#47: The Dark Knight (2008) July 20, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, Sci-fi, Christopher Nolan, 5 stars, 2000s, 2008, superhero films , add a comment2008 | Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
The Dark Knight — the sixth film in the modern Batman series (though not connected to the first four) — comes with a heavy weight of expectation on its back. It’s the sequel to the last film, Batman Begins, which relaunched the flailing series in style and is one of the best comic book movies ever — so Nolan and co had to top that. There was Heath Ledger’s death, a sad accident that has heaped extra focus on his penultimate performance here (his final one, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, is currently in post-production with no release date) — especially as some sources cited his appropriation of the Joker’s mindset as related to his death. And then there were the trailers too, which caused ridiculous levels of excitement among some — personally, I found them a tad lacking. But I was fairly confident that, a bit like Begins, The Dark Knight would turn out to be the sort of film that doesn’t necessarily trail all that well but is excellent when seen.
And I was right. In this respect, it’s because the action sequences aren’t the point of the film. They occur when required by the story, while still being well-spaced and appropriately exciting, rather than serving as check-boxes for a plot designed primarily to link them together — the latter being what most blockbusters seem to settle for these days. Many are pleasantly old-school in style, the stunts performed largely for real, and at least one major example is even left without music. On the odd occasion when effects must have been used, they’re seamlessly achieved. The most obvious use of CGI — which I won’t describe for the sake of spoilers, though many will already know about — is incredibly well done. All of this helps ground the film in a perhaps-surprising (for some) degree of reality, one that goes far beyond what other ‘realistic’ superhero movies have strived for.
In fact, this realism is probably The Dark Knight’s main strength. Obviously there’s never going to be a real city where a billionaire dressed in bat-inspired armour protects the populace from a deranged man in clown make-up, but if there were then this is how it would be. Where Burton’s two Bat-films were “dark”, and Schumacher’s were “gaudy” (or “crap”), Nolan’s pair are “real”. It’s an excellent thriller as well as everything else. The focus of the plot — at least at first — is on the mob and their control over Gotham, and it’s from their criminal desires — plus the very existence of Batman — that the Joker grows. Ledger’s performance is as outstanding as you’ll have heard said elsewhere, and while it still feels like a supporting role it receives more attention than the psychology of Bruce Wayne/Batman — which, considering that’s what Batman Begins focused on, seems fair enough. Every other performance is equally as flawless (I’ll name names in a moment), but it’s Ledger’s disturbing, engrossing turn that will stay with you. He is the Joker, in a way Jack Nicholson certainly never was, and — among obviously more upsetting effects of his premature death — the fact we’ll never see him in a rematch is a huge shame.
As Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart’s role is much larger than I was expecting. The floating-head posters that seemed to divide the film between him, the Joker and Batman are spot on — they’re the three central characters, everything revolves around them, their actions, choices, and emotions. While Ledger may dominate with his (appropriate) theatricality, Eckhart is more the heart of the film, with a genuinely tragic story. Viewed in this light, the order of the film’s final scenes — which I think some may see as incorrectly balanced, perhaps even anticlimactic — make all the more sense. However, I don’t mean to undersell the rest of the cast by highlighting Ledger and Eckhart — in their supporting parts, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and especially Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman, all do brilliant work. The talented Christian Bale manages to hold his own as the ambiguously heroic crimefighter, even against the more obviously attention-grabbing performances of Ledger and Eckhart.
As with other superior superhero sequels like X2 or Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight uses the groundwork of its successful predecessor to craft an experience that’s even greater. In fact, there’s an awful lot more that could be said about the qualities of The Dark Knight. At two-and-a-half hours, it’s a packed epic of a movie — which makes Nolan’s confident juggling of plot threads, character development, several large performances, action sequences, and more, all the more impressive. I certainly enjoyed seeing it with a large, American (importantly), opening-weekend crowd — several moments produced whoops and sustained applause from the audience, as well as a good number of well-deserved laughs.
The Dark Knight is great entertainment, with a good deal of meat on its bones too — the performances and emotional stories are as engrossing as the thriller-ish plot and impressive action. When all is considered, it’s possibly as perfect a thriller/blockbuster as they come. In fact, as I publish this, The Dark Knight sits at #1 — the best film of all time ever — on IMDb. It will drop, of course, because that’s opening-weekend fan-lead gut reaction for you… but, even when time’s passed, I’m certain it deserves to remain high on the list.
Sadly (though not surprisingly) the Manhattan IMAX was booked solid all through opening weekend (and most of next week, at least). As soon as I manage to see it on the extra-big screen, I’ll share my thoughts here.
Wanted more? July 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, Action, 2008 , add a commentTo quote my own recent review of Wanted: “I spent much of the film presuming it would finish on an open-ended note, as the structure reminded me of films like X-Men and Iron Man: all set-up and origin story… done with an eye (or, indeed, both eyes) on a sequel. Wanted doesn’t really end that way, which in an age where the franchise is everything is admirable… apart from that the film leading to that ending still feels franchise-friendly.”
And, lo, it turned out to be so.
Maybe next time they won’t cram all the best bits into the trailer.
#46: Wanted (2008) July 11, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, 2000s, adaptations, 3 stars, 2008 , add a comment2008 | Timur Bekmambetov | 110 mins | cinema | 18 / R
Did you see the trailer for Wanted? Did you think the loopy, somewhat Matrix-y stunts — like bending bullets, driving cars into trains, and numerous others — looked cool? Did you want to see more? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, watch the trailer on loop a few times, because 85% of the film’s cool bits are in there.
The trailer is Wanted’s biggest problem by far. Those expecting to suspend their disbelief and be treated to an onslaught of ridiculous-but-cool CGI-aided action trickery may be disappointed, not because it’s not there but because they’ll have already seen all the best bits. Of course, two minutes of trailer can’t cover all of the action present in the film, but it certainly managed to contain most of the flagship moments. Wanted’s other major problem is its pacing. The “Wesley is an ordinary guy with a dull life” opening is stretched thin, the traditional “training montage” is actually most of the second act, and, by the time it’s remembered there was a proper plot too, all you’re left with are a few more recycled plot beats (most notably from a certain popular late-’70s sci-fi sequel). Those points aside, there’s nothing really wrong with the plot — it’s an above-average way of linking the action together.
It’s hard not to recycle in this genre, of course, but the only other place you’re likely to have seen most of the stunts is… the trailer! Ahem — or, Bekmambetov’s pair of Russian fantasy films, Night Watch and Day Watch. The prologue explaining about an organisation that has existed for thousands of years is certainly reminiscent of those films, though here Bekmambetov is stuck with text rather than a full-blooded flashback. Throughout the rest of the film he displays a noteworthy visual flair, and while I’m sure some prefer their action to be done ‘for real’ and not boosted by computers, there’s no way the crazy things he’s imagined could be achieved that way. I have no problem with the use of CGI personally, especially as the ludicrousness of its use here doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.
The cast are all better than the material — not that anyone seems particularly bored or underachieving, just that the screenplay doesn’t tax them. Marc Warren is especially underused, with barely a line of dialogue to his name, though he is awarded a particularly gruesome death. While there’s nothing wrong with most of the elements that make up Wanted, then, it’s hard to escape the feeling that you’ve been cheated into paying to see all the stuff you already saw in the trailer with a few other bits slotted in. I spent much of the film presuming it would finish on an open-ended note, as the structure reminded me of films like X-Men and Iron Man: all set-up and origin story, with a perfunctory climax-providing enemy, done with an eye (or, indeed, both eyes) on a sequel. Wanted doesn’t really end that way, which in an age where the franchise is everything is admirable… apart from that the film leading to that ending still feels franchise-friendly.
If you don’t mind your action being computer-aided and as realistic as… well, a comic book… then there’s much to enjoy in Wanted. Except, you already enjoyed most of it in the trailer. Perhaps things will look brighter with a few years’ distance.
#45: The Incredible Hulk (2008) July 6, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Sci-fi, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008, superhero films , add a comment2008 | Louis Leterrier | 114 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
Now here’s something I didn’t think we’d see: a sequel to Ang Lee’s disappointing 2003 version of the Hulk, Marvel’s big green superhero-monster-thing. It’s not precisely a sequel though — for those who’ve somehow missed the behind-the-scenes goings on, this one has an all-new cast and crew, led by Hulk-fan Edward Norton on both leading man and (uncredited) writing duties. But does that mean it’s any better?
I think you’d be hard pushed to deny that this version is more entertaining. From the off it strikes a good balance between plot, character development and action. It doesn’t try to dig as far into the hero’s psychology as Lee’s film, but as that crippled the earlier attempt it’s for the best. Norton is a more appropriate Banner than Eric Bana was, achieving drama, humour and action with aplomb. In fact, even though there’s notably less of it, it seems Leterrier and his cast are as adept at crafting dramatic scenes as Lee and his lot were. They’re certainly better at action sequences, of which there are a good number and all well executed. Attempting an athletic chase over rooftops and through small streets so soon after Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum did similar things to such acclaim seems a bold move, and while Hulk’s version isn’t as memorable it doesn’t suffer unduly from comparison. The final monster-on-monster punch-up is immeasurably better than the first film’s bizarre climax, but the real stand out for me was the battle on the university campus. All of this is helped by vastly improved CGI. No longer is the Hulk an oversized action figure, but instead has weight and grit, and is altogether more believable. You’re never going to be convinced he’s real, obviously, but this time round they’ve made him more than close enough.
In terms of being a sequel, The Incredible Hulk pretty much has its cake and eats it. It makes good use of all the benefits of being Film 2 — it’s not an origin story, it doesn’t waste too much time introducing the characters — but without a dependence on the poor first film — new actors and a modified origin story distance it, so the main plot grows out of the basic ‘facts’ of Hulk’s origin rather than specific incidences from the first film. In fact, those who were lucky enough not to see Lee’s Hulk may well assume the opening credits’ origin story recap is just a retelling of the first film — and there’s no need to inform them otherwise. As well as dispensing with all the first film’s “evil dad” stuff, the version of the origin story here is apparently highly in debt to the ’70s live action Hulk TV series. In fact, there are also numerous nods and cameos to that version throughout (check out the IMDb trivia page for more).
Considering I did as much for Marvel’s other 2008 blockbuster, Iron Man, I feel I should make some comment on the brief franchise-building coda. Unlike Iron Man, however, Hulk doesn’t bury its scene after 10 minutes of credits, much to my joy. For those who don’t know, the brief scene sees Tony Stark — yes, Iron Man himself, naturally played by Robert Downey Jr — have a brief chat with General Ross about the problem of the Hulk. It’s initially immensely fanboy-pleasing, but is allying such a cool, likable hero as Stark with the despicable General Ross such a good idea? Of course, we’ll find out just what the Marvel planning bods have in mind come 2011.
In the end, this sequel is unquestionably superior to Hulk — who’d've thought a near-unknown director, whose major previous credit was the fairly risible Transporter 2, could best Ang Lee? The Incredible Hulk is a good blockbuster in its own right, requiring no need to have suffered the previous film, and there’s even room for a sequel. Now there’s something I didn’t think last time.
#44: The Happening (2008) July 1, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Horror, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, 3 stars, 2008, M. Night Shyamalan , add a comment2008 | M. Night Shyamalan | 90 mins | cinema | 15 / R
This review contains spoilers.
While others have been lamenting the slide in quality of Shyamalan’s work since his breakthrough 1999 hit The Sixth Sense, I’ve been quietly enjoying most of his films since then. I liked Sixth Sense and appreciated its ingenious twist, but it was the fantastic real-world-superhero tale Unbreakable that did the most to cement him in my affections. Signs was another strong effort, an unusual perspective on alien invasion backed by decent family drama and a few good laughs, helped by the always-watchable Joaquin Phoenix and a sweet kid. On the other hand, it suffered from a stretch of a resolution, and that it starred Mel Gibson. His next was the The Village, in my opinion his biggest misfire thanks to a story disappointingly reliant on an easily-guessed twist, further undermined by a third act structure that bent over backwards to hide the reveal for as long as possible. Most reviewers seem to disagree slightly though, as Lady in the Water was widely panned. Personally I liked it, at least on the level at which it was intended, as a modern fairytale.
This, his latest effort, falls mostly in the middle of the road — a bit like a few of its extras, then. You see, the plot concerns the release of a toxin (from where, no one knows) that causes people to begin committing suicide en masse, by jumping off buildings, or shooting themselves, or a variety of other, more gruesome ideas. It’s in these sequences that The Happening is at its best — Shyamalan can still craft chilling scenes and effective jumps, even if their onset is obvious to a moderately seasoned film viewer. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a tad weak. Mark Wahlberg’s performance is flat, John Leguizamo struggles to do much better, and Zooey Deschanel gets by in a kooky role that is by turns endearing and slightly irritating. The script is mostly passable, though occasionally heavy-handed, repetitive and clunky — one moment especially jarred for me, when in a middle-of-nowhere diner it seems one person’s dialogue has been split between two actors.
Shyamalan nicely keeps the cause of the toxin up in the air — though the most probable cause is first suggested fairly early on, other theories continue to float around — but with no last-minute revelation such juggling feels unwarranted. Instead there’s just a “it could happen again” final scene, that might be chilling if it weren’t so predictable. Part of the problem with the film’s central conceit is that it’s not very believable. Now, I know, being able to see dead people, developing superpowers or finding a mermaid-like girl in your pool are hardly realistic plot points either, but here it strays too close to the realm of “I expect you to believe this is possible” pseudoscience and so, unlike Princeton gardeners, my belief struggled to be fully suspended.
Ultimately, I’d rank The Happening as Shyamalan’s worst film to date. While it’s pleasing that he doesn’t force everything to rely on a final twist, the overall quality is variable — at least The Village had something going for it before the poor climax. The cod-science explanation feels like a big excuse for a topical eco-message, otherwise just being a basis to string together a collection of well-executed creepy sequences. Perhaps Shyamalan should stop trying so hard to come up with amazing new ideas and just concentrate on telling a good story. There are things to like though, enough to scrape the film into the middle of the road. Sort of the opposite to those suicidal extras then.
#43: Hard Boiled (1992) June 28, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, 4 stars, 1990s, 2008, world cinema , add a comment1992 | John Woo | 122 mins | DVD | 18 / R
The first John Woo film I saw was Mission: Impossible II. I think. It may’ve been Face/Off, which I love, but this works better with M:I-2 because most people don’t like it. Because, personally, I like M:I-2. It’s not the greatest action thriller ever, but it has its moments and the plot isn’t half as complex as some like to claim. It’s certainly more fun than Brian de Palma’s Euro-thriller first film, which in retrospect looks a bit like a proto-Bourne. Of course, what M:I-2 really had going for it were its action sequences, which are occasionally a bit out there but always expertly done. Face/Off’s are even better again, as I recall. Anyone with a basic understanding of structure can’t fail to see what I’m going to say about Hard Boiled.
I don’t think realism is Woo’s strong point — at least, not in his straight-up action movies. That’s not a flaw, though, but a deliberate choice — he dispenses with the realism of what a gunfight would be like (presumably, bloody scary and with fewer shots fired) and pushes the male fantasy of mindless slaughter to the limit. Which means his action sequences are pure adrenaline-pumping fun. Chow Yun-Fat single handedly slaughtering a warehouse full of heavily armed gangsters? Well, of course! Or directly hitting a small object wedged in an electrical pipe with a shaky shooting arm? Naturally! The action may have all the realism of a Dali painting, but it also has all the gleeful fun of repeating everything your sibling said when you were five — except with more choreography. It’s a cliché, but there’s something about Woo’s action that makes you want to use the word “balletic”. Not that I’ve ever really watched ballet. I expect it involves fewer guns.
These sequences seem to have been designed with one thing in mind — cool. And they are. There are a few holes in the plot and characters’ logic, but that doesn’t matter when they can leap around firing two pistols at once and always hit their target, while the bad guys — who could shoot just fine when they slaughtered some innocents a few minutes ago — keep missing them… with machine guns. If you think about it too hard then of course it’s nonsensical, but somehow, in some way, this sort of action seems to appeal to most men (not all, of course, and if you enjoy it then don’t worry, it doesn’t mean you’re a bloodthirsty braindead weirdo). One particularly astounding sequence is achieved in a single long take, as Yun-Fat and Tony Leung make their way down several corridors killing Very Bad Men literally left, right and centre. It’s both exciting and technically impressive, considering how many squibs, blood packs, weapons and extras must have been involved to pull it off in one uncut shot.
If you don’t care for people shooting at each other, especially when it pushes believability beyond the limit, then there’s not really anything for you here. There’s some male bonding stuff, and other bits about duty and honour and sacrifice, and a climactic subplot involving lots of cwute lickle baby-wabies; but Hard Boiled is most at home when the bullets are flying and things are blowing up. And what a lovely home it is.
#42: Leon: Version Integrale (1994/1996) June 26, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Drama, Crime, 5 stars, 1990s, 2008, extended/director's cut , 7 comments1994 / 1996 | Luc Besson | 127 mins | DVD
I first saw Leon about 10 years ago, back when video was still an acceptable way of watching things. A friend leant it to me, insisting it was a film I absolutely had to see, and he wasn’t wrong. It’s remained one of my favourite films ever since, though typically I haven’t watched it more than once or twice in the intervening decade. (It also fostered a love for Sting’s closing song, Shape of My Heart, which is criminally missing from a Greatest Hits CD my dad owned (even though his dire song from Demolition Man is on there), and in moderately recent years was indifferently reused by both Sugababes and Craig David.)
I became aware of this extended cut a few years ago, a little while before it was released on R1 DVD. Having held out for a UK R2 release for about half a decade now, I gave in and bought the (apparently superior, and also in a Steelbook, which always has a way of persuading me) German R2. It’s labelled as a “Director’s Cut” but, as Besson states in the relatively lengthy booklet (translated with the aid of Babel Fish), “the second version is neither better nor worse than the original” — it’s not a preferred cut, just a different, extended one.
But personally, I prefer this version. Not because there’s anything wrong with the original — far from it — but because this one has more. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing of course, but I don’t think that’s happened here. The additions build on the characters and relationships, primarily between the two leads, and also add extra doses of humour and action. Besson wasn’t necessarily wrong to remove these things from his original cut — the extent of Leon and Mathilda’s relationship is especially controversial for some, and the extended scenes of Leon training Mathilda as a Cleaner are arguably extraneous — but they all add to the experience. Wisely, he doesn’t seem to have touched what was already there. Everything that was great about the original — from the astounding performances of Jean Reno, Natalie Portman and Gary Oldman, to the thrilling action sequences, and plenty else in between — remains intact. They’ve not been buggered about with, just expanded around.
Ultimately, the reason I prefer this version is quite simple: I love the film and the characters, I could happily take more of them, and I very much enjoyed all of the added material. I can understand objections to the insinuations about Leon and Mathilda’s relationship, but I didn’t find it any creepier here than it was before (besides which, any paedophilic notions come from her and he quashes them). The quality of the performances in the new scenes, plus other solid additions, make all the new bits worthwhile. The version integrale isn’t too much of a good thing, then, just more of a great thing. To my mind, Leon (in either cut) is unquestionably essential.