Beguiled, The

 

Year of release

1971

Directed by

Don Siegel

Written by

Albert Maltz (script)

Irene Kamp (script)

Thomas Cullinan (novel)

Starring

Clint Eastwood

Geraldine Page

Elizabeth Hartman

Jo Ann Harris

Pamelyn Ferdin

The Beguiled

    

 

Plot – Corporal John McBurney (Eastwood) is a Union soldier in the American Civil War. Severely wounded in battle he is found dying in the forest by a young 12 year old girl called Amy (Ferdin) who takes him back to the school for girls where she lives. Run by the headmistress (Page) with one teacher (Hartman) and a small group of pupils it is a little ocean of peace amongst the war, at least until McBurney arrives. Soon all of the school's women, from the incestuous headmistress to 12 year old Amy, are projecting their fantasies upon him and throwing themselves at him. He responds in a callous, manipulative manner resulting in jealousy and resentment to run rife and put him in great danger.

Another effort from the combo of Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood, and another winner! Though this certainly stands out as being quite different from their other films together; it's really downright strange! In fact with its storyline you feel it could easily delve off into an erotic flick/porno at any moment! And it is a very aptly named film as it is certainly a beguiling experience; very hypnotic and immersive.

I have to ask, is Don Siegel the greatest director of all time? Well no, probably not. But he is damn good! This is the sixth film of his I've seen now and I've not been disappointed yet. And again he has left me incredibly impressed with his directorial style. Here, in conjunction with ace cinematographer Bruce Surtees, he has just imbued this film with an incredible amount of atmosphere. It's just so creepy and gothic, tremendously unsettling. Though it's style is definitely quite different to what I've seen for him previously. It often feels rather arthouse in terms of its odd tricks and techniques. There are examples of the character's interior thoughts being spoken in voiceover, flashbacks which contradict what characters are saying and some very bizarre and surreal fantasies/dream sequences. It all helps to create a haunting, expressionistic experience.

Film trivia – While they eventually went with the same title as Thomas Cullinan's source novel, Universal Pictures had considered other titles including “On One I Walked” and the tremendous “Pussy-footing Down at the Old Plantation”.

 

The performances across the board are fantastic. Along with Tightrope and Unforgiven I'd place this amongst Eastwood's 'best' performances. He plays into his macho image while also delving in to the character's seedy and manipulative side. Conniving and lustful it's a character that is easy to hate. Alongside him all of the actresses are successful in each creating a distinctive character despite all having the same goal. Geraldine Page is just magnificent as the school's headmistress; sexually repressed and haunted by memories of an incestuous relationship with her brother she is a powerful, occasionally terrifying presence with nerves of steel. Elizabeth Hartman plays Edwina with a real naïve delicacy and lovelorn quality, and is by far the closest we get here to a 'nice' person. Jo Ann Harris is insanely sexy and alluring as the 17 year old hussy Carol. And while Page's showing is the best, when you take into account her age (just 11) perhaps the most impressive is Pamelyn Ferdin as young Amy.

As I noted recently (in my review for The Gauntlet) I've found it interesting and refreshing to see the risks that Clint Eastwood took throughout his career when it came to the roles he chose. And here again he has shyed away from playing a nice guy, in fact this is probably the darkest and most f**ked up of his characters that I've experienced so far. He's also not the brightest! Trying to juggle the admiration of four women at one time is never going to be the easiest of tasks; but when they're all living under one roof? What were you thinking Clint?!!!

Film trivia – Over a long and successful career Don Siegel directed 36 films, including such highly acclaimed and popular films as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dirty Harry and Escape from Alcatraz. Siegel however chose this film as his favourite from his own body of work.

 

The pacing of the film is fantastic; the tension, horror and sense of foreboding just constantly escalating right up until the film's ultimate moment of horror as a terrifically grisly scene sees having his leg amputated. Though I have to admit that the melodrama can get a little bit ripe towards its conclusion, with perhaps a twist too many and one attitude change in a character that just didn't really ring true for me.

It all feels very much like an influential precursor to some of Clint's own dalliances into sexual obsession and deviancy – Play Misty for Me and Tightrope. Though while they relied more on tension and thrills this one gets into much more sinister, disturbing territory including incest and Clint kissing a 12 year old girl!

Conclusion – A deliciously devilish and gothic treat. Overflowing with sexual tension this is a sultry and fascinating film, directed with great flair by Siegel and featuring a series of standout performances. It really is compelling viewing. Highly recommended stuff.

Batman Returns

 

 

Year of release

1992

Directed by

Tim Burton

Written by

Daniel Waters

Starring

Michael Keaton

Michelle Pfeiffer

Danny DeVito

Christopher Walken

Michael Gough 

Batman Returns

 

Plot - After successfully defeating the Joker the caped crusader known as Batman (Keaton) has emerged as the protector of Gotham city. And the city is going to need him, for in the depths of the city's sewers a new villain is set to emerge - the Penguin (DeVito); a deformed individual who was rejected by his parents as a baby and is now intent on being accepted into Gotham society. A possible path to this acceptance comes in the form of crooked businessman Max Shreck (Walken) who aims to make the Penguin the new mayor of the city, and manipulate events to pain Batman in a negative light in the process. Everyone buys into the tragic story of the Penguin except for Batman, who aims to uncover the truth behind his intentions. His attempts are hindered however by the appearance of another costumed figure, Catwoman (Pfeiffer).

Man I had forgotten just what an odd little duck of a movie this was. I have seen this before, several times I think, but not for many years and I really wasn't able to recall much of it. And it really was a surprise to find just how weird and bizarre a creation Tim Burton concocted here. And coming on the back of watching Christopher Nolan's Batman films it makes for a real culture shock. It's hard to believe that they could have come up with two such distinct and disparate films whilst using the same source of inspiration. In fact even if Eli Roth was to direct a Batman film, followed by an effort from Pixar, it's hard to believe they could come up with two films which are more different. While Nolan strived for reality and a serious edge, Burton embraces the fantasy element of the material, delivering something that has a tendency to move into the realm of a surrealistic nightmare. In fact there's a touch of the Brothers Grimm fairytale about the whole thing, particularly in regards to the film's villains. Both The Penguin and Catwoman are much more paranormal, elemental like creations than their comic book counterparts. And Danny Elfman's excellent, ethereal score which sounds like the soundtrack to a dark fairytale is a perfect fit for this tone.

I'm actually really stunned at just how much the studio allowed Burton to get away with. I mean this is a really dark flick. Actually no, dark isn't the right word. Nolan's Batman films were dark; this is just f*cked up!!! I mean within the first two minutes alone you've got a mother and father dumping their infant son over the side of a bridge and into a river below, seemingly with the intent of killing him. It's only through a stroke of luck that he manages to survive. So that's one twisted supervillain origin. Then you've got Selina Kyle being thrown out of a window to her death, attracting a load of cats who seemingly try and eat her lifeless corpse. Only for her to come back to life! I'm telling you, it's f*cked up!!! And that's not even mentioning some of the other depraved touches that Burton throws our way - Catwoman attempting to eat a live bird for example or The Penguin's plan to kill all of the first born infants of Gotham.

Film Trivia Snippets - The script for Batman Returns went through several rewrites; in one version it was to be discovered that Max Schrek was actually The Penguin's older brother. /// Talking of rewrites, the character of Max Schrek was a pure rewrite of Harvey Dent. As such some of the film's plot points would perhaps have made more sense if Schreck had been a District Attorney as opposed to a corrupt businessman. The explosion at the film's end was to have scarred Dent and lead to his transformation into Two-Face for the third movie, Batman Forever. Billy Dee Williams apparently took the role of Harvey Dent in 1989's Batman as he knew he would eventually become Two-Face. It is rumoured that Williams' contract to appear in this sequel was bought out by Warner Bros. at a very heavy price. /// When it came to the character of The Penguin, Warner Brothers' first suggestion was Dustin Hoffman, while other names that were considered included Marlon Brando, John Candy, Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd. /// When it came to the role of Selina Kyle/Catwoman it seems that just about every name in Hollywood popped up at one point or another. In fact Michelle Pfeiffer was not the original actress to be cast. Annette Bening had been cast but was replaced when she became pregnant. Demi Moore and Nichole Kidman both rejected offers, while Susan Sarandon showed great interest in the role but was considered too old. Other actresses in the frame included Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster, Lena Olin, Madonna, Raquel Welch, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ellen Barkin, Cher and Bridget Fonda. At one point, even Kim Basinger was considered despite the small fact that she had appeared in the previous instalment as Vicky Vale. /// Talking of alternates for Catwoman, here's one to get you thinking. A possibility for slipping into the film's famous Catsuit was Meryl Streep! Tim Burton rejected her however because he considered her too old for the role. The mental image that's creating in my mind isn't pretty.

Batman Returns is able to navigate two very different tones within its story. On the one hand the film feels very much like the spiritual successor to the campy delights of the classic Adam West TV show from the 60s, with much of the production design apparently grabbed straight from that day-glo world. The cronies at The Penguin's disposal in the film are the Circus Gang; a group comprising of clowns, circus performers and sideshow freaks that feels very much like the henchmen that Batman and Robin would usually dispatch on the TV show with the aid of a biff! a bam! and a pow! The Penguin's choice of transportation is a huge, mechanical rubber ducky; arguably even more ridiculous than something the TV show would conceive of. And then there's the film's conclusion. To start with there's the sight of Christopher Walken's Max Schrek being held captive in a massively oversized cage hanging from the rafters; a situation that the Caped Crusader and Boy Wonder seemed to stumble into every week. And then The Penguin's big plan consists of sending out a series of penguins with missiles strapped to their back. Yes really!

So you've got that on one had, and you then sprinkle it with a touch of Burton's unique stylings. Of all the directors out there, few have a more recognizable and unique style than Burton. And you can see his hand at work throughout the entire production. I've already talked about the darkness inherent in the film's storytelling, and the other extremely Burtonesque touches are to be found in the film's tremendous set and art design. In 1989's Batman, the Gotham that we see was much closer to that presented in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. It may have been quite gothic but it still felt like a real city. The Gotham here however is pure escapist fantasy, with German expressionism being a very heavy and obvious influence on the city's design. In fact you'd be forgiven for thinking that Batman had started fighting crime in Fritz Lang's Metropolis as the buildings stretch towards the skies, looming over him ominously and with great menace. The set design throughout the film, for both the interiors and exteriors really is fantastic in its creativity. It is made all the more expressive and gothic by a colour palette largely dedicated to blacks and greys and some great use of shadows. One thing I'd say about the set design is that at no point are you ever in any doubt that the action is taking place on a soundstage. It's obvious that none of the buildings are actually 'real' and that they have all been purpose built for the film, while the whole city of Gotham feels like it consists of just two or three blocks. I'm sure that some people may see this as a weakness as a result of some shoddy lighting, cinematography or direction that highlights these shortcomings. In general I would likely be inclined to agree but I think it really works for this particular film. Burton is attempting to tell a story that is so very, very out there that if he had set it amongst the real world there's a good chance it would not have worked. This grand, operatic stage that he has built however suits it to a tee.

Tim Burton assembled quite the cast for this sequel, arguably the most eclectic and interesting cast put together for any of the Batman films, or superhero films at large for that matter. To begin with you've got one of the most unique actors around in the form of Christopher Walken, taking on the role of business mogul Max Schrek. Of all the actors out there few seem to deliver the exact same performance more often than Walken. Time and ttime again he seems to just merely play himself on screen. But then when you're such a unique and oddly captivating individual why wouldn't you? His character is arguably the most evil of the film's villains. Whereas both The Penguin and Catwoman have tragic origins which explain their behaviour, Schrek is just a sleezy, piece of s*it politician. In the role of The Penguin, Danny De Vito is absolutely terrific. Talk about someone being born to play a specific role. With his diminutive stature and natural aptitude for playing creepy and sleezy characters while somehow still remaining funny and likeable makes him a perfect fit. Despite his wicked, villainous ways I can't help actually liking the character however. Through a combination of his tragic story and the sheer conviction with which De Vito plays the role, I find that an unavoidable sense of sympathy is created for the loveable little gargoyle. And the moment where he slides off into the water with the penguins after his demise I find to be oddly touching. The Penguin is also a fine example of great make-up and costume work. I remember when I watched this as a kid being genuinely scared of DeVito's Penguin.

Film Trivia Snippets - According to the book 'Movie Magic' by 'Robin Cross', Penguin's army consisted of real penguins, actors in glass fiber suits, animatronic puppets controlled by puppeteers, and computer animation. A technique called flocking was used where several penguins would imitate a master penguin, allowing control over large numbers. /// There's quite a noteable scene in the film where Catwoman grabs a pet bird belonging to The Penguin and attempts to eat it. Michelle Pfeiffer did actually put a live bird in her mouth and hold it there for the scene, greatly impressing Tim Burton. /// David Bowie was actually the first choice for the role of Max Shreck, but turned it down in favour of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Christopher Walken was subsequently cast and it's not the first time Walken has beneffited from Bowie passing on a role. The role of Max Zorin in Bond flick, A View to a Kill, was also offered to Bowie first. Incidentally Bowie had also been considered to play the Joker in Batman. /// Burgess Meredith, who saw memorably played the Penguin in the 60s TV show, was asked to play the part of The Penguin's father in the film's opening but he was unable to due to illness. /// Michelle Pfeiffer became such a sex icon thanks to Catwoman's iconic PVC suit that she actually caused a crime wave. Warner Bros. had to constantly submit new Catwoman posters for various cities as so many of the bus stop ads were being stolen. It soon got so bad that police officers had to patrol bus stops in order to catch perpetrators before they could break the Plexiglas containers. I don't really like to think what the thieves where using the posters for. /// Batman Forever and Batman & Robin come in for a lot of grief from fans, but it turns out that they could actually have been a lot worse. As inconceivable as it may seem Marlon Wayans had actually been signed to play Robin in both this movie and Batman Forever. It had even gotten to the stage where he went through costuming for the movie. When the script was rewritten the character was dropped, and when Joel Schumacher took over as director for Batman Forever the role was instead given to Chris O'Donnell. Wayans was still paid for both movies.

As awesome as DeVito is however, the most iconic element of this film inarguably belongs to Michelle Pfeiffer and that outfit. That leather/PVC suit that she wears really is quite something, pushing the kinky/BDSM nature of the character right to the limit and creating an image that was seared into the minds of pubescent boys the world over. Beyond the suit however there is still a great deal to enjoy about her performance. Pfeiffer really goes for it, following the character's initial geekiness she delivers a terrifically sexy, sultry and alluring performance. It's enough to get the Bat hot under the collar, and I'm guessing every red blooded male watching was in a similar predicament. Her Catwoman is just so much more interesting than the rather flat creation that Anne Hathaway got lumbered with in The Dark Knight Rises. Up against all those strong performances and colourful characters Batman himself actually fades into the background a touch and struggles to make anywhere near the same kind of impact. There's almost a sense that Burton was bored with the goody-two-shoes character, instead devoting the large majority of his time and creative juices to the villains. As a bit of conjecture perhaps the studio told him that Batman was off limits, he couldn't mess about with him, so instead he decided to have his ghoulish fun with the villains. I mean there's one point where I noticed the running time (I think it was around the 35-40 minute mark) and realised that Bruce Wayne/Batman had only featured for a total of about two minutes up until that stage. I may have put Michael Keaton's name first in the credits but it really is only out of courtesy. He would come very low down on the list of things that you remember from this film. While I know that he has quite a number of fans for his turn as Batman I don't find him all that special, but it's not really his fault. Neither of his films really gave him enough of a chance to shine and create a character. The first was dominated by Jack Nicholson's Joker while this sequel was also all about the villains. That said he still does a nice job and does admittedly have some great chemistry with Pfeiffer.

For all of his fans, Tim Burton also has a great number of critics. One of their main gripes is that too often he allows his films to slip into the trap of being very much a case of style over substance. And while Batman Returns is undoubtedly stylish, these characters that I've been discussing also allow the film some of the substance that those critics accuse Burton of being incapable of finding. All three of the main characters (Batman, Catwoman, The Penguin) were created through tragedy; their lives were destroyed and forever changed by the cruel society in which they live. The Penguin was abandoned as an infant by his parents; Batman was robbed of his parents due to senseless murder; and Catwoman was first oppressed and trodden upon by her male superiors, before being killed by said oppressor. These traumas caused a split in all three characters, creating dual personalities. In particular the characters of Batman and The Penguin are very similar. Both have suffered traumatic experiences in their childhood related to their parents. The difference comes in their reactions. While The Penguin seeks revenge against the society that inflicted this pain upon him by targeting the innocent, Batman has vowed to protect the innocent from men like The Penguin. In Star Trek there was something called the mirror universe; a parallel world where everyone and everything where the exact opposite of that in the 'normal' universe, so good became evil and vice versa. In a way The Penguin acts as the dark reflection of what Batman could become if he were to allow his sense of justice and vengeance to get the better of him. He could easily become the kind of criminal that he is seeking to stop with temptations frequently presenting themselves to him. And in this case the temptation comes in the rather comely figure of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Following her apparent death a new side to her character is born. Alongside the meek secretary that was Selina Kyle there is now the supremely confident and vivacious Catwoman. As Selina struggles to reconcile these two wildly different personas, so too does Batman struggle to resist her enticing and seductive ways.

Conclusion - Several times on here I've stated that I'm not a particularly big fan of The Dark Knight, citing its darkness as being the main reason. So it might seem rather odd and even hypocritical that I'm such a fan of Batman Returns. While this film is just as dark as TDK, if not even more so, it's a different type of darkness; it's a ghoulish and playful kind of darkness compared to TDK which I found to be dark in a very dreary, grim manner. This one is just so much fun though with some wonderfully inventive set design and costume work, and some great performances. By far my favourite of the original Batman films, and second only to Batman Begins as my personal favourite.

Batman Begins

 

Year of release
2005

Directed by
Christopher Nolan

Written by
Christopher Nolan
David S. Goyer

Starring
Christian Bale
Michael Caine
Liam Neeson
Cillian Murphy
Gary Oldman
Katie Holmes
Morgan Freeman

Batman Begins

 

Plot - As a young boy, Bruce Wayne (Bale) witnessed the tragic death of his parents at the hands of a criminal. This traumatic event forever changed his life, so much so that as an adult he travels the world seeking to understand and fight injustice. His travels take him to central Asia where he meets a mysterious figure named Ra's Al Ghul and joins his group called the League of Shadows. Trained by Henri Ducard (Neeson), Bruce eventually rejects the group when he learns about their true intentions. Returning to Gotham, he takes an interest in his father's legacy; Wayne Enterprises. There he meets Lucius Fox (Freeman), the head of Wayne Enterprises' Applied Sciences division, and with his help he creates a new persona to fight the crime that has polluted his city - Batman. As Batman takes on the criminals and organised crime underworld of Gotham, a sinister new threat emerges; The Scarecrow, a masked villain who induces fear in his victims through the use of toxins who in reality is Dr. Jonathan Crane (Murphy), a psychologist who is using his position at Arkham Asylum for nefarious means. Battling against all these foes Batman comes to rely on the assistance of a local cop, James Gordon (Oldman). Unbeknownst to him however there are secret plans and individuals lurking in the background, including an old friend he could never have envisaged meeting again.

This might prove to be quite a controversial view but I have to ask, am I the only one who thinks that Batman Begins is actually the best film of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? I know for definite that it's certainly my personal favourite, which I will admit puts me very much in the minority. Hell I may even be the only person on this whole board who feels that way. As a result this review is going to be slightly different from the norm. As well as reviewing Batman Begins I'm going to be dipping in and out of the sequels to help make certain points about this film.

One thing that I personally never quite 'got' was the amount of praise that Nolan got for grounding his Batman in reality. For all of its serious and real-world issues, and its foundation as a gritty crime drama when you boil it all down what you basically still have are guys dressed up as bats, clowns and scarecrows doing stuff that shouldn't exist in a 'real' world such as cars that can fly across rooftops. It made for an awkward marriage at times and it almost felt like Nolan was too embarrassed just to embrace the film for what they were - comic book films. It gives them the occasional air of pretension and arrogance, as if he feels they are above it. And with The Dark Knight Nolan took things into such a dark place that while I can appreciate some of its qualities (namely Ledger's tremendous performance) I don't think I could say that I actually like it; I just found it so grim and depressing that it was actually quite a tough watch first time out. In contrast I felt that Begins managed to find the best balance for a Batman film between the dark and gritty tone of the character, whilst still retaining the colourful and pulpy nature that should be inherent in a comic book movie. I think it's got some of the most fantastical moments of the trilogy such as the scene towards the film's conclusion where Batman flies along the streets of Gotham to confront Ra's al Ghul and his men.

That more fantastical element is also true of the film's setting. Another element where Begins is my favourite of the series is in regards to how they present Gotham. In the sequels I find Gotham to be a rather dull and bland place; it comes across just like any generic major city in the US. While you could argue once again that this is part of Nolan's attempts to ground the film in reality, as well as helping to place us in the action by having it take place on streets which look just like the ones we walk every day, I just found the Gotham we get here to be a much more vivid, interesting and unique place. It's got a much more gothic, even steampunk flavour to it with its monorail, billowing smoke and architecture. While the Narrows has the feel of a dystopia slum of a sort. All in all it was just a much more fascinating place to spend time in. And considering how iconic a part of Batman's story Gotham is I think that should be more of a character in its own right.

Film Trivia Snippets - While there are some questions over the story's authenticity, David Boreanaz was apparently the first choice for the role of Bruce Wayne but turned it down. Once he did many other actors were put under consideration. Keanu Reeves and Ashton Kutcher were both considered, with Kutcher reportedly being the studio executives' top choice. Nolan wasn't enthusiastic about this, resulting in the studio heads dropping the idea. In the end it was cut down to a shortlist of 8 actors who were asked to audition just days before the role would eventually be cast. Those involved were Christian Bale, Joshua Jackson, Eion Bailey, Hugh Dancy, Billy Crudup, Cillian Murphy, Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal. While Bale obviously won the part, Nolan was so impressed with Cillian Murphy that he cast him as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow on the strength of that audition. /// While his work on the Batman films has won him the adoration of many viewers, they could easily have been made without the participation of Christopher Nolan. Before he took on the project, Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct with Frank Miller set to write the screenplay based on his own classic tale “Batman: Year One.” In the end Warne Bros. decided not to put the project into production, apparently because the screenplay strayed a considerable amount from the source material, making Alfred an African-American mechanic named Big Al, the Batmobile a souped-up Lincoln Towncar and Bruce Wayne homeless. Also approached to direct were The Wachowski brothers, who even wrote their own treatment also based on “Batman: Year One.” In the end though they turned down the offer to make the Matrix sequels instead. /// The language used in the film by Ken Watanabe is neither Japanese nor Tibetan, or in fact any known language at all. It is actually just some gibberish he says he made up himself for the role. /// While shooting on the streets of Chicago, a person accidentally crashed into the Batmobile. The driver was apparently drunk, and said he hit the car in a state of panic, believing the Dark Knight's vehicle to be an invading alien spacecraft.

 

While I perhaps wouldn't go as far to say that Nolan began to suffer from delusions of grandeur with the two sequels I do feel that they had the tendency to feel quite bloated as they strived to become more and more epic. In comparison I find that Begins is by far the most streamlined, focused and economical of the trilogy. Like its successors it moves along at a fair pace and features a decent amount of action but I just felt that there was more room to breathe. It allowed the actors to flesh out their characters and have conversations which actually aided in that, as opposed to just being huge dumps of exposition. I felt that TDKR was particularly guilty of this. It tried to cram in so much story that so many issues were either glossed over, forgotten about or dealt with in the most simplistic and quickest of ways (Levitt's character knows Bruce Wayne is Batman because he can see it in his face? Really? ) I think that in general the writing on this film is just a lot tighter in terms of both the storyline and the dialogue. The interactions that Bruce has with other characters are better written and carry more of a purpose than in the following films. So often in the sequels it felt like the conversations where merely there to move the film and the character along and that the words could have came from anyone. But here I felt that Bruce had some great character moments with just about everyone - Alfred, Lucius Fox, Ducard, Gordon etc. Moments such as the first time Bruce visits Gordon in his office, when Alfred asks Bruce “why do we fall” as his home burns to the ground around him, all of his discussions with Ducard up in the mountains which create depth and build Bruce's character etc.

I think the writing was stronger in regards to the characters it creates. It makes the motivations for the characters a lot more clear; Bruce has to overcome his fear to become a defender of the city, as Batman he has to overcome his desire for vengeance to become the defender the city needs, Ra's al Ghul wants to wipe out Gotham and its extremes of decadence etc. In comparison I found the plans of Bane and the Joker to be more convoluted and confusing. I also felt that their actions matched their characters; quite often in the later films I felt that characters were just doing stuff out of character and for dramatic effect. The origins of the character are really well established. Along with showing us how the suit and the Batmobile come to light the film shows us who Bruce is and what it is that drives him. I also like how Batman seems to rely on his wits and intelligence a bit more in this film, alluding to the detective side of his persona, as opposed to the constant use of fists and gadgets in the sequels. The film not only introduces us to the real Bruce Wayne but to both the Dark Knight he becomes and the playboy facade that he creates to help mask his secret identity. One of my main problems with the writing of the sequels, particularly TDKR, was the amount of gaping plot holes. If I'm going to be honest however Batman Begins has a whopper of its own. While the central idea of the fear toxin in the water is interesting it makes no sense whatsoever. The bad guys have been introducing the fear toxin into the water for weeks in preparation for it being activated by the microwave emitter which will turn the toxin into a steam that will go airborne. So why in those weeks is no one affected when they boil their kettle or have a hot shower? And the film completely glosses over the fact that most of the human body is made of water, but the emitter has absolutely no effect on the people when it is set off. Unlike in the sequels however I loved everything else about this film so much that I can overlook and forgive the film for that.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film's title went through a number of changes. Initially it was known simply as “Batman 5” before becoming “Batman: The Frightening” for a while. To help prevent script leaks the film was then titled “Intimidation Game” to throw off the public. In fact when actors were initially approached they were not told it was a Batman movie as the script they were sent carried the title of “The Intimidation Game.” Michael Caine commented that when he first saw the title he assumed the script was for some kind of gangster movie. /// Some very esteemed actors were considered for roles in the film. For the role of Henri Ducard (which eventually went to Liam Neeson) Guy Pearce and Daniel Day Lewis were considered while Viggo Mortensen was actually offered the role and turned it down. For the role of James Gordon Chris Cooper, Kurt Russell and Dennis Quaid were all considered. While when it came to the role of Dr. Crane/The Scarecrow actors under consideration were Christopher Eccleston, Ewan McGregor, Jeremy Davies and most interestingly Marilyn Manson. Laurence Fishburne was considered for the role of Lucius Fox, while Anthony Hopkins was actually offered the role of Alfred but declined. /// During the scene where Christian Bale and Liam Neeson fight on the frozen lake, both actors could hear the ice cracking beneath their feat. The next day, the ice had broken and completely melted. /// The voice that Christian Bale puts on when he becomes Batman has become very famous, or indeed infamous. And it had its problems on set as well, with Bale actually losing his voice three times during filming due to the alterations he would make in his voice. /// The role of Batman proved to be very physically demanding on Christian Bale. Following his part in The Machinist, Bale was vastly underweight (about 120 pounds) when he was under consideration for the role of Batman. After he was cast Christopher Nolan told him to go away and become as “big as you can be.” Bale underwent a 6 month dietary and exercise regime which resulted in him weighing in at 220 pounds (about 40 pounds heavier than his normal weight). This time however it was deemed that he had become too large (friends of his on the crew dubbed him 'Fatman'), and he had to then shed 20 pounds very quickly to finally get in the correct shape. Bale has described the whole experience as being an unbearable physical ordeal.

 

One of the main problems that I had with the sequels is that I was unable to warm up to Christian Bale's performance in them. While I understand that the character developed and that the longer he was around the more he carried the weight of the world upon his shoulders but he became a character that I just didn't enjoy spending time with. He just growled and moped his way through the films. And we've not even gotten on to the issue of his silly Batman voice. That was a large reason why my favourite part of TDKR was Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story thread. Here however I find Bale to be a much more charismatic and likeable presence. He comes across as a much more vulnerable and relocatable character with more restraint on the half of Bale, things which all but disappeared in the sequels. And for a little while at least he seems to actually enjoy donning the suit and has a little fun with it, as opposed to it being the burden of later films. Hell he even smiles quite a few times throughout the film. In fact the film as a whole just has so much more humour about it. It may not go to the lengths that Marvel's efforts have (most notably Iron Man, Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers) but there are quite a few laughs to be found here, just making it a much more pleasurable viewing experience for me.

Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman all give very humorous and warm showings, with the only disappointment amongst the cast being Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes. It's just a very bland performance completely lacking in any substance with every line apparently a struggle for her. Though the script doesn't help, giving the character some rather bitchy moments such as slapping Bruce and then turning him down at the end for some reason that I'm still not entirely sure on. And then there's the villains of the film. While they may have been overshadowed by Tom Hardy's Bane and especially Heath Ledger's Joker I think it should be remembered just how strong the villainous performances are in Begins. Both Neeson and Murphy are excellent. Neeson brings a great deal of strength and mystery to the role, and is helped greatly by the strong writing of his character. Initially he is set up as a mentor and surrogate father figure for Bruce before becoming his enemy, reflecting what Bruce could become if he allows his need for vengeance overwhelm him. I also thought the twist reveal of Neeson's character was well handled and really surprised me the first time I saw the film. It was a move that Nolan attempted to pull again in TDKR but that time it came off as very clumsy and unconvincing. While as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow I really loved Murphy's creepy, unhinged performance; a very charismatic showing. I also loved how the film portrayed the effects of the fear-inducing toxins that Murphy's Dr. Crane/ Scarecrow had at his disposal. Showing us the viewpoint of the affected party the picture becomes very twitchy and shaky, while some of the monstrous images the people imagine are great in their creativity. The demonic Batman is a particular highlight, being quite simply bad ass!

I think that Batman Begins may also perhaps be the strongest in terms of the action set-pieces. For a start Batman's rescue of Rachel from Arkham Asylum I thought was the best of all the vehicle-based action sequences across the trilogy. It's a thrilling sequence that sees the Tumbler flying across the rooftops of Gotham and destroying every bit of the city's infrastructure that stands in its way. I also preferred the way that the fighting scenes were presented here. The first time around I actually wasn't a fan of those scenes, finding the shaky camera and breathless editing quite irritating and tiresome. However I've come to appreciate the scenes a lot more compared to the action in the sequels, particularly being a fan of the attack at the warehouse. The stylistic choices and the hit and move strategy show us the actions of Batman from the perspective of the thugs he is attacking, showing him in a stealthy and terrifying way. Though I will admit that some of the later fights against the minions of Ra's Al Ghul are almost indecipherable thanks to the editing. I certainly think this film comes out on top when compared to the final confrontations of the sequels. In both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises I felt that after so much build-up the finales were rather disappointing and underwhelming. In TDK the tension surrounding the two bomb-laden boats I felt was a little flat and the actual fight between Batman and the Joker was really weak. These two are meant to be amongst the greatest adversaries of all time and yet their final fight lasts for about 30 seconds and its most interesting aspect were a few dogs. The film then rushes in a conclusion to the story of Harvey Dent/Two-Face whereas I think it would have been a lot more satisfying to have saved that for the 3rd film. TDKR's final battle was equally lacklustre I thought, not helped by how it was staged. In general I don't think that the hand-to-hand combat in the trilogy was all that exciting. It may have been more realistic but with just a series of elbow and knee strikes I didn't find it very dramatic. And in the fight with Bane it is presented in clear daylight and with little editing, making it seem duller and on occasion making it appear really obvious that they aren't actually hitting each other. Both just came across as lacklustre, convoluted, illogical and very anti-climactic. But in Begins I felt that the whole train sequence was a more eventful and dynamic conclusion told on a grander scale and one that carried a more emotional impact.

Conclusion - One of the iconic elements of Batman Begins is the line that Bruce's father, and later Alfred, delivers; “Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves back up.” Well after the giant fall that was the risible Batman & Robin, this film showed that Batman could get back up. And in some style. For me it's the best of all the Batman films yet to hit the big screen, perfectly capturing the tone and delivering a rollicking good time at the movies.

Avengers, The

 

Year of release

2012

 

Directed by

Joss Whedon

Written by

Joss Whedon

Starring

Robert Downey Jr.

Chris Evans

Mark Ruffalo

Chris Hemsworth

Scarlett Johansson

Tom Hiddleston

Samuel L. Jackson

 

The Avengers

     

 

Plot – The Cosmic Cube. A device of immense power. And it's just been stolen by the God of Mischief, Loki. In conjunction with the alien race, the Chitauri, he plans to pulverise and enslave the Earth. No one man can stop them. And on that day The Avengers were born – to fight foes no single hero could withstand.

First off let me say that score will in all likeliehood drop. While I'll still probably keep it around the 4.5/4.5+ level I don't think this is one of my fabled 5 out of 5 films. So why that score just now? Well because it's still fresh in my mind and I'm still in the middle of geeking out: having a nerdgasm I believe the kids are calling it these days! If I was on twitter and was tweeting my thoughts during the film it would just have been a constant fanboy stream of “OMG!”, “Awesome Hulk moment!”, “Awesome Iron Man moment!”, “Robert Downey Jr. rules!”, “Did you see that?!!!”, “Iron Man v Thor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”, “Holy **** the SHIELD Helicarrier!” and on and on. However I shall attempt to be a touch more eloquent and loquacious here.

If like me you were left with a longing to slit your wrists following Nolan's bleak, nihilistic Dark Knight then this is the prefect antithesis. It's bright, bold, colourful, funny. What a 'comic book movie' should be in my eyes. As with the best superhero movies to date (Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, X-Men First Class, Batman Begins etc) the reason this is such a roaring success is that it really does feel like a comic book brought to life. There are so many moments that if you just froze them you'd swear you were looking at a panel in a comic book

I'll be up front and admit to being a massive worshipper of the superhero, both in comic book and movie form. And as far as comic book movies go this is just about the holy grail; getting Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk etc all in one movie? Didn't think I would ever really see that. So this will be more the thoughts of a comic loving geek, than the review of a respected critic (me respected? Yeah right! ) Perhaps it won't do much to get the respect of the high brow posters on here that I strive for at times, but I always aim to be honest about my likes and dislikes.

When it comes to selecting directors and actors Marvel Studios have made some interesting and inspired choices (Downey, Favreau, Branagh, Shane Black etc) and they have made another in Joss Whedon. While it may have seemed the perfect choice to comic book geeks like myself it was still a bit of a risk. After all his top TV shows Buffy and Angel; while landmark, touchstone shows were not exactly world beaters in terms of ratings. His last two shows lasted for just 14 (Firefly) and 26 (Dollhouse) episodes respectively before being axed. And his other foray onto the big screen, Serenity, grossed just $38.9 million worldwide; coming up just short of its $39 million budget. So handing him the reigns of a $200m budgeted film still must have been a big call, and one that other studios may have balked at.

And Whedon has more than repaid their faith in him. An incredible amount of credit is due to the script he has penned. While it's never going to go down as one of the all-time classics, or be nominated for any awards, when you take into account the potential obstacles and pitfalls for me it will most likely be one of the most impressive accomplishments of the year. As well as being full of witty dialogue it performs a terrific juggling act that not only gives every character their moments to shine, but does so in a way that doesn't feel forced or shoe-horned in. It feels like they all belong and that they are all a vital element of the Avengers, they aren't just pointless additions to stoke up the fires of fanboy excitement. Whedon is able to find time to give just about every character their own arc and story; whether it be trying to find their way in a modern world (Cap), trying to prove they truly are a selfless hero (Iron Man) or trying to control the beast within (Hulk).They entertain individually but also have a number of entertaining conflicts/relationships between themselves. Captain America and Iron Man have a bit of a bickering, odd couple relationship; Tony Stark and Bruce Banner connect over their intellect and the darkness within that they are striving to control; Agent Coulson (played winningly and with great comic timing once again by Clark Gregg) has a connection to just about everyone and is instrumental in bringing them together.

Perhaps predictably the character who benefits most from Whedon's involvement is Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow. Whedon's penchant for a strong heroine allows her to shine. While the character brings over the kick-ass element she showed in Iron Man 2, there is a lot more to her this time out. She is smart, cunning and more than feels like a worthy addition to the team. So much so that she's gone from a character I wasn't all that bothered about to someone I'd really like to see get her own film. Marvel have strayed from the safe superhero ground recently with epic fantasy (Thor) and period adventure (Captain America), and I would be really intrigued to see an espionage thriller from them. Oh and as someone who's never really been overly fond of Scarlett Johansson I found her extremely sexy with her red hair and kick-ass attitude.

The acting throughout is a big success. It's quite clear that these guys feel comfortable in the characters, and have benefited greatly from already playing and learning their character in their individual movies. Downey is still excellent, pretty much a perfect fit for Stark as he throws out one caustic line after another, frequently at the expense of either Captain America or Thor. And he would arguably be the runaway star of the piece if it wasn't for the surprise of The Hulk. Of all Marvel's A-list characters he has had the toughest ride on the bigscreen, with two entries which didn't exactly set the world alight. And they are now onto their third actor in less than 10 years. And this time they seem to have struck gold. Mark Ruffalo uses his immensely affable charms to bring heart to the character of Bruce Banner, meaning that when he transforms into the rampaging green monster we still care about him. While Stark still has the wittiest lines, Hulk is able to deliver some of the film's biggest laughs. And as with Black Widow my interest is now piqued to see another Hulk film

The opening stretch of the film actually takes a little bit of time to really get going as all the individual parts of the team are assembled. I was beginning to get a little apprehensive that it just wasn't going to live up to my high expectations, but those fears were soon allayed as soon as the team starts to come together and the film moves up a few gears. From then on Whedon just delivers one thrill after another, one great moment after another. And I'm just glad cinemas are in darkness, otherwise people would likely just have seen me with a silly grin on my face for most of the film

These days it takes a lot to really stand out in the action stakes. Thanks to the incredible special effects available to seemingly anyone and their mother we've grown accustomed to cities being destroyed, whole new worlds presented to us and battles of epic scope. That's why it's such a treat to have some incredible moments of action here which still wow and astonish. It's achieved through some creative set-pieces and the fact that we care for the characters. Highlights include the early Captain America v Thor v Iron Man battle and some of the scenes aboard the Heli-carrier. However everything is overshadowed by the jaw-dropping finale set in New York as the Avengers finally unite as one to take on Loki and the alien menace, complete with some freaky metal, serpent-like monstrosities. Oh and another occasion were the special effects shine is in Iron Man's donning of his suits, just so cool.

There are some flaws of course, though they were of the expected kind really. Flaws that just come with the territory of doing an Avengers film, at least unless you go for three and a half/four hours. Trying to rope in so many characters there are always going to be those that are sacrificed, and in this case Hawkeye is arguably that sacrifice. Under Loki's spell he is sidelined for a large portion of the film, though even he is able to recover towards the film's climax and ooze a bad ass charisma. Another complaint you could level at the film is the actual plot which is amongst the most basic you are likely to see and could have come from any 12 year old comic book fan. Loki teams up with some aliens to conquer Earth and the Avengers try to stop them. That's pretty much it. And yet it doesn't really matter. It's enough to get the team together and from then on it's just a marvellous display of energy, imagination and invention; all delivered by some excellent direction from Whedon. Oh and the aliens themselves don't exactly have any depth, feeling like little more than cannon fodder for our heroes. So thankfully Tom Hiddleston continues his fine form from Thor as the villainous Loki.

Earlier on this year I remarked how the little underdog Chronicle had laid down an admirable gauntlet to the big superhero names to come. Well The Avengers has risen to that challenge and then some, and now it's over to Spidey and The Bat. After this however to those two I wish them luck, they're gonna need it.

Think I'll leave it there. I could just keep going for another while yet but I think that's more than enough, and I'm not sure how many people will even have made it this far!

Conclusion – Whedon has delivered an incredible and rousing success of a superhero flick, full of energy, colour and a clear fondness for the characters. Is it the pinnacle of comic book movies? I'm not going to say that this early on. But it is certainly up there at the peak along with the likes of Iron Man, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2. As well as being one of the best pure summer blockbusters of the century alonngside the likes of the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Star Trek

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Year of release

1976

Directed by

John Carpenter

Written by

John Carpenter

Starring

Austin Stoker

Darwin Josten

Laurie Zimmer

Tony Burton

Assault on Precinct 13

   

 

Plot - When a group of members from the vicious gang, Street Thunder, are killed by the police, the gang go on a violent spree of vengeance. After brutally killing a young girl, her father hunts down and kills the gang's leader. The man seeks refuge in a police station as the gang close in for revenge. This station however is set for closure and as a result is severely undermanned. Inside a reluctant posse is formed between a cop, a secretary and two convicts. What results is a gripping siege as the gang on the outside attempt to destroy and then storm the station, with only this unusual troupe standing in their way.

Finally got around to seeing this. As a fan of John Carpenter and cult movies in general why it took so long is a bit of a mystery. Anyway now that I have I can see just what I was missing out on.

This is a very early effort from John Carpenter, indeed it was only his second full length feature following Dark Star. As a result it's not as accomplished as some of his later work, it feels a little callow and a bit rough round the edges. In a way I actually think that's beneficial to the film however, helping to build the raw power and intensity. The same could also be said of the acting. It's certainly not the most skilled but as a result it feels quite genuine and honest. It makes the actors resemble underdogs, and that transfers to the characters, just making them more relatable in such a dreadful situation.

With no real budget, no big stars and no great ground-breaking ideas, the film is brilliant in its simplicity. This is impressively economical, taut film-making. It's a lean film that benefits greatly from a tight plot, and from Carpenter's creativity, who seems like he is just taking great joy in creating the chaos. He has laced the film with some classic, colourful dialogue; delivered an extravaganza of shattering windows and non-stop bullets and offered us some rich, lively characters; the pinnacle being convicted killer turned hero, Napoleon Wilson.

With a running time clocking in at less than 90 minutes the film doesn't have a lot of time to waste. In the opening seconds we are with a series of gang members who are gunned down by the police in a tight alley; a real case of shooting fish in a barrel. After such a blistering opening, the ensuing 20/30 minutes are actually a bit of a slow build, and slightly on the weak side. I was starting to get a little worried that this wasn't going to live up to my expectations. And then four members of the gang get into a car and everything starts to ratchet up. Driving along, one of them pulls out a rifle and catches a number of people in the crosshairs. Holding their lives in his hands it is very chilling. They then begin to stalk an ice cream van, going back and forth along the street. And then everything just explodes with a truly shocking moment. A young girl; a picture of innocence, is violently blown away by a gunshot to the chest. It's a real 'woah' moment and really shows what these guys are capable of. That was the moment that really made me sit up and take notice of this.

From there on in it is pretty much a relentless and ruthless assault on our nerves and senses, as well as the precinct. We are given brief interludes, or a touch of humour which allow us to briefly relax before the next shock or volley of ammunition come hurtling our way. The pace is frantic, the developments unpredictable, the action coming in furious bursts. Breaking from the norm is one respect however is the gunfire. While in most films it would be a deafening cacophony throughout, here Carpenter has the gang predominantly using silencers. As a result we get a unique ping from each shot, which creates a slightly offbeat, even eerie atmosphere. It all adds up to an extremely tense and suspenseful experience, amplified I think by the setting of the police station. No matter what happens we can always see the police as an escape, a reliable source of help. Well if even they are powerless against such terror what hope do we have?

Now while I like to think I can appreciate a movie score as much as the next film fan, it's only on rare occasions that I would list it amongst my absolute favourite elements of a film. Well Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those rare films. Carpenter's self penned, moody synthesised score is just a joy to behold. As a device to ramp up the tension during the siege it is an extremely effective tool. However it was the theme tune used for the opening and closing credits which was just absorbed by mind, and that I've been playing over and over ever since. There was something about it that made me feel as if I were transported to a dark, grimy video arcade; and over in the corner that tune is emanating from a side scrolling beat-em-up. But maybe that's just me! What I'm saying is that it's fantastic. Will most likely register as one of my favourite scores.

While it is quite common knowledge that the film is inspired by Howard Hawks' classic western, Rio Bravo, that's not the genre that I was most reminded of. Instead it was of a horror film, a zombie flick in particular. The way the gang members emerge from the shadows, and slowly advance upon the police station certainly evoked images of shuffling zombies closing in like a pack of wolves. Add to that the way they try and stumble in through the windows, crashing into the blinds as they do so, in an almost mindless manner. And the fact that throughout the gang members remain nameless, pretty much faceless and almost wordless, and it just builds up their surfeit of malevolence and viciousness. They are brutal and merciless; and no matter how many of them are killed more just seem to appear out of the woodwork.

Though did I just pick it up wrong or should this actually be called Assault on Precinct 9?

Conclusion - Compared to much of the other 70s fare I've been enjoying of late this certainly isn't as subtle, nuanced or cerebral. But who cares? It's fast, furious balls out fun! Despite it's meagre budget it's a film that certainly stands the test of time, and with this out there as great educational material as to how you make a riveting, thrilling action film, how is it still so much better than most recent entries in the genre? A B-movie it may be, but that doesn't mean it can't be brilliant. A film truly deserving of it's cult classic status.

Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

first viewing

 

Director - Andrew Dominick

Starring - Brad Pitt/ Casey Affleck/ Sam Rockwell

"Can’t figure it out: do you want to be like me or do you want to be me?"

Jesse James was an outlaw. A robber of trains and banks. A gang leader. And a murderer. And yet somehow many people still idolise him as a great anti-hero. An almost mythical American outlaw. This film attempts to answer the question of why this is. And it does a very good job of helping us understand it.

The main strength of the film is undoubtedly the two lead performances of Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt. Though they are playing two very different characters both give very effective showings. Brad Pitt as James proves to be one cold bastard! It's a performance that reminds me a touch of Tom Cruise's turn in Collateral; all piercing eyes and glowering stares, which he occasionally interrupts with an insincere laugh or smile. It's a character that really is flirting on the edge of sanity, seemingly ready to cross over at any point. And when the wheels come off Pitt delivers a truly terrifying, cackling laugh. For all his movie star looks and squeeky clean, nice guy image these seem to be the kind of roles that actually suit Pitt best, at least for me. Up to this the most impressed I had been with him was in Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club. Again two characters who were slightly unhinged

As good as Pitt is however, for me he is outshone by Casey Affleck. His Robert Ford is a twitchy, neurotic oddball; a bit of a weakling who at the same time comes across as quite cunning and calculating at times. It really is quite an impressively layered performance. I have to say I found myself having great empathy with the character of Robert Ford (a lot of it due to Affleck's performance), and as such found it a really quite sad, melancholic film.

Following my recent viewing of No Country for Old Men, cinematographer Roger Deakins yet again produces some truly stunning work. The landscapes and horizons he shows us are truly beautiful. They just come across as such desolate and sad places. The muted and at times washed out tones give the film the look of those old, faded photos that exist from the time of the Old West.

The film also works as an early example of celebrity. You have the charismatic and famous James, the obsessive fan in Ford and what eventually happens between the two, as the fan turns on the man who once idolised. We then see the classic 15 minutes of fame play out, the waning of celebrity. Ford goes from packing out houses where the audience rapturously applaud his actions, to being called a coward. As he himself says, “You know what I expected...applause.” The fact that Jesse is played by celebrity superstar Brad Pitt, and Ford by the relatively unknown Casey Affleck just works perfectly for it.

The psychology between James and Ford is really quite fascinating. James seems to come to the realisation that he is not long for this world. With all the enemies on his tail and even a lack of trust in those around him he knows he is a hunted man, he knows his fate. And as such it seems like he wants to be the one who engineers his death. He pokes and prods at Ford, almost encouraging him to take matters into his own hands, in a way moulding him. And then he sets up his actual death. He lays down his guns and allows himself to get shot in the back, ensuring that he would be remembered as a sympathetic martyr, and Ford a cowardly villain.

The film frequently takes on an almost dreamlike state The camera goes to soft focus, the clouds move across the sky in time lapse, the ethereal mournful score plays as the lyrical narration plays over. It all feels very fitting for a film about a man who has crossed that threshold into something of myth and legend. It all feels very meditative and languid, evoking the feel of a Terrence Mallick picture.

The film generated minuscule business at the box office and was not universally adored and I can understand why. It certainly takes its time to tell its story (or is painfully slow depending on your view ) and has a distinct lack of action when compared to many westerns, and other versions of the Jesse James story in particular. I think that actually helps to get across the idea that these killers, and Jesse especially, were able to go on and become something of a mythology. It would be hard to understand it if every five minutes you saw him blow away some helpless innocent.

Conclusion - An impressive, laudable film. Perhaps not the action-packed feature some may originally thought they'd get when they heard about Brad Pitt starring in a Western as Jesse James, but it turns out for the best. In terms of the 2008 Oscar ceremony for best film I'd have placed this second behind There Will Be Blood, but ahead of No Country for Old Men.

 

Apollo 13

 

Year of release

1995

Directed by

Ron Howard

Written by

Al Reinert

William Broyles Jr.

Starring

Tom Hanks

Kevin Bacon

Bill Paxton

Ed Harris

Gary Sinise

Apollo 13

    

 

Plot - The true story of the ill-fated Apollo 13 space mission. In 1970, NASA has scheduled its third lunar landing on the moon. The crew selected are astronauts Jim Lovell (Hanks), Ken Mattingly (Sinise) and Fred Haise (Paxton). When Mattingly is removed by the flight surgeon after being exposed to measles, he is replaced by back-up Jack Swigert (Bacon). The initial shuttle launch is successful but a mechanical fault causes an explosion which leaves their mission scrubbed and their hopes of returning home slim. Back at Mission Control, Mattingly, flight director Gene Kranz (Harris) and the ground crew pull out all the stops to ensure the men can return home. A mission which was almost completely ignored by the American public suddenly becomes the biggest story in the world.

Ron Howard brings history to life with this commendable film. The whole event is remarkably recreated, particularly taking into account the fact that there is not a single piece of documentary or archival footage to be found in Apollo 13. This is all original material. So the special effects; the models, CGI etc that go into recreating the events, especially the shuttle launch itself are highly effective. With some sweeping camerawork and a stirring piece of music it's quite a grand, triumphant scene. While to recreate the effects of zero gravity the actors were flown in an airplane which can create the sensation of being weightless for 23 seconds at a time. And with Howard really concentrating on the minutiae of the whole operation the film really does have quite a docudrama feel to it.

The acting is very solid across the board. Though as a result of what is required of the characters I didn't feel there were really any big, attention-grabbing performances. Taking its cue from the real events which unfolded they are never really asked to perform in a showy or grandstanding manner. If this were a piece of fiction I imagine that the film would have given them ample occasions to show off; characters panicking and freaking out, fights between the crew etc. So while they are admirable in their own ways it's not a great surprise that none of the cast portraying members of the shuttle crew were nominated for any awards at the time. And as a result perhaps the most impressive aspect of the acting on show is the chemistry and camaraderie that the performers build between the cabin crew. Star turn amongst them for me would still belong to Tom Hanks however. And I think that's largely down to just what a perfect piece of casting it is. To become an astronaut has got to be just about the most American of pursuits, so who better to cast than Tom Hanks; the all-American everyman, the man of the people. Also very impressive to me were Gary Sinise, Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan as Lovell's wife.

Film Trivia Snippets - NASA regulations dictate that Tom Hanks could not actually become an astronaut in real life. The maximum height for an astronaut if exactly six feet, while Tom Hanks is 6'1”. /// Due to his portrayal of Jim Lovell in the film, Tom Hanks was honoured by having an asteroid named after him; “12818 Tomhanks” /// Before Tom Hanks came on board John Travolate turned down the role of Lovell, while Brad Pitt also turned down an offer to star in the film to make Se7en instead. /// There's a scene in the film where the NASA engineers are challenged to come up with an improvised solution to a problem on the shuttle using only items that the astronauts have on board. This scene proved the inspiration for Cathy Rogers to create the TV shows Scrapheap Challenge and Junkyard Wars.

I felt that the film accomplished a few nuances rather nicely. I think it captured the boyish sense of wonder very well when it comes to space and astronauts, the moon etc. There's a great little moment just after the shuttle has been launched and they've entered zero gravity. The crew begin to remove pieces of their equipment and allow them to float around the cabin, knocking them up into the air and laughing, really taken by the whole childlike novelty of it. Another thing I felt it handled well was the apathy that quickly set in when it came to space exploration. I think I touched on this a while back when I reviewed Capricorn One, but I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly people, particularly Americans, got bored with NASA and the moon and space shuttles etc. In 1969 when man landed on the moon it was one of the biggest events the world had ever seen. And yet just one year later and the launch of Apollo 13 generated barely no interest whatsoever, at least not until it was in peril that is. In the film, even one of the employees at NASA is more interested in watching a baseball game on the TV than experiencing the adventure of the crew. After I watched and reviewed the film I had a little look around at some other reviews for the film and really loved this little bit that Roger Ebert wrote on this phenomenon of indifference - “When I was a kid, they used to predict that by the year 2000, you'd be able to go to the moon. Nobody ever thought to predict that you'd be able to, but nobody would bother.”

The film really does help you to understand just how heroic these guys were, and perhaps just how insane they were! At one point Tom Hanks' character extols the computer at NASA which “fits in one room”; a computer which probably had the same amount of power as this little laptop I'm typing away on right this moment. And then there's the makeshift, ramshackle repairs that the men have to implicate if they are to make it home alive. It's like a damn arts and craft project from primary school. To willingly volunteer to take part in such an undertaking is an incredible feat of bravery and derring-do; really pioneering stuff.

While I admired the numerous qualities of the film it struggled to really involve me to a great degree. I think the fact it's such an enclosed and contained story certainly played a part in that, giving the film quite a stuffy atmosphere. As a result the scenes set in Mission Control or at Lovell's home provide a nice break. It's also a touch on the patriotic and sentimental side of things which you'd probably expect given the subject and Howard's involvement, but it does a decent job of just about keeping it in check.

Conclusion - This is certainly a prime example of fine film-making when it comes to creating a crowd pleaser, but one that just did not quite get my juices flowing like I hoped it would. With an excellent story as its source it had the potential to be something special, but personally I just felt that it was sabotaged a touch by its sentimental side and occasionally too obvious sense of storytelling. Though I do feel I'm perhaps being a touch harsh on it. Perhaps I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I watched it. It wouldn't exactly be a rare occurrence.

Apocalypse Now

 

Year of release

1979

Directed by

Francis Ford Coppola

Written by

Francis Ford Coppola

John Milius

Michael Herr

Starring

Martin Sheen

Robert Duvall

Marlon Brando

Frederic Forrest

Apocalypse Now

    

 

Plot - Vietnam, 1969. A Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz (Brando), has gone insane in the eyes of the United States army. So concerned are they by his actions that they delegate a Special Forces officer with a covert mission - to find and assassinate Kurtz. That officer is Captain Willard (Sheen). Sent up the Nung River on a US Navy patrol boat, Willard investigates Kurtz's military history and discovers he is one of the most decorated officers in the army, making him question his mission. As Willard and the crew descend deeper and deeper into the jungle they begin to fall prey to the insanity all around them.

Apocalypse Now is an occasionally splendid, but frequently flawed film in my eyes. I guess it's pretty much what you'd expect given the struggles that occurred during its infamous production. I just felt the film had more than an occasional air of pomposity and pretentiousness. This was achieved through a mixture of things; beats on the soundtrack, the continuous narration, the ponderous pace, some forced and overwrought moments such as when a soldier lies dead as a recorded message from his mother plays telling him to watch out for bullets. I just found it to have quite a grand sense of self-congratulation.

The boat that Willard and his fellow soldiers are aboard meanders very steadily along the river towards Kurtz; and it's a suitable representation of the film's pace as whole, just meandering along. It really is quite a curiously paced film. After some thrilling sparks of action early on, more often than not the film seems content to settle into a slow trudge towards its destination. I just felt the story lacked direction, which may sound strange given its straight-ahead linear nature, but the main crux of the story didn't greatly interest me, and I failed to really engage with any of the characters. I also felt that the film didn't really tie itself to the Vietnam war in a way. I want a war film to really place me in the war its tackling and the issues that went along with it. This felt like it could have taken place during any war.

Martin Sheen I think gives a very solid performance, but I feel that he is sabotaged from giving a truly great performance by the style of the film itself; he's sent up the river if you will. He is handed an almost continuous amount of narration to deliver, meaning that on screen he is left with little more to do than glare menacingly. Some of his fellow soldiers on the boat I felt were created with some hammy performances but were generally solid. The real star for me would have to be Robert Duvall, even in his limited role. He just absolutely pops off the screen when he appears as Bill Kilgore, the terrifyingly colourful Lieutenant Colonel with a penchant for surfing, and for napalm in the morning. Considering what, and who they find at the end of the river I was left wishing that the film had just dropped us off with Kilgore; I imagine it would have made for a much more interesting and entertaining experience.

So indeed quite a few flaws, but even then it was still going along rather well. The real nail in the film's coffin however in terms of my really liking it? It's third act. Drawn out and just flat out dull. After so much build-up to meeting this apparently monstrous god of a man, what do we get? A fat, bald guy who hides in the shadows and recites poetry. It fell tremendously short of what my mind had been creating. And it was most certainly not helped by Brando's hammy mugging. The film tries to sell the repugnance of Kurtz's character with his lair. I get they were going for horrific with all the bodies dotted around the temple like buildings, but for me personally it felt pretty gaudy and pulpy. I wondered whether Sheen had been on that damn river for so long that he had ended up arriving on the set of Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I just found the whole thing to be a spectacularly underwhelming conclusion.

One place where I can have no criticism whatsoever however is in the film's visuals. The sheer scale of the canvas that Coppola told his tale on is epic, leading to some truly spectacular scenes and striking images. I can just picture Coppola's way of thinking at times - “why settle for just a few helicopters when we can have ten of them?”, “why have dozens of extras when I could have hundreds?” The ultimate culmination of this occurs during the tremendous Ride of the Valkyries sequence. Further heightening the visuals is some absolutely beautiful cinematography from Vittorio Storaro. The scenes with the boat floating down the river, the orange sun bouncing off the water with lush wilderness all around are gorgeous. And its the visuals which also prove the saving grace of that conclusion; the use of lighting is terrific, creating a cavernous setting that makes it feel like the characters are down in the very depths of hell itself. Even if the lack of lighting was merely a device to try and hide Brando's immense weight gain!

Conclusion - Overlong, self-indulgent and with a weak finale that leaves a sour taste in the mouth, I found this very far from the masterpiece that many people paint it as. In terms of numerous technical aspects (direction, editing, cinematography) however I do think that it is an exceptionally well-made film; it's just that I wasn't particularly taken with the film that ended up getting made. However some of the extraordinary visuals mean that I certainly wouldn't have a problem recommending people give it a try.