sedate earth-bound opening is where said distraction might set in before the generally fast-paced Axiom-bound second half.
Plot wise, it's got all you could ever ask of a Pixar film. Interesting and entertaining characters with genuine heart and soul (you'll quite possibly choke up towards the end when our hero gets into a spot of bother, which yes, was bound to happen - a sequence which is truly audience silencing - you could hear a pin drop). The plot has real meat to it and leaves a lasting impression, acting as the very antithesis to the buy 'n' bin consumerism as symbolised by the film's mega-corperation, Wal-Mart-riffing, 'Buy'n'Large'.
Which brings me on to the joyless bastards out there who have to smugly point out the irony that WALL.E is essentially anti-consumeristic, but is completely commercialised in our world. Firstly - fuck off sapping the brilliance out of the movie. Secondly - they're giving the kiddies what they'd want regardless, stop killing the innocence of child hood. Thirdly - it's not a total condemnation of consumerism, instead it's a cautionary glance at it.
Consumerism works, but don't let it get carried away until it becomes a case of monolithic, faceless Buy'n'Large stores and branding, to the point where we all just become obese, lazy bastards lounging around on hover-lay-z-boys.
But what of WALL.E and EVE? If it wasn't for the fact they were robots, it really would be a classical love story between, well, the Lady and the Tramp. WALL.E is the dusty, bit knackered-out, old romantic while EVE is the bit of upper-crust (i.e. technically superior, with digital eyes and everything) totty he must swoon.
It's all incredibly sweet (not just when WALL.E looks right at anything with those big robotic doe-eyes) - all WALL.E wants to do is dance and hold hands with a companion (as exemplified in a worn copy of a musical he repeatedly views on his top-loading VCR in his make-shift home), and he finds that "awwwww" style aspiration in EVE.
It really is a wonderful film. Consuming, heart-warming (occasionally heart-breaking), humorous and genuinely awe-inspiring. In fact, this will be the first Pixar movie I actively seek out on DVD (pre-ordering ASAP), and has most certainly gone into my top five of 2008. Indeed, this will most likely be my #2 of 2008 ... The Dark Knight (still to see) will almost certainly steal #1 spot of 2008, which I've been holding open for months now.
Anyway, go and see WALL.E now!
Riding to the rescue - Andrew Stanton (who directed Finding Nemo - Pixar's last properly good feature). WALL.E is both gripping for the eyes, but also gripping for the heart, it sucks you into the characters (especially the eponymous bot) and litters its running time with a variety of gags of varying intensity. You'll smirk, you'll grin, you'll chuckle and you'll out-right guffaw.
The pacing is spot on, you're never left wanting to get a move on, there's always something new to see and something new to ooh and ahh over.
Visually, the film is enthralling. It leaves you silent with wonder - whether it's the (actually somewhat depressing) destroyed planet earth, or the super-clean, lard-arse-infested Axiom ship (new home to mankind). It is, when you stop to think for a moment, quite damning of Western consumer culture (soon to become very much a staple of the Eastern world too, which for some it already has).
Quite rightly it pretty clearly says we need to look after our planet, but it never crosses into preachy, hemp-trouser territory as it's set several hundred years into the future, makes you giggle and looks incredible. In fact, it can at times become quite dark - the afforementioned enviro-disaster theme is one thing, but the Axiom's top secret directives (enacted by the all-powerful, Hal-9000 riffing 'Co-Pilot') are surprisingly complex and evil for a U-rated movie.
But then again, this is key to the movie's greatness. Like the best Pixar films, it appeals to kids and adults alike, all of whom get something different out of it.
Myself and a friend went to see it at a morning showing (when it's cheaper and less crowded) and we were quite possibly the only people there without kids, but we perhaps did the most laughing out of them all. Perhaps some kids might find it a tad dull in certain parts, indeed the generally sedate earth-bound opening is where said distraction might set in before the generally fast-paced Axiom-bound second half.
Plot wise, it's got all you could ever ask of a Pixar film. Interesting and entertaining characters with genuine heart and soul (you'll quite possibly choke up towards the end when our hero gets into a spot of bother, which yes, was bound to happen - a sequence which is truly audience silencing - you could hear a pin drop). The plot has real meat to it and leaves a lasting impression, acting as the very antithesis to the buy 'n' bin consumerism as symbolised by the film's mega-corperation, Wal-Mart-riffing, 'Buy'n'Large'.
Which brings me on to the joyless bastards out there who have to smugly point out the irony that WALL.E is essentially anti-consumeristic, but is completely commercialised in our world. Firstly - fuck off sapping the brilliance out of the movie. Secondly - they're giving the kiddies what they'd want regardless, stop killing the innocence of child hood. Thirdly - it's not a total condemnation of consumerism, instead it's a cautionary glance at it.
Consumerism works, but don't let it get carried away until it becomes a case of monolithic, faceless Buy'n'Large stores and branding, to the point where we all just become obese, lazy bastards lounging around on hover-lay-z-boys.
But what of WALL.E and EVE? If it wasn't for the fact they were robots, it really would be a classical love story between, well, the Lady and the Tramp. WALL.E is the dusty, bit knackered-out, old romantic while EVE is the bit of upper-crust (i.e. technically superior, with digital eyes and everything) totty he must swoon.
It's all incredibly sweet (not just when WALL.E looks right at anything with those big robotic doe-eyes) - all WALL.E wants to do is dance and hold hands with a companion (as exemplified in a worn copy of a musical he repeatedly views on his top-loading VCR in his make-shift home), and he finds that "awwwww" style aspiration in EVE.
It really is a wonderful film. Consuming, heart-warming (occasionally heart-breaking), humorous and genuinely awe-inspiring. In fact, this will be the first Pixar movie I actively seek out on DVD (pre-ordering ASAP), and has most certainly gone into my top five of 2008. Indeed, this will most likely be my #2 of 2008 ... The Dark Knight (still to see) will almost certainly steal #1 spot of 2008, which I've been holding open for months now.
Anyway, go and see WALL.E now!
The Machine Girl...
Essentially this is Japanese grindhouse. It's low budget, it's pretty darn crazy, and it's violent ... but shot on digital rather than film, and promptly covered in de-saturation and high contrast colouring.
Basically, girl with one arm (it gets hacked off mid-way through) seeks revenge for her brother who was bullied to death by a bunch of Yakuza offspring. Obviously, this means attaching a great big gattling gun to the stump and obliterating anything that dithers around in front of it for more than a milisecond.
It's crazed, often fast-paced, extremely violent and doused in the sort of gore that would make Peter Jackson very happy circa Braindead. It does sputter a bit when the story drifts on a tad too long in-between violent bouts of splatter, but when it picks up again, it flies off the handle and seeks to slice your head off along with the rest of the severed hunks of meat.
Solid fare, I've seen better, but I've seen worse. It's all good fun, and a definite must-see for fans of crazy and bloody Asian action flicks.
Basically, girl with one arm (it gets hacked off mid-way through) seeks revenge for her brother who was bullied to death by a bunch of Yakuza offspring. Obviously, this means attaching a great big gattling gun to the stump and obliterating anything that dithers around in front of it for more than a milisecond.
It's crazed, often fast-paced, extremely violent and doused in the sort of gore that would make Peter Jackson very happy circa Braindead. It does sputter a bit when the story drifts on a tad too long in-between violent bouts of splatter, but when it picks up again, it flies off the handle and seeks to slice your head off along with the rest of the severed hunks of meat.
Solid fare, I've seen better, but I've seen worse. It's all good fun, and a definite must-see for fans of crazy and bloody Asian action flicks.
Action in the North Atlantic...
The Bogart obsession continues, this time with one of his World War II ship-based actioners (I'll be pimping my thoughts on The Caine Mutiny in due course, which I recorded off Channel 5 back in 2002 - at the same time as ...North Atlantic).
It's more like 'Action in the first and third acts of the North Atlantic, with characterisation shoved into act two' ... but that's not a catchy title in the slightest, but quite true of the film's structure. It does feel a bit pieced together, a bit ... average perhaps - at times anyway.
The first act is nothing short of thrilling, the action really does kick off with a sizeable bang. It's all rather fast paced and in your face, with some great stunt work and special effects. Then once that's done with, it's time for second act character building, which is where Bogart (mostly) goes on vacation from the set leaving you wondering if pimping the movie on his name alone is all that suitable.
Regardless, it's still an interesting watch - and yep, once again (as I've previously talked about), marriage is dealt with astonishingly flippantly ... in that "might as well get married, what the hell" sort of way. But no sooner is Bogie hitched, than he's off on another venture into the North Atlantic with a fleet of other ships taking supplies to the men on the ground.
But disaster lurks below, those pesky Germans from the first act are back and are intent on sinking our ships! Indeed, it's all rather good VS evil and quite propagandistic ... but who cares really, even Casablanca was used as propaganda to an extent (it only got the green light after Pearl Harbour happened, and indeed the script was read the day after the event).
Back to Action in the North Atlantic - basically, a bit hit & miss, but when it hits it really goes for the KO.
It's more like 'Action in the first and third acts of the North Atlantic, with characterisation shoved into act two' ... but that's not a catchy title in the slightest, but quite true of the film's structure. It does feel a bit pieced together, a bit ... average perhaps - at times anyway.
The first act is nothing short of thrilling, the action really does kick off with a sizeable bang. It's all rather fast paced and in your face, with some great stunt work and special effects. Then once that's done with, it's time for second act character building, which is where Bogart (mostly) goes on vacation from the set leaving you wondering if pimping the movie on his name alone is all that suitable.
Regardless, it's still an interesting watch - and yep, once again (as I've previously talked about), marriage is dealt with astonishingly flippantly ... in that "might as well get married, what the hell" sort of way. But no sooner is Bogie hitched, than he's off on another venture into the North Atlantic with a fleet of other ships taking supplies to the men on the ground.
But disaster lurks below, those pesky Germans from the first act are back and are intent on sinking our ships! Indeed, it's all rather good VS evil and quite propagandistic ... but who cares really, even Casablanca was used as propaganda to an extent (it only got the green light after Pearl Harbour happened, and indeed the script was read the day after the event).
Back to Action in the North Atlantic - basically, a bit hit & miss, but when it hits it really goes for the KO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
