Brave

Year of release

2012

Directed by

Mark Andrews

Brenda Chapman

Steve Purcell

Written by

Mark Andrews / Brenda Chapman

Steve Purcell / Irene Mecchi

Michael Arndt

Starring

Kelly McDonald

Emma Thompson

Billy Connolly

Julie Walters

Brave

 

 

Plot – In an ancient and mythical Scotland a young and spirited princess by the name of Merida is an aspiring archer and a talented rider of horses. Desperate to fulfil these ambitions she is crushed when her mother informs her that she has to forget such pursuits, and instead marry for the good of the kingdom. When she defies her mother's wishes the fallout sends her running off into the forest. In the forest she stumbles across the domain of a witch and asks her to change her mother, thus changing Merida's destiny. The 'change' however is not at all what Merida was expecting, and now both the life of her mother and the safety of the kingdom are at risk. And now it's up to Merida to try and tidy up her own mess.

This is a pleasant if ultimately disappointing effort from the geniuses at Pixar. I just felt it failed to really capture the magic and wonder that a Pixar movie usually generates. At the film's conclusion I just couldn't shake the feeling of, “is that it?” I was just left feeling rather underwhelmed by it. I had been expecting to find a lot more action and adventure present, and was a little miffed to find a much smaller and more personal tale. Indeed it's all rather quaint. It's as if the bigwigs at Pixar came across an unfilmed script for a lost Disney film of the 40s, and they decided to make it with the use of modern technology. The story, characters and tone all feel very reminiscent of the old Disney movies I watched over and over as a kid. The only thing missing were a few big song and dance numbers. The technology really does feel about the only element which sets this aside from classic Disney fare. Following on from Cars 2 which seemed purely like a cash-in, I just hope this isn't a sign of Pixar becoming truly Disney-ised.

Were I not Scottish I think my level of enjoyment would have been even less. As a proud Scot however I viewed Brave through tartan tinted glasses and really took the Scottish elements to heart. I loved how they were able to capture and replicate the beauty of the Scottish scenery, and found myself really quite stirred by the film's score which had a very strong Scottish/celtic twang to it. I also got a massive kick out of hearing some exceedingly Scottish phrases being uttered in a big Hollywood film. Hearing insults like 'galoots', 'tumshie' and 'numpty', as well as hearing utterings of 'jings crivens help ma boab', 'jiggery pokery' and 'crivens' was probably my favourite part of the film actually. And then of course there was this little extract from a song sung by King Fergus - “we'll bile yur heed wae dumplin' breed, tae make an ursine stew!”

I'm very glad that the makers of Brave decided to go with an almost exclusively Scottish voice cast. As well as just the enjoyment I got from hearing so many genuine Scottish voices, it also means the film was able to avoid any botched attempts at the accent which would go on to become infamous examples alongside the likes of Keanu Reeves in Dracula and Brad Pitt in Devil's Own. So while I am a fan of hers I do dread to think what Reese Witherspoon, the original Merida, would have been able to come up with had she remained in the role. The cast who did feature all do a very nice job with Kelly McDonald and Billy Connolly being particular favourites of mine.

Film trivia - Some of the technology employed on Brave is astonishing. Indeed Pixar actually had to develop two additional software programs just for this film. One of the programs was required for Merida's hair to handle the 1500 separate strands it entailed, and to allow them all to move naturally in conjuncture with her movements. /// The film took six years to reach completion. Initially the film was to be directed by Brenda Chapman, with Mark Andrews acting as a consultant, providing information for the film's Scottish elements. In October 2010 however Chapman left after four years work and Andrews took over directing duties. He still kept much of Chapman's intended story and Chapman herself said she is still very proud of the finished movie as her “vision still came through.

I mentioned earlier how the film lacked the usual magic and story of Pixar. and there are a few other areas where I felt it came up short. As far as Pixar films go I found this to be amongst the least funny they've so far produced. The laughs came at a much slower rate than one would expect and I'm struggling to really remember any big laughs. I also felt it very much lacking when it came to memorable characters. Take a film like Finding Nemo for example which is just absolutely littered with them; from the main characters to the inhabitants of the aquarium and the sea turtles, all the way down to the seagulls who make such a memorable impact despite only having a single word to say - “Mine!” Yes you've got Merida with her flame haired locks and well rounded character but outside of that I didn't find much else. And after hearing much about them I found the trio of brothers disappointing, and even slightly annoying on occasion.

When I was discussing the film's Scottish elements I noted the beauty of the scenery, and the film as a whole does look astonishing. Indeed from a purely animation point of view this is right up there amongst the best ever produced. The highland landscapes are just gorgeous, the detail in Merida's flowing red locks is stunning and the action is terrific. The particular moment I'm thinking of is when Merida is out riding on her horse and shooting arrows. The movement of the horse is amazing and they were just able to create such energy and life in these shots. Another highlight of the film would be the character of Merida herself. For an animated film, even those of Pixar's quality, she really is an impressively rounded and fleshed out character. A character who has both good and bad qualities to her personality.

What I was probably most disappointed in is that the film just didn't live up to its own billing. It may be titled Brave but I certainly wouldn't describe it as such. It feels like a very safe venture for Pixar, especially when you consider the kind of ground-breaking and visionary work they have produced in the past. Through a combination of me being a huge fan of Pixar and my Scottish roots, I had been following the progress of this film ever since I initially heard about it (back when it was called The Bear and the Bow) and was very sad to find it didn't meet my high expectations of it.

Oh and the accompanying short was quite delightful. Titled La Luna it doesn't feature any recognisable words with the characters communicating only through grunts and gestures. It follows the more surreal and creative bent that some of the shorts have taken of late and is just a really sweet, touching little effort.

Conclusion – While it doesn't sound out the creative demise of Pixar it certainly isn't a shining beacon of hope that Cars 2 was a rare slip. Their next film, Monsters University, now has more scrutiny and pressure on it than perhaps any Pixar film ever has before. They need to deliver and prove they are still amongst the best creative forces that Hollywood has to offer. This is a nice film but one that I don't really see lingering long in the memory. The Scottish elements, even if they did go a little Brigadoon at times, certainly helped for me personally. Without them I'm not how much there would have been here for me.

Boys from Brazil, The

Year of release

1978

Directed by

Franklin J. Shaffner

Written by

Heywood Gould (script)

Ira Levin (novel)

Starring

Laurence Olivier

Gregory Peck

James Mason

Lilli Palmer

Ula Hagen

The Boys from Brazil

 

Plot - In the setting of 1970s South America, a notorious Nazi War criminal, Dr. Josef Mengele, gathers a group of former Nazis to work on a covert project to establish a Fourth Reich. But when famed Nazi-hunter Ezra Lieberman is enlightened to Mengele's bone-chilling scheme--to clone 94 young Hitlers and cause horror on a global scale--he attempts to unravel the conspiracy.

Look at that plot. I mean really look at it! Creating 94 Hitler clones? Surely that's a plot that belongs to a trashy 1950s B-movie. And yet somehow the project was able to attract such considerable and acclaimed talents as Laurence Olivier, Gregory Peck, James Mason and eh...Steve Guttenberg....Huh....Ok we lost steam a touch there but we'll carry on. What is quite interesting is that the film chooses to treat this silly, ludicrous concept with such seriousness. It's a losing battle right from the start but as a result I found myself almost getting behind it, willing it on.

While it's unlikely that either Peck or Olivier would have been placing this near the top of their CV, they both do pretty well, and bring a credibility to proceedings that the film doesn't really deserve. Their performances may be a bit pulpy and hammy, but they're quite effective and each has individual moments where they show their talent. Peck barks and smirks as the truly despicable Dr Mengele, while Olivier brings a touch of quiet dignity to the role of Nazi hunter, Ezra Lieberman. Considering the material they're dealing with they both give fairly admirable showings. Though how Olivier was nominated for an Oscar, and Peck for a Golden Globe seems like a bit of a stretch.

To be honest Mengele's grand plan of great genius seems a bit thin and illogical. Are we really to believe that just by recreating some of the same circumstances he is going to get a whole series of Hitlers? Even Bond villians have more realistic ambitions when it comes to their plans for world domination.

It looks like the film had a decent budget as there are some successes in the technical departments. The cinematography is quite impressive, giving a nice gloss to some interesting locations in the globe spanning story. The most striking perhaps being when a murder takes place at a monstrous dam in Sweden. And some of the directing is quite satisfying, able to create a few moments of real suspense and creepiness. And credit to the film for at least taking a reasonable, and I believe accurate angle on the science of cloning.

There are a few moments that are just so ridiculous that they really do create instances of unintentional humour. The main culprit perhaps taking place during a Nazi dance where Mengele attacks a man he believes to be a traitor, sending him crashing through a table of food, before telling the supposed traitor's wife to “shut up you ugly bitch.” This and other moments really do bring out the camp elements of the ridiculous story and over the top characters.

For such a terrifically high concept premise there is actually not a great deal going on for large stretches. Without the 'accidents' that befall the numerous old men my interest would definitely have been waning as for a good hour or so we just go back and forth between Peck cooking up his dastardly plan, and Olivier investigating and attempting to scupper them. And the fact that it takes Lieberman so long to figure it out, a long while after we already have, hurts the momentum. It's only when the two screen legends come face to face in an electric meeting does the film really start to deliver, and provide the excitement we're looking for. After they are hampered by that most formulaic of scenes where Peck pretty much tells Olivier “I'm going to kill you now, so I can tell you all of my plans.”, we get a brutal fight that is dirty and bloody.

Conclusion - It's not a great piece of film-making, or indeed a particularly 'good' film. You will likely guffaw and roll your eyes at it. However, as a daft guilty pleasure it is just about able to scrape a passing grade.

Black Swan

Year of release

2010

Directed by

Darren Aronofsky

Written by

Mark Heyman (script)

John McLaughlin (script)

Andres Heinz (story and script))

Starring

Natalie Portman

Mila Kunis

Vincent Cassel

Barbara Hershey

Winona Ryder

Black Swan

 

Plot - Nina Sayers (Portman) is a ballet dancer striving to win the lead role in a new production of Swan Lake. The director (Cassel) sees her as the perfect fit for the white swan, but wonders about her ability to portray the black swan. Under the domineering power of her mother (Hershey), and with competiton from new dancer Lily (Kunis), Nina attempts to channel the darker character elements of the black swan, but with detrimental impact to her mental wellbeing.

A few years ago on another forum (not a movie one) there was a topic with the title 'Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis lesbian film.' And in it a bunch of guys were salivating over the thoughts of it, and already praising Aronofsky as a legend/hero/God. Sadly that board closed down but I would have loved to read the reaction of those same people. While there may be one scene that matches the dreams they were forging, the package that surrounds it probably isn't what most of them were imagining.

I found this to be a strangely hypnotic viewing experience. I had actually only planned on watching the first 30/45 minutes, finishing it the next day. However I got so caught up in it that I ended up staying up into the wee small hours to watch the whole thing. Despite its prominence in the story this is not really a 'ballet movie'. The ballet just acts as the background for a story of a psychological breakdown, feeling reminiscent of my recent Take Shelter viewing. It's an exhilaratingly intense and wildly melodramatic production, certainly one that makes an impression and is unlikely to leave my memory anytime soon.

You could throw many labels at this film; 'subtle' however would not be one of them. Aronofsky's style is not that of a shrinking violet, coming across as very in your face. His constant use of mirrors (it feels like there is a least one in every single scene) is a rather predictable motif, and one that is certainly drummed into our minds. Its tremendous overuse ensures that it's unlikely to be missed by anyone. Metaphors are laid on very thick throughout, with the melding of both worlds being very obvious as the similarities between Nina's life and the story of Swan Lake begin to pile up. Indeed when she's in a bar relaying the plot of the ballet to a potential suitor, she pretty much telegraphs the remaining details of the story, including its finale.

In many ways the film actually felt very much like one of the classic Grimm fairytales. Despite some fantastical and fanciful elements, and moments of beauty, they are established in amongst a sinister and haunting atmosphere. With its phantasmal and chimerical nature we really do find ourselves placed firmly within the mind of Nina. Luckily I'm not one who is prone to nightmares. The few I have had in my life however really did quite resemble this film. They were fractured, disjointed, irrational and nonsensical.

While there is much to find odd and unsettling about the film, for me it was none more so than in the rather creepy mother/daughter relationship between Portman's Nina, and her former ballerina mother, Erica. Their interaction is that of a mother and a much younger little girl. The mother controls and suffocates her, while Nina speaks in such a young and submissive demeanour, even calling her 'mommy.' This apparent youth is also highlighted by Nina's bedroom. With its fluffy animals and wallpaper of pink hearts it feels like it hasn't been altered since she was about seven years old. She seems trapped by her mother's obsession and constant control. That along with her obsessive love of ballet and quest for perfection have created limits for the character in terms of emotions, sexuality and her mental acuity. It actually makes for a fun contrast with Leon were she played a young girl with emotions and thoughts well beyond her age.

After having such acclaim heaped on her I was initially underwhelmed by Portman's performance, even verging on finding her faintly annoying, particularly her mousy little voice. I was starting to wonder what all the fuss was about, and then her breakdown begins to intensify and she starts her transformation. From then on I was just completely hooked and mesmerised by her. It's a truly bravura performance as her innocence and virginal appeal give way to the Black Swan's darker traits and characteristics which bleed from the stage into her real life. The closer she gets to the perfection she craves, the faster her sanity ebbs away until she completes her transformation, in the process reaching her 'perfection.'

As her counterbalance Mila Kunis is the perfect embodiment of the Black Swan, delivering a truly sensual and edgy character. And doing so with the kind of ease and natural disposition that her character is attributed with in ballet terms. After hearing so much about their performances however the one that pleasantly surprised and intrigued me was Vincent Cassel's turn as the director, Thomas Leroy. He is a terrifically domineering and wonderfully arrogant presence. It was also a nice surprise and a treat when Winona Ryder popped up.

While you could put up a decent argument that Aronofsky's direction verges into some overwrought and pretentious territory, there is also much to admire and be supremely struck by. The camerawork in particular is impressive and effective. It frequently finds itself very tight to Portman; following in her footsteps, creating a very claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere that reflects her own obsession and deteriorating mindset. And the way that the camera swoops along with each ballet movement gives the dance scenes a great deal of life and energy, and in turn beauty. Visually the film is stunning. The art direction and cinematography make for a lush environment. More successful a motif than the abundance of mirrors is the use of colour, with an affluent amount of blacks, greys and whites dominating the screen. This goes for the surroundings as well as the fashion, with Nina's clothes moving from white to black by way of grey.

It's certainly not a perfect film. The story isn't all that original, with a number of clichés kicking about. The film is a bit gauche and overly pulpy, at times descending too deep into horror territory, all lead by Aronofsky's somewhat dogmatic and peremptory direction. It would also have been nice if they had kept a little doubt about Nina's mental state. Right from the off it's made clear that it's all as a result of her mental deterioration, and nothing to do with Mila Kunis' character sabotaging her. However, none of this was close to enough to put me off.

I was in a bit of a quandary over the rating to award this film. It's the type of film were I feel I could really do with a repeat viewing to fully get a grasp of it and cement my opinion, but at the same time I'm not sure its a film I'd be in much of a hurry to revisit all that soon, or indeed that often. With its dark tone and macabre visuals, and its concept of having to destroy yourself to make art I wouldn't class it as fun viewing. While I perhaps wouldn't go as far as calling it a tough watch, it certainly isn't an easy one. My score was fluctuating; at times it was both higher and lower than the end product, but I settled on a solid 8.5, but certaily with the potential to grow.

Conclusion - A film of nightmarish beauty, full of striking images and led by a stunning, powerhouse showing from Portman. It's clear to see why it proved to be quite a polarizing film, it's certainly not for everyone. But it was for me.

Big

Year of release

1988

Directed by

Penny Marshall

Written by

Gary Ross

Anne Spielberg

Starring

Tom Hanks

David Moscow

Elizabeth Perkins

Jared Rushton

Robert Loggia

John Heard

Big

 

Plot - 12 year old Josh Baskin (Moscow) is embarrassed at a carnival when in front of the girl he has a crush on he is refused entry on to a ride. Stumbling across an old fortune telling Zoltar machine, Josh makes a wish to be big. When he wakes up the next morning his wish has been fulfilled, but not quite as he imagined. When Josh looks in the mirror he now finds that he is a fully-grown 30 year old man (Hanks). Unable to explain this fantastical transformation to his mother he runs away from home, leaving his mum to believe that he has been kidnapped. With the help of his best friend Billy (Rushton) the now adult Josh heads to the city to try and locate the same Zoltar machine so he can undo his wish. Facing a six week wait before he can discover its whereabouts Josh gets a job at a toy company which fully utilises his childish sense of play and embarks upon a life in the adult world, including his first romantic encounter with a co-worker, Susan (Perkins).

I think that Big is one the most feel-good and joyous films I've ever had the privilege to see. An ode to the joys of being a kid, and of holding onto that side of yourself for as long as possible, I think it's just delightful stuff as a fantastical occurrence kicks off a funny, sweet and touching journey. The body-swap angle is a storyline that has been done many times before, and will most likely continue to be done but I think this is definitely the best one out there, no other rival capturing such warmth, humour and tenderness.

A large part of the film's success most certainly rests upon the shoulders of Tom Hank's wonderful performance. It may not be as revered or award-worthy a performance as he delivered in the likes of Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump or Philadelphia but I think this certainly deserves to be counted alongside them as one of his absolute best performances. You could even argue that he has never been better than he is here. He gives such a wonderfully natural and endearing performance as he perfectly captures what he meant to be a kid; the excitement, the joy, the naivety, the innocence, the uncertainty and occasionally the growing pains of being a 12 year old kid. It just reminds you how wonderful it was to be that age. And sometimes how awful.

Film Trivia - Tom Hanks' immense likeability makes him seem like an obvious choice for the role but it was turned down by numerous actors before the role eventually found its way to him; and some of them are extremely surprising. John Travolta was the first choice of Penny Marshall and wanted to do it, but the studio considered him box office poison at the time. Harrison Ford and Albert Brooks were both offered the role but turned it down; could perhaps see them. Here's where we get to actors that I'm personally struggling to picture in the role. When it looked like Tom Hanks was going to be unavailable due to his schedule, the role was then offered to Robert de Niro! But they were unwilling to meet his salary demands. Oh and Gary Busey auditioned for the part!

And I think people tend to forget these days what a great comedic actor Hanks was and still is. For many people he may now be associated with serious Oscar winning fare like the films mentioned above, but throughout the 80s he was one of the go-to actors for comedies. And this is him at his absolute peak. Even in this light-hearted fantasy however he still has occasion to showcase a more serious and emotional side, such as the moment where he spends his first night away from home in a rundown hotel. With shouting in the halls outside his room, and gunshots on the streets below, he displays a wonderful sense of childlike fear. He also handles the relationship with Perkins' Susan very well, wavering between the giddiness a 12 year old would feel in such a situation but also the uncertainty and insecurity. In fact I just love his innocence and clueless nature throughout when it comes to living in an adult world. There's a great little moment where a co-worker, played by Jon Lovitz, points out a sexy female employee and tells him that if he says hello to her she will “wrap her legs around you until you beg for mercy." Josh's innocent reply? "Well, I'll be sure to stay away from her then."

It's got some great scenes throughout, none more so than the classic instance where Hanks and Robert Loggia bring a large toy store to a standstill with their renditions of “Chopsticks” and “Heart and Soul” by dancing on a large-scale piano. It's really quite a simple little scene, but I've rarely come across a scene that is more purely joyous. Like that scene the whole film is just so much fun. And while the romance between Hanks and Perkins is actually rather weird and disturbing if you stop to think about it, it actually turns out to be quite a sweet, tender and touching relationship. A relationship that allows Josh to grow up, but also allows Susan to regain a sense of fun and wonder that she had lost in her life. The moment where she gives in to Josh's encouragement and bounces wildly on a trampoline with gay abandon is another lovely scene. Perkins conveys the change in Susan in a believable manner, and makes us feel that it's perfectly understandable that she would fall for Josh. She really helps to ground the fantasy and make the whole thing feel convincing. There are also a couple of nice, lively performances to be found from child actors David Moscow and Jared Rushton, as young Josh and his best friend Billy respectively.

Given its premise the film is actually a more subtle and intelligent effort than you might expect. And that certainly proves to be the case when compared with similar body-swap films such as Vice Versa and Like Father, Like Son which frequently took a broader and more slapstick approach to the material. The excellent script, penned by Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg, never overplays anything. As well as not going so broad with the comedy the film avoids the pitfall of being overly sentimental with the material. Yes it's sweet, charming and even quite touching but they are able to maintain the balance perfectly. The film could easily have become a cheesefest but the script, and Penny Marshall's restrained, subtle direction ensure that it remains mature and intelligent work. She allows us to see the world through the eyes of a child but without it feeling trite or condescending.

Conclusion - Just a big warm-hearted hug of a movie. It's an utterly enchanting experience of laughs, sweetness, wit and sensitivity; one that makes you just want to break out your old childhood toys at its conclusion. While you could perhaps accuse the film of being quite flawed as concerns the whole kidnapping angle; for what it is, I think Big is just about a perfect movie. Oh and I actually just stumbled across a Zoltar machine very recently, and was so giddy with the biggest of grins on my face. Sadly I didn't have any change on me at the time but next time!

Behind the Candelabra

 

Year of release

2013

Directed by

Steven Soderbergh

Written by

Richard LaGravenese

Scott Thorson

Starring

Michael Douglas

Matt Damon

Dan Aykroyd

Rob Lowe

Scott Bakula

Debbie Reynolds

Behind the Candelabra

 

Plot - Based on Scott Thorson's autobiography the film details the relationship that develops between Thorson (Damon) and the flamboyant pianist Liberace (Douglas). Swaddled in wealth and excess, Scott and Liberace have a long affair, one that eventually Scott begins to find suffocating. Kept away from the outside world by the flashily effeminate yet deeply closeted Liberace, and submitting to extreme makeovers and even plastic surgery at the behest of his lover, Scott eventually rebels. When Liberace finds himself a new lover, Scott is tossed on the street. He then seeks legal redress for what he feels he has lost. But throughout, the bond between the young man and the star never completely tears.

Last month Behind the Candelabra was the toast of the Creative Emmys, taking home a total of 8 awards. And I'm not at all surprised. With the Creative Emmys focusing mainly on the more technical and behind the scenes elements that go into creating work on television it's easy to see why they were so taken with this film. Visually it truly is absolutely stunning to look at. With Liberace's warbrobe as their blueprint I imagine that the costume department had the absolute highpoint of their career attempting to recreate his iconic style and do it justice. And do it justice they do! The outfits that are draped over Douglas are fabulous; a luscious concoction of sequins, diamonds and furs. A while back when I reviewed Moulin Rouge I dubbed Baz Luhrmann the 'master of sequin porn.' Well following this film Steven Soderbergh may have a decent claim to that throne. In addition to the wardrobe department, also rewarded at the Emmys and very deservedly so was the film's art direction. It is just glorious, particularly in the case of the lavish set design that aims to recreate the astonishing furnishings that Liberace surrounded himself with across his three homes. Adorned in what Liberace describes as 'palatial kitsch' it is a dizzying collection of gaudy furniture, glittering décor, candelabra themed trinkets and a series of ego-stroking self-portraits. There have been very few sets that I wish I could visit in real-life more than Liberace's homes in this film; they are just bursting at the seams with so many delightful touches and hidden details.

And while the sets do succeed greatly in terms of being visually interesting, that is not their only purpose. As well as helping to build Liberace's character they also play an important part in a later aspect of the film. The longer their relationship continues the more possessive Liberace becomes of Scott, seeming to treat him more like a possession than a lover. Liberace's homes, so jam-packed with clutter, act as a representative of the suffocating nature that Scott begins to feel in the relationship. Another extremely impressive element is the make-up that is on show. It particularly stands out when it comes to depicting the after effects of the plastic surgery that plays a large part in the film, turning Damon and Douglas into creatures resembling living waxworks. Especially noteworthy is the job done on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon. His face is so pulled back that it seems certain that at any moment its going to snap, turning his face inside out.

With all that glitz and glamour on show in the technical departments you might expect Behind the Candelabra to fall into the trap of being more style than substance. That is certainly not the case however. As well as being a portrait of a unique romance (which I'll get to later) the film is also a real examination of celebrity. To start with you have the notion of celebrity worship. When Scott first sees Liberace up on stage, displaying his immense talent and adorned with an outfit the likes of which Scott has never seen before, he is utterly transfixed. When he meets the man it's like he's in a trance, and when he attempts to converse with him he is constantly stammering and stumbling over his words. In his eyes, and in the eyes of many, celebrities are not like the rest of us. They are on another, somehow unattainable level to us for many people. The way that Damon's eyes sparkle when he first sees him is incredible. Through Liberace's outlandish actions we are also presented with an example of the preposterous nature and the vanity so often associated with celebrities. Not only does Liberace go to ridiculous lengths with plastic surgery to keep himself looking young, but he insists upon it for Scott as well. More than that though he wants his plastic surgeon (the scene-stealing Rob Lowe) to make Scott look like a young Liberace! Talk about your ego trips. Essentially he wants to have sex with someone who looks exactly like himself. In addition to the aforementioned absurd homes that he keeps, this certainly marks him out as quite a unique individual.

Film Trivia Snippets - One of the most impressive aspects of the film is the realisation of Liberace's Las Vegas mansion. While the interior design is down to the incredible art design the mansion itself that they filmed in is the Los Angeles home of Zsa Zsa Gabor. /// In Scott Thorson's book “Behind the Candelabra” he noted that “In celebrity-saturated Palm Springs only two stars...took the trouble to pay their last respects" at Liberace's memorial service. One was the actress Charlene Tilton, and coincidentally the other was Kirk Douglas, father to Michael Douglas (who in case you haven't been paying attention plays Liberace in this film! ) /// The film had actually been in development for quite a few years before finally going into procution. It originally went into development in the early 2000s with Philip Kaufman set to direct and Robin Williams attached to take on the role of Liberace. /// In the film Liberace's mother, Francis, is played by Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds actually had first hand knowledge of the story and its characters because she had been a very close friend of Liberace and actually knew both Scott Throson and Francis Liberace. She was said to be thrilled to take on the role as she was very familiar with Francis' peculiar dialect.

 

Through a combination of Liberace's flamboyant nature, and the numerous trailers and clips advertising the film which routinely focused on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon being asked to make Matt Damon's character look like Liberace, I was expecting a much more fun and breezy experience that had a greater comedy quotient. With the film not being a full-on biopic however, instead focusing on the brief period in Liberace's life outlined in Scott Thorson's autobiography, what we essentially get is a relationship drama. And occasionally quite a dark one at that. It's such an intimate and personal insight into their relationship that it is actually quite uncomfortable to watch at times. You feel like you're intruding on something very personal and that should back out of the room. The film charts the highs and lows of the relationship, from the couple being gloriously happy to it getting quite nasty and confrontational. It actually reminded me of several stand-up comedians who have done bits on gay marriage and how they hope it happens because what they are really looking forward to is gay divorce and how bitchy that is going to be. I have yet to see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but from what I know of it I don't imagine that this would be a million miles away from acting like the gay equivalent of that story. It's a story of two individuals who did, and in some ways still do love each other at film's end, but who have completely poisoned each other and in turn destroyed their relationship. It turns into a real game of love and hate, complete with gloriously catty dialogue and more bitchy glances than you're likely to have ever seen on screen before. While I think it would be an exaggeration to say that after a while you forget that the romance you're watching is between two men, I don't think that the relationship we are presented with is overtly homosexual. It doesn't ever really feel like you are watching the facets of a predominantly gay relationship, so much as just a relationship pure and simple. There is also quite a disturbing element to their relationship, beyond even the strange implications brought around by Scott's bizarre plastic surgery. Both men consider their relationship at least in part be that of a father and son, with plans made for Liberace to actually adopt Scott, creating a creepily incestuous dynamic.

There are two elements which really make this film. The first as I've already discussed is its superlative production design. The other can be found in the performances of its two fine leading men. Michael Douglas has made a career of playing very tough, macho characters. By taking this role on however he made the ballsy move to completely eschew that image, instead immersing himself in the role of the highly camp, flamboyant showman that Liberace was. Liberace is a very interesting character and as such breeds a very interesting performance from Douglas. While at times the character is undoubtedly entertaining in a charismatic, larger-than-life fashion there are also many other sides to his character which are rather unsavoury. Throughout the brief spell of his life that the film covers we see that when it comes to relationships his life really is a revolving door of young men; when his current beau becomes too old or he simply becomes bored of them a new man finds their way into his home with a disturbing fine line between romance and employment present. There really is quite a reptilian and predatorial aspect to his character while we also see his very dominating and suffocating treatment of Scott. So I think it would be very easy to be disgusted by the character except that Douglas plays the character with a real sensitivity which makes him strangely sympathetic. While I had almost zero exposure to the real Liberace before this film he also seems to do a great job at capturing the man's mannerisms and voice. As great as Douglas is however, I'm not sure that his is the performance that I most enjoyed here. In a way his job is a touch easier than Damon's because he is gifted with so many colourful characteristics to help build his character - the flamboyant costumes, some delightfully campy dialogue, his larger-than-life personality etc. Damon doesn't have these facets to fall back on however but still delivers a wonderful performance; proving once again why I believe him to be one of the best and most dependable actors currently working today. I think it would have been easy to right his character off as being dim and deserving of everything he gets but Damon imbues the character with a sense of vulnerable naivety, convincing us that he is just completely out of his depth in such a lifestyle.

Film Trivia Snippets - The New York Times reported in May 2013 that Scott Thorson received close to $100,000 for his participation with the movie, and that he spent every penny of it “in about two months, mostly on cars and jewelry.” /// Costume designed Ellen Mirojnick and her team had to reproduce a large number of Liberace's iconic stage outfits for this film. These included a copy of Liberace's 16 foot long white virgin fox fur coat, which though made of synthetic fur was nonetheless studded with $100,000 worth of Austrian crystal just like the real one. The originals were too valuable to alter to fit star Michael Douglas and were used only as set dressing for Liberace's walk-in closet. Many were also extremely heavy due to the large quantities of rhinestones; each original suit weighted upwards of 60 lbs. /// Scott Thorson, played here by the 42-year-old Matt Damon, was in reality a mere 17 years old when he first met Liberace and just 23 when their relationship ended.

 

Damon and Douglas are also backed-up by a strong supporting cast that includes Dan Aykroyd, Rob Lowe, Scott Bakula and Debbie Reynolds. As a huge Quantum Leap fan I was particularly buoyed by Bakula's involvement. While they all contribute to the film it really is all about the two men at its core. And I think they have to be commended on their bravery for taking on their respective roles. Obviously you have the 'gay element' which however sad it may be does mean that they will be sacrificing popularity and respectability in the eyes of some small minded individuals. Even outside of that however I think it was quite a risky move to star in this film because I think it could very easily have turned out to be quite disastrous. Considering the story and its characters I think the film could have remained funny and very campy, but for negative reasons; I think it could have achieved them unintentionally. Both actors also really put themselves out there in terms of the film's sexuality and revealing nature. Damon and Douglas frequently kiss throughout the film, and it's never hidden by editing or blocking; perhaps a large part of the reason why it was considered 'too gay' for American audiences. While Damon is seen throughout the film in nothing but a skimpy speedo. I have no doubt that Soderbergh's involvement was a large part of what convinced both men to participate. Both characters could very easily have become little more than caricatures but thanks to the great script and the two excellent performances this is not the case.

With its relatively small budget Behind the Candelabra can very occasionally look a little bit cheap and on the TV drama side, but in general Soderbergh's assured direction papers over these issues and there really are very few other flaws to be found here. On just the occasional instance I perhaps felt that some scenes detailing the relationship were unnecessary and could have done with a little trimming. They could maybe have done with some of the plastic surgery that the characters indulge in; a little nip/tuck, some liposuction etc but that's about it on the flawed side of things. For whatever reason however the film just didn't excite me quite as much as I hoped.

I talked earlier on about the aspects of celebrity that the film covers, and there's one more facet to it. And it's actually proves to be quite an ironic, and indeed rather sad little twist that occurs. Throughout the film we see Liberace's constant attempts at hiding his homosexuality for fear of the damage it would do to his career if the truth were to come out. Taking place some 30+ years ago we can understand this and would like to think that it is something that has been consigned to that time. How sadly ironic it is then that all these years later Behind the Candelabra was unable to get a cinema release in America because studios deemed it as being 'too gay.' Between this and the current furore over gay marriage it makes for a sad statement on the ongoing sentiments towards gay people that still exist for many people. Very disheartening.

Conclusion - I feel that I'm being really rather harsh on Behind the Candelabra in respects to the score I've given it as there really is very little I can criticise it for. It's just that I didn't come away enjoying it as much as I expected. Though I do feel that a large part of the reason is that my expectations for the film turned out to be a touch off (created a slight disappointment), and now knowing what the film is I wouldn't be surprised if I was more significantly more taken with it on a repeat viewing. And certainly the film's excellent production design and performances mean that I would have no trouble recommending it as a worthwhile watch to anyone.

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.