It's now been nearly 20 years since I first experienced a true cinematic event in my lifetime. At the age of 8 I was fortunate enough to get to watch Stephen Spielberg's visionary great Jurassic Park on the big screen. I think for most 8 year old boys, dinosaurs are pretty much the greatest thing imaginable at that age. The film managed to live up to all that anticipation I had built up for myself before watching it in an American cinema. I have since intermittently experienced similar levels of excitement for movies over the years, the 20 year anniversary release of the Star Wars trilogy, then the disappointment of The Phantom Menace. The Lord of the Rings trilogy held a similar level of interest for me, and delivered to a certain extent. More recently both The Bourne Ultimatum and The Dark Knight have provided me with the excitement and adrenaline of going to the cinema, albeit nowhere near the levels as an 8 year old boy. Both these films did deliver and met my expectations, which has now only heightened my expectations for The Dark Knight Rises. Not only due to my enjoyment of it's predecessor, but also the fact it is the finale of Christopher Nolan's and Christian Bale's involvement with the franchise. I've been following the progress of this movie for a couple of years now. Learning who would be cast as Catwoman, was an event in itself; as well as learning which other villains would be involved. I think it's fair to say that The Dark Knights Rises was the biggest movie event of my life since Jurassic Park, and the following is a fantastic trailer for the film, that encompasses all 3 films; my review follows below:
As soon as the film's production logos came up, I felt this great sense of anticipation burst into one massive feeling of expectancy, something which I've rarely before experienced. Immediately the film dives straight into action, and as seemingly with all Nolan films it's just a case of watching the plot unravel. I make no bones about it, from the very first moments the film sets the tone for the finale. It's uncompromising in it's intensity, and is by far the darkest, most sombre of Nolan's trilogy. Most of this is down to Tom Hardy's Bane, who is by far Batman's fiercest most terrifying energy. He physically looks unbreakable, and the menacing masked voice he bellows adds so much to the character. Bane never lets up for the entire film, every time he's on screen it's slightly unnerving, there is no comic relief like Ledger's Joker. That's not say it's a bad thing, it suits the film perfectly, but I think Ledger managed to garner more warmth from the audience due to the character's charisma and "theatrics". I've read a few criticism that his voice was hard to understand, I don't understand this criticism at all, it was what was required and I had no trouble hearing.
We soon meet Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who at first I was a bit apprehensive about, but she soon had me entrapped in her showmanship and cuteness akin to Julie Newmar's own interpretation in the 1960's series. Unlike Batman Returns we don't get much of Kyle's back story, which I think was a good move by Nolan as it would have made the film exasperating to watch, and it was needless. Here she is just as morally ambiguous, which is part of your allure, as well as her captivating effect on Batman. I think a lot of people, especially the men, will enjoy Hathaway in this film, she does manage to make the role her own.
Most of the regular cast return and give their usual strong performances, and of course there's Batman himself Christian Bale. The story takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, with Bruce Wayne now a limping recluse, he is forced to don the mask once more after the rise of Bane in the Gotham underworld. He again provides a great performance as the iconic hero, with the usual amount of angst-ridden inner turmoil, along with his usual journey to revelation. Again, this isn't a criticism, this is the formula that's worked so well for the franchise, and why stop it? It drives character development and the story so well and is just embolic of Nolan's movie making brilliance.
The action sequences are pulsating and easier to follow than most modern action flicks. Though maybe nothing quite as original or inventive as before, they still serve a purpose; especially intertwined with the complex plot twists. The great thing about Nolan, is that he doesn't simply rely on CGI all the time to show implausible things, which keeps Batman grounded and believable. The CGI he does use, is also of great quality and blends with the film seamlessly, it never seems superfluous; unlike other big budget action flicks.
The intensity of the film is such that every moment of this near 3 hour films, feels like something important and of merit. It is both pulsating and large scale, but also emotional and intimate. This is only enhanced at being something special with the use of Hans Zimmer's now trademark score. The majority of moments in the film, feel powerful and there is that feeling of "edge of your seat" stuff almost constantly. Nothing however, ever feels overblown, and whilst it is sentimental at times, it just about avoid falling into The Return of the King trap of dragging out the end, just because it's the finale of a successful franchise. It's touching, but not overwrought with twee gestures that are just cringeworthy. It does come close, especially in the closing stages, but it manages to maintain it's composure and in my opinion the film manages provide the audience with something satisfying. Nolan is a clever director, but thankfully he doesn't try to be to clever, and the film ultimately feels like part of the trilogy.
Criticism wise, I suppose the film doesn't quite match The Dark Knight in terms of flow and maybe this sequel tries to pack a bit too much in. It is certainly very close to it's predecessor, but again the tone is a bit too heavy through, which maybe makes it not as rewatchable too. Another disappointing aspect was Marion Cortillard's performance, whilst it was passable, at times I felt she really struggled against the bravado of all her contemporary co-stars. She was a bit too lacklusture at times for me and lacked screen presence. There were also a few moments that I will need to watch again, as at the time, a few things were a bit stretched.
As much as I didn't care for Cortillard, I felt the inclusion of Joseph Gordon Levitt's character John Blake, was a welcomed addition, as he managed to compliment the script well and was the driving force for much of the movie. It was another strong performance from Levitt, who seems to able to give his action roles that bit more gravitas than other actors of his ilk.
Overall I can only reiterate how much anticipation I held for this film; probably the most I've had since Star Wars Episode 1 or even Jurassic Park; but this film lived up to this expectation. It's one of the few films to have been able to deliver to such a high pedestal I set for it. Whilst it's not quite one of the very best films ever made, or even the best of the trilogy; it is a fully satisfying affair and conclusion to easily the greatest superhero franchise ever commited to screen. For the few faults it does have, these are more outweighed by the enthralling, action packed and well developed story that ensues for it's near 3 hour runtime. Christopher Nolan has done it again, I just hope Warner Brothers don't do anything to tarnish his legacy.
For all the great James Bond has given over the years, there are inevitably those occasional moments in the series that are quite simply embarrassing. In an odd kind of way though, I think it's these moments of pure awfulness, that Bond is so so loved.
5. Double-taking Pigeon (Moonraker)
It's not so much the double-taking pigeon, in fact the double-taking pigeon is so bad, it's enjoyable. It's the whole gondola sequence, but I enjoy the Pigeon so much I thought I'd name this entry after him. The rest of this sequence is just awful, almost so bad it's good, but it's in a Bond film, so sadly it's just plain awful. I mean not even a poor man's BBC Three comedy would resort to such unamusing slapstick. The man who's thought he's drunk too much, the waiter pouring in to a patron's lap and of course the SO in love couple on the gondola. It's so awful that you can watch it below:
4. Tarzan Scream?!?!?!?!?!??!??? (Octopussy)
I don't know whether this has garnered enough question marks in my heading. It's fair to say that the Moore films have had their fair share of questionable moments unbefitting an MI6 agent. I like to make the assumption that there was a severe malfunction at the sound editing studio that day, that's why this isn't higher. I'm a bit at a loss for words on this one, an extremely bizarre moment yet again in another movie peppered (not J.W.) with them.
3. "I Love James So Much!" (License to Kill)
I don't like License To Kill, it's too out of sync with all the other Bond movies, and I find it a bit too dull. For all it's defender's who claim it's gritty and violent, this one line utter by the character Lupe Lamore is so cringe inducing and totally off base, that it makes the film noticeably worse. It kind of vindicate's my opinion that it's my least favourite Bond film, though I admit it's not the worst.
2. Windsurfing on a 100ft Wave (Die Another Day)
I think Die Another Day is predominately despised due to this one outrageous use of CGI, but I don't mind the film too much, even with Madonna's contributions to it. This surfing sequence is just so over the top, what with a giant ray from space also chasing our hero and him using a car door as his surf board, it just beggars belief. The CGI is impressively bad, I can't believe they left it in the film, I guess that the sequence was needed so they got stuck with it. A far cry from the excellent stunts and action sequences of Brosnan's work in Goldeneye.
1. They Ruined Jaws (Moonraker)
I'm not sure whether Moonraker is definetly the worst Bond movie, it's fairly easy watching at least. Even the aforementioned awful gondola sequence has it's moment (pigeon). The thing I can't forgive it for is it's gradual, but violent destruction of henchman Jaws. Of course the main problem is that everyone likes him, but we don't want to see him as a reformed character, falling in love with some lame mousy goody goody; or helping save the life of Bond and his lady friend. Then to give a throw away line of how he survives at the end is just insulting to the audience. Yes we like Jaws, but he's an immovable object that James has to defeat, not to become friends with and regale tales of old times at the annual Henley Regatta.
Phillip Marlowe is a character that has been portrayed by a multitude of actors since Raymond Chandler published the character's first story The Big Sleep back in 1939. In Farewell, My Lovely it falls to Robert Mitchum to take up the role, and his turn in the role is probably the second most famous after Humphrey Bogart. This was also the third version of the book to be adapted for film after two vastly forgotten versions were made in the early '40's (and before Bogie's The Big Sleep made Marlowe and Chandler household names). It's only natural for me to compare it to Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep as that for me is probably the archetypal film noir. However, when watching Farewell, My Lovely it's quite obvious to see that this film had elements that are arguably better than The Big Sleep. The main thing being that it isn't constrained by the limitations of film censorship, which I think has probably resulted in a more faithful adaptation of the story. It also enables the movie to have an even grittier feel to it, that probably makes it a little bit more believable than the Hawks' version. The director Dick Best, doesn't try to play safe and instead puts his faith in the source material he's working with. There is a problem with this however, as it goes a bit too far and is possibly slightly influenced by contemporary films at the time which were becoming more and more explicit and at time's gratuitous. Especially when considering the exploitation flicks and the growth of the porn industry at the time this film was made.
The film is still very enjoyable though, and it captures the whole essence of noir and indeed the ambience of Chandler's Los Angeles. Mitchum is also great as Marlowe, as his world weary demeanour is only bettered by Bogart himself. It's hard for me to say that anyone comes close to Bogie as Marlowe, but Mitchum does it here. Probably helped by the fact, this was a bit later in his career, and he had developed a better handle for getting into his characters. I was somewhat ambivalent to Charlotte Rampling's performance opposite Mitchum, maybe it's because I'm measuring her against Bacall's sultry brilliance in The Big Sleep. The plot is just as rich as it's predecessor and is great to watch it unfold with all the accompanying twists and turns, synonymous with Chandler.
I felt that at times the productions values dated the films at times and it looked a bit hokey here and there. Also, ultimately it isn't anywhere near the level of greatness of The Big Sleep, because there are too many elements in it that whilst good, aren't fantastic. Sometimes I feel that film's can be great because they aren't too faithful to the source material, and that might be a case here. As I believe this to be the more faithful version of the two films, yet it lacks the pacing and production qualities that made The Big Sleep an all time classic.
I then finally got round to watching Martin Scorcese's No Direction Home, a documentary about Bob Dylan. I've always been a fan of Dylan, but never known too much about the man as a person. The documentary seems to paint the portrait of a man who wanted to create his own destiny in life. Indeed it seems to suggest in many ways that Dylan was wise from an early age, and not in a sense of shrewdness, rather an awareness of his own philosophies on life. It's because of this seemingly ever consciousness of wanting to be who he wanted to be, that the enigma that has forever surround Dylan manifested.
I found it surprising to learn his early influences were many of the extremely popular singers of the 50's such as Hank Williams, Elvis Presley and even Bobby Vee. Of course I was already aware of his long admiration of folk singer Woody Guthrie, and it was probably through the discovery of his work that shaped Dylan's own socially motivated song writing. Of course Dylan has always shyed away from suggestions that his songs are politically motivated. The documentary seems to hint that having been propelled to the centre of the civil rights movement through 'Blowin' in the Wind'; he began to feel uncomfortable with the pressures of this position and tried to distance himself from this responsibility. Indeed he would go as far as to start writing simpler more easy listening music, which initiated a backlash from fans and culminating in Dylan's now legendary complete shun of his folk origins, by going 'electric'. The way the footage intersperses a young Dylan with a present day one, doesn't seem to diminish his ambivalence to the whole affair. Sure he seems disappointed by the booing at times, but again his wisdom seems to have made him be able to rise above it to an impressive extent. I also found it refreshing that a present day Dylan wasn't hesitant to recognise his own genius, but in an observational rather than boastful tone.
Whilst I didn't find the entire experience as entertaining as The Beatles Anthology, I did recognise that this in many ways seemed a more intellectually substantial piece that really made a good attempt at enlightening it's audience more on the real Bob Dylan. Again in comparison to the Beatles, Dylan seemed far more enlightened (whether spiritually or intellectually) back then, than they did, despite being the same ages. The documentary ended probably at the height of Dylan's musical prolificness in 1966, however his life and career remained interesting up until the 80's, so it would have been nice to see more of his story. I also liked that this documentary didn't go overboard in selling Dylan to us, but instead tried to just provide us with what was there, and how this boy from Minnesota became one of history's biggest cultural icons. A very rewarding experience.
The Royal Tenenbaums was a film I'd been meaning to seen for many years, so I finally decided to purchase a copy and watch it. Having previously seen and enjoyed Wes Anderson's Rushmore and The Life Aquatic I had high hopes for probably his most known quirky comedy. It featured a very strong and famous cast, with a plot that centred around them being part of the same nuclear family. They all return to live with each other for various reasons in relation to their own lives, as well as their estranged father (Gene Hackman) who claims he has a terminal illness and has returned to die.
The film has all the hallmarks of a Wes Anderson picture and is totally offbeat. For me personally though it was too offbeat and though amusing, wasn't all that captivating. Hackman as the conniving head of the family, does however excel, but then again it's hard to expect anything less of one of the greatest American actors of all time. It is not only his performance that shines, and the film is spared from being completely dull with great shows from Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson and Angelica Huston as the family matriarch. Not to say the rest of the cast don't impress as well. Indeed I think if it weren't for Danny Glover, Ben Stiller, Billy Murray and Owen Wilson, this film would have felt completely flat. As it is though, it is a perfectly reasonable movie, but never really manages to become something more than a mildly amusing comedy.
I then returned to watching more films of Marilyn Monroe, this time with one of her earliest leading roles in Don't Bother To Knock. It was a very remarkable movie in certain ways, in that it is quite bizarre in terms of production. For instance it is directed by the man most know for his Titanic disaster movie A Night to Remember, written by the man who would go on to write From Here to Eternity, it features Richard Widmark in a more gentile role than usual, Anne Bancroft makes her film debut as a hotel showgirl; whereas Monroe plays a mentally unhinged babysitter. In hindsight these roles would be better switched. To be fair to Monroe though, this is by far the most interesting role she ever did take on. She also manages to do a relatively good job as she transforms from innocent babysitter, to psychotic would be child murderer. It was relatively refreshing to see her for once not playing the ditzy bombshell, and showed she did have some natural acting prowess. Her performance is quite deep and emotive, especially considering this film was essentially a B movie. Though she did have glimpses in subsequent movies of her ability as an actress, it seems that she was predominately sidelined from becoming a star with substance such as Shelley Winters or even Elizabeth Taylor.
Thought the film is very short and a bit too simplistic, it's a decent film, though never really that gripping or enthralling. It is quite dark, and the few moments of comic relief, seem a bit odd for such a film. Even with Monroe in her most unusual role, I think this film would have survived regardless. There is too much talent displayed elsewhere in the film, and the talent is apparent from time to time when watching. A better than average B movie, that is certainly a lot different from others of it's ilk.
As soon as the film's production logos came up, I felt this great sense of anticipation burst into one massive feeling of expectancy, something which I've rarely before experienced. Immediately the film dives straight into action, and as seemingly with all Nolan films it's just a case of watching the plot unravel. I make no bones about it, from the very first moments the film sets the tone for the finale. It's uncompromising in it's intensity, and is by far the darkest, most sombre of Nolan's trilogy. Most of this is down to Tom Hardy's Bane, who is by far Batman's fiercest most terrifying energy. He physically looks unbreakable, and the menacing masked voice he bellows adds so much to the character. Bane never lets up for the entire film, every time he's on screen it's slightly unnerving, there is no comic relief like Ledger's Joker. That's not say it's a bad thing, it suits the film perfectly, but I think Ledger managed to garner more warmth from the audience due to the character's charisma and "theatrics". I've read a few criticism that his voice was hard to understand, I don't understand this criticism at all, it was what was required and I had no trouble hearing.
