Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
If I was still 10 or 11 years old, this might be my favourite film of all time (for a few months). The 10 year old trapped inside me kinda thinks it is! At first I was sceptical that it could be any good at all, seeing it getting nominated in a lot of best animation categories during award season, and then winning them all! From the poster, or even the trailer, alone, I just didn’t get it!
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Carrie (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve got a taste for terror…take Carrie to the Prom.”
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Mastering Delphi
Book
Become a developer superhero and build stunning cross-platform apps with Delphi About This Book * A...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020
Ever since Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel Studios have pretty much been on a hot streak. It's easy to forget that this titan of a movie house still had to finds its feet once upon a time, and unfortunately they do have a handful of underwhelming titles in their arsenal.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2021
On the surface, you could argue that Doctor Strange isn't all that different from Iron Man in terms of structure. Rich, white dude with a goatee lives out his life, arrogantly full of himself until a life altering incident forces him to fight to survive, setting him on a path of betterment and redemption. Whilst this is unarguably true, the fact is that this movie is so much more than retreading familiar ground. Gone are the times where superhero movies play it safe. Guardians of the Galaxy may have knocked down the doors, but Doctor Strange takes the cosmic concept, and runs full speed with it. Marvel Studios have got to the point where they can make a movie about the Dark Dimension, the Mirror Dimension, the Sorcerer Supreme, Dormammu, the multiverse, and audiences will still lap it up, and I'm here for it.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Maddog (122 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 16, 2020
A must see, even if your not a superhero fan.
I'm a massive Joker fan - always have been ever since I was little, so this may be a little one sided.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
Numbers League
Education and Games
App
Numbers League is made for ages 5 to Adult. "My kids beg to play this game." -GeekDad, Wired.com...
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)