BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It feels like everyone has something to say about Venom. Amongst critics and fans, it’s caused a lot of debate and controversy. Whenever this happens, I tend to find myself becoming even more curious about the film because if everyone else has strong words to say, maybe I will too?
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
J.A. Bayona is one of the most exciting rising stars behind the camera lens. His knack for creating superbly shot, engaging films like The Orphanage and The Impossible has meant many in Hollywood have been keeping an intrigued eye on him.
His hard work paid off last year when it was announced he would be taking over directorial duties on the as yet unnamed Jurassic World sequel. In the meantime, Bayona has been busy working on A Monster Calls, based on the book of the same name by Patrick Ness, but does it continue the director’s brilliant work?
12-year-old Conor (Lewis MacDougall), dealing with his mother’s (Felicity Jones) illness, a less-than-sympathetic grandmother (Sigourney Weaver), and bullying classmates, finds a most unlikely ally when a Monster (Liam Neeson) appears at his bedroom window. Ancient, wild, and relentless, the Monster guides Conor on a journey of courage, faith, and truth through three dramatic tales.
The first thing to say is that the film is visually stunning with detail seeping from every frame. Every shot is breath-taking in its own way and the tall tales in which Liam Neeson’s booming voice narrate are beautiful. Bayona yet again demonstrates his flair for cinematography, but this time his creativeness is set free in Conor’s imagination, where he literally paints pictures with superb animations.
Acting wise, A Monster Calls is sublime. With talent like Liam Neeson, Sigourney Weaver and Felicity Jones making up the bulk of the cast, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’d be easy for newcomer Lewis MacDougall to get lost in the fray, but he doesn’t. His performance throughout the film is exceptional and the chemistry he shares with on-screen mum Felicity is entirely believable, making his plight all the more heart-breaking.
But the real winners here are the special effects. Liam Neeson’s gravelly tone lends itself perfectly to creating ‘the Monster’ in all its woody glory. The incredible CGI used to bring him to life is some of the best I’ve ever seen, all the more remarkable given the film’s relatively modest $43million budget. The effects are better than those in some blockbusters costing three times this.
Then there’s the plot. Essentially a coming of age story as one young man tries desperately to hang on to his youth and escape the tragedies of life; A Monster Calls is one of the most heartfelt and emotionally resonant films in the genre. It is a testament to author and screenwriter Patrick Ness that his novel’s gut-wrenching themes are carried across perfectly to the silver screen; that is by no means an easy thing to accomplish.
Overall, A Monster Calls is a mesmerising 115 minutes that stays with you long after the end credits roll. Everything from the acting to the direction is spot on, with the story being relatable to every single one of us. This time last year I was sat in the cinema watching Daddy’s Home; what a difference 12 months makes.
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
I was super excited for this book when it first came out and even more excited when I saw it was becoming a story. As a nerd, an over arching nerd intobooks, games, music, and everything else I thought I finally would get to witness a glorious book/movie about it.
However, almost immediately upon starting it I realized I was probably not going to enjoy it as much as I had hoped. Thankfully Wil Wheaton was the performer for the Audio book so I could continue listening.
The main character, Wade, goes on several solilogues about all of the nerd things that he knows everything about. Several times, Wade is miraculously the only one who knows everything and is amazing at it.
At one point he actually just lists out all of the 80s authors he has read in entirety which is amazing for a 17 year old who spends all of his time on the Oasis and also playing video games and watching movies. On top of all that, his list is entirely male authors, directors, and programmers. Why not mention Tamora Pierce, a huge author of the 80s or Marion Zimmer Bradley author of a King Arthur novel which Wade would have been very into considering his character name and the fact that he says he is very into King Arthur.
There are two female characters and they get barely any screen time. Here is where I got super excited because I am a female nerd who plays tons of video games and met several partners online it was going to be good to address the things that happen. But it doesn't. She says she is "deformed" and disappears until the end of the story, then we find out she looks just as amazing as her fake person avatar except *GASP* she has a birthmark on her face. Face birth marks can feel debilitating and terrifying but in the scope of things, its a not problem.
My main problem with Wade is that he asks the love interest "Are you a woman? Are you a woman that has never been a man?" And like... What? Worrying the person you are talking to is who they say they are is a big thing but to go straight to being transphobic is not okay. Sure, he is a teenager but he is a teenager in the distant future where people literally go to school in a video game and can make an alien avatar, surely it wouldn't still be "weird".
More than anything this felt like a nerd dream fantasy life that "came true". Was THE BEST at all the things, became rich from video games, got the hot girl, became famous. What more could you want?
But I still really like this book and story, it just could have gone so much better. So many important things could have been addressed and explained and they just weren't.
Tom Cruise returns as Jack Reacher in the second cinematic installment of the popular character in the book series by Lee Child. In “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back”. After helping the military with an operation, Reacher returns to his drifter ways but is enticed to travel to Washington D.C. to visit Major Turner (Colbie Smulders), after establishing a friendship with her via phone during the recent operation.
Reacher has left the military behind and why he agreed to do the task for the Military is unclear aside from the actions of those involved upset his moral compass and made him become involved.
Upon reaching D.C. Reacher is informed that Turner has been arrested and charged with espionage and that she has requested that he not be allowed to see or contact her.
This does not sit right with Reacher and the fact that Turner occupies the same office that he was commanded has made this more than a personal score for him. Reacher also notices that he is being followed by some military contractors and soon suspects that he and Turner are in serious danger.
Reacher uses his resources and abilities to break Turner from confinement to save her life and sets off to clear her name and stay ahead of the forces that seem to know their every move.
If this was not enough trouble for Reacher, he is also implicated in a crime he did not commit and learns that there is a young girl named Samantha (Danika Yarosh), who has been targeted to get to Reacher even though he has no idea who she is and how she is involved.
What follows is an exciting mix of action and suspense as Reacher and Turner battle enemies and try to solve the clues behind their situation before it is too late.
The sequel has a premise that grabs you early on and an energy that keeps you compelled to the action. Cruise seems to be very comfortable with the part in his second outing as Reacher and it shows as he commands the screen with a mix of physicality and restraint that underscores the complex nature of the character. Smulders also does well with the physical nature of her part and works very well with Cruise as she is far from a damsel in distress.
The film at times takes some leaps of faith but the intensity and suspense of the film as well as the solid action scenes and pacing make the film a very pleasant surprise and one worth watching.
