Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Stunning
The king of the Kaiju, Godzilla, has had a very chequered cinematic history. From the classic original Japanese films to Roland Emmerich’s 1998 disaster, the famous beast hasn’t always been given the respect deserved of such an iconic monster.
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
All hail the Titans
2014’s Godzilla was a thrilling and somewhat underrated return to form for the king of the kaiju. Directed by visionary film-maker Gareth Edwards, Godzilla’s return to the big screen was beautifully filmed with some of the best set pieces ever seen on celluloid. It certainly made up for the Roland Emmerich monstrosity that shall remain nameless here.
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
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)
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)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Before Ben Affleck, but after Adam West, Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney, Christian Bale was Batman for at least two of the best Batman films out there. With a screenplay by director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan and a story by David S. Goyer, Batman Begins is an origin story. Gotham City is dying since criminals like Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) are able to get away with murder since, “he keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared,” as Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) puts it. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) trains with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), the right hand of Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), and The League of Shadows.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
