Fantastic Four (2005)

Posted on December 14, 2012 by badblokebob

In the wake of highly successful franchise launches for X-Men and Spider-Man, the next Marvel superheroes to be afforded the big-screen treatment were the Fantastic Four, a kind of family imbued with superpowers after a space accident. “Kind of family” translated to “family movie” for Fox executives, and they produced this dross.

“Family movie” does not automatically equal bad superhero film. Indeed, The Incredibles is one of the sub-genre’s best offerings. I don’t know much about the Fantastic Four comics, but it strikes me that Pixar more successfully hit the tone and style that the makers of this film were aiming for.

The problem I felt is that this incarnation of the FF doesn’t really have a story. They kind of meander through a few things that Happen, then a villain finally emerges and they defeat him. It leaves the film bereft of narrative drive; a series of scenes strung together without a common goal. When those scenes are populated with middling acting, unengaging characters, lacklustre humour, stalled drama, and both practical and computer-generated special effects that look about twice as old as the film is, then the experience you’re left with isn’t entertaining on almost any level.

An interesting footnote about this film is the list of weird, minor regional differences, which don’t bear repeating but are at that link if you’re interested. It also received a surely-unasked-for extended cut on DVD in the US, which included completely different (longer) opening credits; both promenade & planetarium scenes from the regional variations; and mostly new character scenes, as if the film didn’t have enough of those already, or plot extensions that help make more sense of stuff that, actually, more-or-less scanned OK anyway. I can’t imagine anyone wanting an even longer version of this, but it takes all sorts, eh.

They’re re-booting Fantastic Four soon (an unusual summer-season-dodging Spring 2015 release date was recently announced) and I wish them well — the characters have run in comics for over 50 years; there must be something to them. Hopefully those in charge can learn from this film’s mistakes, and the successes of family-friendly efforts like The Incredibles, and give us something so good we can forget this ’00s incarnation ever happened.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Predators (2010)

Posted on December 8, 2012 by badblokebob

It’s two-and-a-half years since this was released? Never! If it didn’t say so on multiple websites, I’d never believe it. Where does the time go?!

But anyway…

Predators is writer-director-producer-editor-composer-etc Robert Rodriguez’s attempt to relaunch the Predator franchise, after the mediocre Predator 2 killed it in 1990 and the utterly appalling Aliens vs Predator 2 killed it again in 2007. Based on the fact we’re two years on and there’s been no word of a sequel, I guess he didn’t succeed. Which is a shame, because the original film is fun action/sci-fi entertainment and this is very much in its spirit.

Based on a screenplay Rodriguez wrote in the mid ’90s (deemed too expensive at the time, and since re-written thanks to other films doing some of the stuff in it (chiefly Avatar, apparently)), Predators sees a bunch of unconnected people dropped into a mysterious jungle. All of them have some skill in the field of death-dealing — except, that is, for a doctor — and most are armed to the teeth. Where are they? Why are they there? And what’s that coming after them?

I’ve left my plot description vaguer than most you’ll find, including on the film’s own DVD/BD releases, because the more you know the more the early part of the movie drags. Most blurbs give away the revelations contained within the first act, which makes it an almost gratingly slow start. I reckon it would probably work well in isolation, but I’m not sure how many people are going to see this without having heard more of the premise than I’ve let on. When you know where it’s going, it seems to plod a little; equally, if all you know is that a group of people face a gang of Predators in a jungle then it works fine (it still takes the aliens a while to show up, but then so does the original).

It’s a similar story elsewhere in the film. If you haven’t already accurately guessed what the ‘twist’ is with the doctor just from me even mentioning him, then I’ll be surprised. You may also be aware that Laurence Fishburne is in the film — he’s in the trailer and, naturally, one of the top-billed names. If you weren’t aware, sorry; but if you are (as, indeed, you now are), then his lack of appearance early on will likely clue you in to the circumstance under which he’ll be found. But if you’re not expecting him, that’s all fine and dandy. But now you are. Sorry.

In fairness, the story does manage to pull out a few mysteries. There’s a fair share of action sequences too, naturally, but it’s not an entirely stock plot merely peppered with gunfights. Rodriguez and co have made the effort to push the mythology in new directions; ones which seem to build naturally out of other Predator media, even though those aren’t specifically mentioned. Indeed, although there’s a direct reference to the original film (plus a smattering of callbacks in dialogue), the production team were told to avoid looking at the other films, games and comics for inspiration. You’ve no need to suffer anything else to enjoy this. Indeed, it works even without seeing the original film.

In the special features Rodriguez comments that the film could function even if the Predators didn’t turn up, because you’ve got a gang of characters who might be quite happy to turn on each other if need arose. There’s nothing revelatory amongst the gang of humans, but they’re more characterised than the simple canon fodder of the original film, and the relative dearth of big names will keep you guessing as to the order of their inevitable dispatch.

The main draw is still the action, which is suitably exciting on the whole. Best of all is a sword fight between a Yakuza and a Predator. Who’d’ve thought of engaging a Predator in a sword fight, eh? I love a sword fight, and while this is of course an atypical example, it shows the film’s level of creativeness with its inherited elements. It’s also a beautifully shot segment, making it one of the stand-out parts of the film.

Most of the direction is as good, though I have to mention it because of one unfortunate trope it develops: there’s an awful lot of lingering shots of the cast Looking At Something behind the camera, before we get to see it. Once you notice this — and you may well, like me, notice it pretty early on — it quickly becomes unintentionally comical, because it just. Keeps. Happening. And even when you think it’s gone, it makes a last-minute resurgence at an inopportune moment. I’m certain this wasn’t a deliberate comic device — it was probably employed to add tension and mystery and all that — but, for me, it just became a bit of a joke.

Then there’s the awful atmosphere-ruining end credits song. Honest to God, there’s weird artistic flourishes, and there’s immediately trashing the mood you’ve just strived to create. I know why it’s there — it’s another reference to the original — but it’s a glaring clash of styles that shatters the very particular ending the film has. On the commentary, Rodriguez asserts that it “deflates the tension in a great fun way.” Hm. Hmmm. What a misstep.

And the ending itself… is it sequel bait? It’s not as bad as Prometheus — an unintentionally resonant parallel given the franchises’ shared history, but not an inappropriate comparison. But where Ridley Scott’s confusing picture leaves glaring unanswered questions that demand a Part 2, Predators’ conclusion is both open-ended but also somehow fitting. Which is lucky, because I don’t think a follow-up is forthcoming.

For all the criticism, or gentle ribbing, I’ve levelled at the film throughout this review, it’s an enjoyable experience. There’s nothing deep or meaningful, and nothing that will enliven or revolutionise the genre, but as a sci-fi/action movie it’s at least as good as its blokey-classic predecessor.

The UK TV premiere of Predators is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part I (2012)

Posted on November 26, 2012 by badblokebob

Mainstream US superhero comics underwent something of a revolution — or an evolution, if you prefer — in the ’80s, moving from simplistic good vs evil tales-of-the-week to deeper, thematic- and character-driven stories that in some cases took months or even years to relate in full. It’s a change that’s still felt today (some would contend that they’ve been stuck for decades in a rut these developments ultimately led to). It’s generally considered that there were three works at the forefront of this wave of more adult-orientated comics, all of which still rotationally top Best Graphic Novel Ever polls today: Alan Moore and Dave Gibson’s Watchmen (filmed in 2009 by Zack Snyder); Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli’s Batman: Year One (a significant contributor to Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins in 2005, and animated in its own right last year); and Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns — a definite influence on Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, and currently in the middle of being adapted as a two-part animation. This is, obviously, the first half; the second is out in the US at the end of January 2013.

Set in a near-future Gotham City, Batman has been retired for ten years and the crime levels in the city have risen. Bruce Wayne seeks thrills — and possibly death — while an aged Alfred does his best to rein him in. As Commissioner Gordon nears retirement, a new threat on the city rises, inspiring Bruce to don the cowl once again…

Like Year One before it, the team behind these direct-to-DVD DC animated movies have taken a reverent route to bringing DKR to the screen. It’s in two parts because the original story is too long to faithfully adapt in their limited-length movies (it’ll work out at about two-and-a-half hours all told, which isn’t commercially viable for a direct-to-disc animation), but that also works out OK from a storytelling point of view: this first half ends with a major threat wrapped up and a great cliffhanger to kick off the second half. Those with less appreciation for the economics of film production have slated DC/Warner for splitting the film in two like this, but in some ways it works to its benefit artistically as well as commercially.

Others question the need for adapting it at all, if they’re just going to plonk what we’ve read on the page directly onto the screen. They do have something of a point, and it’s hard to argue DKR is any better off for having been animated. The obsession with faithfulness is borderline problematic at points, in fact: despite near-future tropes like gigantic tanks and mutant gangs, this is clearly a vision of the ’80s, with fashions, comic books glimpsed on shelves and references to Pearl Harbor that lock it fairly firmly some 25 years before now, never mind the future. At another point, a reveal at the climax of Two-Face’s part in the story, which works marvellously on the page, is a dud on screen when copied so precisely. It needs a little re-imagining to make it properly filmic.

Stylistically, the film retains Miller’s designs, albeit a bit smartened up to work consistently as animation. Some will bemoan that homogenising but others may delight in it — Miller’s art is generally a bit on the scruffy side, I think. Is it an appropriate mark of respect that they’ve translated it so literally from page to screen, or would it have been more interesting for the filmmakers to have taken Miller’s plot and situated it in a world drawn from their own designs? I’m not going to argue that they could have improved on Miller’s work, but it might have been interesting to see the story given a spin in a different artistic style.

A benefit of being animated (well, arguably) is that action sequences get fleshed out. With a verve typical of these DC original movies, these sequences benefit from a fluidity and real punch imbued by animators who clearly relish this opportunity. There’s variety too, from an opening car chase, to shadowy stalking around a building site, to a silhouette-ish smoke-covered takedown of a gang of henchmen, to a mud-drenched single-take (ish) final smack-down. These sequences aren’t overplayed, but pack the necessary weight to back themselves up. They’re ably supported by Christopher Drake’s score, which betrays the influence of Hans Zimmer’s work on Nolan’s films but is too good to just be a straight-up copy.

Voice work — the other major addition of an animated re-telling, of course — ranges from solid to very good. I wasn’t convinced by the casting of former RoboCop Peter Weller as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but he’s pretty darn good, carrying exactly the right kind of aged gruffness. It’s unique, I think, to see an active Batman this old on screen — sure, Nolan forwarded things eight years for Rises, but he’s still played by a relatively young and fit Christian Bale, whereas this Batman is grey, in his mid 50s and looking even older. I don’t recall a significant weak link in the rest of the cast, with Modern Family’s Ariel Winter’s performance as the new teenaged Robin perhaps being the most memorable of the supporting roles.

Reviews and commentary on the ‘net seem to swing between finding this a pointless, Saturday-morning-ised version of Miller’s seminal work, and an engrossing and exciting adaptation of it. I side more with the latter. It was never going to replace the original, and in surer hands — ones more prepared to change stuff, essentially — there’s an even better film lurking within (and it isn’t Nolan’s Rises, which only takes elements to construct its own new narrative). But on its own merits, I think this is a solidly entertaining Batman film. And I can’t wait for Part Two, which is surely a recommendation in itself.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part I is released on Blu-ray and HMV-exclusive DVD today in the UK. The second part is available in the US on DVD and Blu-ray from 29th January 2013.

Outland (1981)

Posted on September 24, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #3
Peter Hyams | 105 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK / English | 15 / R

I first encountered Outland in a similar context to a lot of people, I think, based on reviews and whatnot I’ve read; that is, as “High Noon in space”. For me it was in a module on Westerns during my Media Studies A-level, in the sense of “what defines a Western?” I subscribe to the notion that a Western has to take place in a certain time and place — because it’s in the name, isn’t it? — so something set in the future on a space station isn’t in the Western genre.

But, having said that, what if it then employs all of the genre’s tropes? With its desert-y settings, horses, stylised dialogue, and more, it’s hard to avoid the Western aspects of Firefly/Serenity; Outland, on the other hand, isn’t so overt. If you’d never seen High Noon, or if no one pointed out the thematic or storytelling similarities, there’s nothing here that would let you in on it (arguably) being a Western. So it’s interesting that it seems to dominate conversation about the film.

Otherwise, it has a lot of science-fiction-y things going for it too. Two years on from Alien, director Peter Hyams has adopted the same grungey, real-world, lived-in aesthetic for the mining outpost setting. It’s a style that doesn’t date (at least, not yet — witness Doctor Who using it multiple times in the past few years, for instance), which means that it doesn’t feel 30 years old. The plot, lifted from High Noon or not, is even more timeless: lone hero stands up to bad guys that no one else is brave enough to confront. It works as well in space as it does anywhere else.

Thing is, though it’s well-made and suitably engrossing, the primary unique thing about Outland is that it’s set in space but has so many plot-tropes of the Western. That’s why that dominates the conversation: in many respects, it’s the most interesting thing about the film. A shame though, because I think it could stand without it.

Despicable Me (2010)

Posted on September 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #34
Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud | 91 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | U / PG

A venture into the increasingly-popular CG family film market from Universal, Despicable Me is about a supervillain who comes to question his evil ways. It was released the same year as the similarly-themed Megamind from Dreamworks. It cost nearly half as much ($69m vs $130m) but made nearly $100m more worldwide. It’s getting a sequel; Megamind isn’t. All of which is a shame, because I really don’t think it’s as good.

The thing is, Megamind embraces its genre: it’s a superhero movie, playing on familiar tropes and stories from that incredibly popular genre. Despicable Me is an animated comedy about family and responsibility and that kind of thing, which happens to feature a supervillain as its hero. It’s very cartoony, it’s kind of silly; that can work, and some of it does here, but it doesn’t pay off the concept in the way Megamind does, for me. It has good bits, rather than being a good whole.

And there are plenty of bits that flat-out don’t work. There are three little girls, all of them stereotypes, but the “cute littlest one” feels like a direct rip from Monsters, Inc.; there are scenes during the end credits which are blatant 3D exploitation, which makes them a tad irritating in 2D; the action-sequence climax somehow doesn’t feel earned, unlike it does in other comedies like Hot Fuzz, Super, or even Megamind.

The film’s country is officially listed as USA because it’s made with American money, but it feels more like a French production (albeit dubbed with US voices). Look at those directors’ names (though only Coffin is French — Renaud is actually American); it was made entirely in a French studio (Mac Guff in Paris); and it has a kind of feel that doesn’t seem like it came from a US studio. So while technically, yes, it’s American, I don’t think the French side should be wholly ignored. I’m not saying it makes it bad, but perhaps it lessens the apparent superhero feel — that’s a very American genre, after all.

Despicable Me seems to have come out as a surprise hit. I imagine no one saw it coming because it wasn’t from Pixar or Dreamworks, and perhaps that sort of inverse-hype led to good word of mouth that led to good box office. Personally, I didn’t care for it.

Megamind (2010)

Posted on September 19, 2012 by badblokebob

From the co-director of Madagascar, Madagascar 2 and Madagascar 3 comes this superhero spoof that had the misfortune of arriving in cinemas two months after the broadly-similarly-themed and well-received Despicable Me, and suffered because of it: while Universal’s CG ‘toon foray earnt over $250m on a budget under $70m, Dreamworks’ Megamind could only rake in $164m, a smidgen (in movie terms) over its $130m cost. Which is a shame, because I found it to be the more entertaining film.

I’ve detailed my dis-love for Despicable Me separately so don’t want to get too far drawn into that again, but it’s a superhero movie in very broad terms only. Which is fine as it goes, but fails to deliver on what I felt was a selling point. Maybe that’s why a general audience bought it more. Megamind, conversely, is absolutely steeped in its genre. It is, essentially, Superman if Superman lost. I wouldn’t say an understanding of the Superman mythology is essential to getting Megamind (and even if it is, having seen one of the film or TV incarnations will have you covered), but it adds something.

Another inevitable point of comparison is Pixar’s The Incredibles, one of their best films, and it’s fair to say Dreamworks’ answer isn’t that good. On the bright side it does offer something different, riffing on a different area of the superhero universe (the sole protector rather than the team) and taking the villain’s side. It arguably plays as a companion piece rather than a rival.

There’s a starry voice cast behind the characters, and fortunately they never overwhelm their roles. Which is good, because I’m not really a fan of Will Ferrell and he’s the lead. There’s also the likes of Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller rounding out proceedings — not that it matters because, as I say, the voices fit their roles seamlessly.

Megamind seems to have gotten lost in the never-ending roll of CG cartoons that fill multiplexes now, buried beneath the success of Megamind and Dreamworks’ own extra-sized franchises (they’re aiming for “at least” three How To Train Your Dragons, four Madagascars, and six Kung Fu Pandas, for crying out loud). While I wouldn’t argue it’s a classic, and perhaps it’s as well suited to superhero fans as it is to the ostensible kiddy audience (not that it’s not right for them too), it merits more attention than it got.

Marvel One-Shots

Posted on September 12, 2012 by badblokebob

With Marvel Avengers Assemble out on DVD and Blu-ray in the UK next Monday, and Marvel’s The Avengers* out on DVD and Blu-ray in the US a week later on Tuesday 25th**, now seemed as good a time as any to post reviews of the first two Marvel One-Shots.

For those who don’t know, these are short films included on the home ent releases of their big movies, which take place within the same interconnected movie universe. The longest and most significant to date is Item 47, which premiered at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con and is on the DVD/BD of The Avengers. These two come from Thor and Captain America respectively.

Taking their name from the term for a one-off issue of a comic book, Marvel One-Shots are a series of short films included on Blu-ray (and DVD?) releases of Marvel Studios features, helping bridge gaps in their shared cinematic universe. This first one is included on the BD for Thor, and probably occurs during that film’s timeline, but is really concerned with filling in other holes in the universe.

Despite that aim, these aren’t glaring holes that desperately need a fix. Rather they’re join-the-dots enterprises; the thing most people won’t have noticed at all, that fans may have wondered about, that it’s more fun to connect up than strictly necessary. It makes this piece resolutely fan-only — while it’s quite good, it’s more admin than a story in its own right, showing how various films connect together in the lead-up to The Avengers. At least it does that neatly, stringing together new dialogue snippets starring fan-favourite Agent Coulson and another SHIELD agent (from Thor, as it happens) with clips from other Marvel Universe films, mainly The Incredible Hulk.

In short, The Consultant is a fun little diversion, but not an essential element in the construction of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

The second of Marvel’s two (to date) short films set in their shared Cinematic Universe. This one comes on the Captain America Blu-ray (and DVD?), despite that title. Indeed, it feels like they’re running one film behind with these things — maybe The Avengers will include one related to Cap?

Marvel’s first foray into short films (see above) was a fans-only affair; an exercise in filing that emphasised connections between the fairly disparate early films in their shared universe. This one, however, has more to offer to the casual viewer. Though it specifically mentions Thor in the title, it isn’t tied to that film in any way. In fact, the title just gives fans a spot to place it in the timeline — it could occur at any point.

It’s a standalone piece, and though it’s brief (under three minutes before the credits role), it still manages to add quite a lot to the character of Agent Coulson, who in the main films to this point has been a minor (albeit increasingly major) supporting role. I suppose it’s fitting that Clark Gregg has been the star of these connecting shorts, as he’s one of the main links across the films (he appears in Iron Man and has key roles in Iron Man 2 and Thor; Samuel L Jackson’s Nick Fury may appear in more films, but he only offers cameos in three of his four appearances (and two of those are post-credits)).

I won’t say what happens to Coulson here, because it’s too short to describe it without ruining all the film has to offer. It’s probably not worth hunting out for its own sake (unless it’s available free on YouTube or something, because what three-minute-film isn’t worth watching free online?), but if you’ve got a disc with it on, or rent one, then it’s worth a watch. It’s a brief blob of fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

As I mentioned, The Avengers assemble on UK BD soon, at which point I’ll have a review of Item 47. And Avengers Assemble, of course. And maybe Thor at last too.

* I’ve begun to take some kind of perverse pleasure in the title farrago. ^
** Suck on that, America! What do you mean you get a director’s commentary and an extra featurette? Damn you. ^

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Posted on September 6, 2012 by badblokebob

Prequels are far from a new concept (there are examples in ancient Greek literature; the OED dates the first use in print to 1958, though I swear I’ve heard mention of it being used even earlier), but in the past ten years or so they really seem to have come to prevalence in the movies. Perhaps we can trace this phenomenon back to The Phantom Menace, which saw massive hype and became the second highest grossing film of all time (it still resides in the top ten, albeit thanks to re-releases). In the years since we’ve seen any number of franchises go the prequel route, or in many cases what one might call a prequel-reboot (where we’re seeing the characters at an earlier point in their timeline, but it’s a reboot-style new ‘universe’). Since the mid ’00s we’ve had Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Hannibal Rising, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, Star Trek, X-Men: First Class, The Thing, and Prometheus, with The Hobbit trilogy coming soon, not to mention cheapo direct-to-DVD ones for lesser wannabe-franchises.

The obvious one I haven’t mentioned, of course, is Rise of the Planet of the Apes, last year’s prequel / prequel-reboot (there are nods to the 1968 original, though someone involved said it establishes a new continuity) of the perennially popular franchise Tim Burton killed last time they tried to restart it (infamously coining the phrase “re-imagining” in the process). That was ten years ago and, if extras on Rise‘s BD are to be believed, this relaunch came about not because of the usual studio-looking-to-exploit-a-recognisable-IP, but because a writer had a good idea. Perish the thought!

The screenwriters in question, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (also producers), are due a lot of thanks for the quality of the final product. The story — about the son of a lab-tested chimpanzee, raised at home by a US scientist, who ultimately turns on humanity — was inspired by news stories of pet chimps attacking their owners, plus research into genetic modification. By taking these themes and issues and running with them, Jaffa and Silver have crafted a blockbuster that is both plausible and intelligent — a rare thing these days.

It’s also very well structured, for those that spot such technical things. It knows its own pace — not slow, but doesn’t rush to get to mass-audience-friendly action scenes either — but also, the layering of elements. There are numerous throwaway points that are picked up later; actions that have small significance but then return for bigger effect. None of this is played as over-emphasised “remember this for later” detail, as is often the case. Credit must also go to director Rupert Wyatt for his handling of these points. To put it succinctly, it’s just plain Good Writing.

Thematically it boils down to a man vs nature parable; about how we mistreat it, but also how we think we’re so far above it. Some of these themes may seem obvious, but they’re not overly spelt out — no one stands around bemoaning experimentation on animals, or lamenting man’s hubris in not taking the ape threat seriously enough.

As with many prequels, the story itself may seem needless: we know where it ends up, and as various balls are put in play we can see their ultimate destination. But the important thing is that you can’t always see their trajectory, and as someone famous once said, sometimes the pleasure’s in the journey not the destination. Here we become invested in the characters, so we care about what will happen to them in the broader sweep of the Apes story, not to mention the intricacies of how things go from the opening status quo to the conclusion. Plus, with a prequel set so far before the original as this one is, one can always ponder the question of just how far they’ll go in this story (it doesn’t connect up to the start of Planet of the Apes, for instance).

The ape, Caesar, the Andy Serkis character you’ll surely have heard a lot of around the last Oscar race, is definitely the star of the film. As ever with all-CG characters based on an on-set performance, it’s nigh impossible to tell how much is Serkis and how much the undoubtedly talented animators at Weta. It’s even more prevalent for a role without dialogue. Great acting isn’t just about line delivery, obviously, but when you’re hidden beneath the post-production work of an entire team of CGI wizards, it would help. The ‘making of’ material in the special features helps enlighten Serkis’ key contribution some, but also reveals that for some bits other performers played Caesar. It’s no worse than a stunt double, I imagine, but it doesn’t necessarily help the cause of those desiring mo-cap actors get awards recognition. At the end of the day, the precise quality of his performance is a tough call. The film does a magnificent job of investing us in Caesar, making us really care about him, understand him, side with him over the human characters… but how much is that Serkis and how much the animators, the writers, the director?

The rest of the cast are adequate but hardly register. James Franco is a solid lead but rarely called on to do much — Caesar is the protagonist, Franco’s human scientist just facilitates that. Frieda Pinto’s role is underwritten. Considering the film barely hits 100 minutes in an era when many blockbusters bloat to 140+, there’s room for her character to get a subplot objecting to the lab treatment of the apes. She’s awfully accepting of Franco’s line of work. As I noted though, perhaps they were trying to avoid being heavy-handed. Overall, John Lithgow is served best, his character slipping in and out of Alzheimer’s as Franco tries to develop a cure. It’s another in a line of recent fine supporting performances from him.

It’s a first Big Movie for Wyatt, having previously directed prison break thriller The Escapist, but he’s certainly up to the task. The dramatic scenes are handled with appropriate understatement, but there’s a flair to grander sequences — a single shot that shows Caesar ageing five years while climbing through trees is very well done, for instance. By contrast, his first three years commit the cardinal sin of screenwriting: a voiceover tells, not shows. But that’s a rare clunky moment. The final-act skirmish ultimately delivers on the customary blockbuster action front, offering a well choreographed and staged battle. This level of effort makes for an extended sequence that is infinitely more engrossing and exciting than any number of quick-cut close-up shakey-cam tussles of recent years.

I noted earlier that this doesn’t connect directly to the start of Planet of the Apes, and instead a sequel is well prepared for. There’s a satisfying climax and resolution to the main story, thankfully, but there’s unquestionably still more that could come. There’s the newly intelligent apes, not yet ruling the planet; but also a mid-credit sequence that continues a significant subplot that’s clearly left hanging, closing the movie with a slight Part One-y tang. Still, I believe that if there wasn’t a sequel coming it would function satisfyingly as a standalone film.

But there is a sequel on its way (does that make it a sequel-prequel or a prequel-sequel?), and if this gang of filmmakers can pull off another intelligent sci-fi movie, with a continued broadly-plausible evolution of this story, then it will be one to look forward to.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is on Sky Movies Premiere today, for the last time, at 10am and 8pm.

It placed 7th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Dark Knight Rises: Initial Thoughts

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

Everyone and their mother will be writing about The Dark Knight Rises over the next few days — I’m sure there’s already been an explosion in articles, blog posts and comments on both, not to mention various related terms trending on twitter almost constantly for most of the week already — so I figured I may as well add my voice to all the thousands shouting into the dark. But rather than a full review (which I’ll save for when things have quietened down a little, and perhaps there’s some kind of consensus or even just other reactions to respond too), here’s a couple of stray thoughts and paragraphs that immediately struck me.

Naturally, this is all spoiler free.

Christopher Nolan’s film is properly epic, and a proper trilogy-closer too. We’re so used to superhero stories that never end that even when he said this would be an ending I half expected something spectacularly open-ended. But no, this is as much a fullstop as we’re ever likely to see on a big-screen superhero… unless it proves really popular and they all start doing it, of course. It feels really weird, but only because it’s not something we’re used to.

The epic part has its pros and its cons. It creates a grand close to the trilogy, but it’s a very busy film and arguably the makers bit off more than they could chew. There’s probably enough story and characters for two whole films here, and maybe they should have pulled back a bit on some threads. Equally, that sense of scale creates the uniquely epic sensation, and maybe it will reward repeated viewings and more leisurely contemplation, each apparently-short moment loaded with information. Or perhaps not — it is literally something only time can tell.

There’s been some backlash already, and though I’ve only skimmed it the feeling I get is mostly one of mismanaged expectations, rather than flaws of the film itself. It’s definitely more comic book-y than The Dark Knight, but only about as much so as Batman Begins. That has clearly disappointed some, but may delight others, and not bother others still. The marketing is part of the problem: the final trailer’s slow, measured, elegiacal style suggested Superhero Movie As Art, whereas Nolan has instead delivered a proper summer blockbuster — albeit one with a more measured pace and less frenetic action than usual. It’s more ‘traditional’ in that respect — I’d wager the pacing is similar to a blockbuster of 20 years ago, rather than the non-stop-bombast we get today.

I also think it might have benefited from a title change — the fan-mooted Gotham City seems ever so apt. Perhaps that would have aligned some expectations in the right direction. Ultimately, you see, this isn’t A Batman Film for the people who want that — it’s The Conclusion Of Christopher Nolan’s Bruce Wayne Story. And I think that’s fine, but perhaps you need to expect that, or at least be open to it as a possibility.

Stray thoughts:

On BD I may watch it with subtitles, not just for Bane (one review I read noted that some of Gordon’s lines “seem to get lost in his moustache”, which is an amusing way of putting the fact that half the cast offer muffled lines at some point; could just be cinema sound systems though).

Criticism of Nolan’s action direction, which has gone on since Begins, is increasingly unwarranted. Some may feel there isn’t enough action, or that what we get doesn’t go on in enough detail, but that’s the style of these films — they’re story movies with action sequences, not Action Movies. The previous two were the same. But the actual shooting and cutting of the action we do get is never less than fine.

Related to the epic-ness, I’ve seen numerous complaints of poor pacing or a slow middle. I didn’t feel that once. Similarly, this epic-ness may be why it can feel certain cast members are underused. The one that surprises me is Matthew Modine — is he really a big enough name for his supporting role here to be labelled “underused”? I didn’t think so. The stand out for me was Michael Caine, who may bring a tear to your eye, but there are several other noteworthy performances.

This is why I’m going to write a full review later, though this has already turned out a tad long.

The big question on everyone’s lips has always been, can it equal or better The Dark Knight? I don’t think it does. I didn’t ever really think it could, so perhaps I just correctly managed my expectations in that regard. But it not being as good as one of the greatest action-thrillers ever made doesn’t mean it isn’t a fantastic film in its own right, and it has a tone and a feel that’s both connected to the previous two Nolan Bat-pics and distinctly its own.

I think it’s wonderful stuff.

My ‘official’ drabble-length review can now be read here.

The Batman Series

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

In the run up to the release of The Dark Knight Rises I’ve been re-watching all of the modern-era live-action Batman films. I haven’t watched any of them since 2006, well before The Dark Knight was released and only shortly after Batman Begins had signalled a new direction for the Bat-franchise. I think everyone’s view of Batman on film has changed considerably in the last six years, so it’s quite an interesting context to be viewing them in.

I’ve decided not to provide full-length reviews because, quite frankly, I can’t be bothered (I’m 47 behind for pity’s sake!); but because I’ve been having New Thoughts, I thought I’d share a few below. Plus a score, because these are really reviews nonetheless. (I’d give them each their own page, but I don’t want to swamp you yet again, dear treasured email subscribers.) I know I’ve reviewed The Dark Knight twice already, and I didn’t especially want to get into the habit of reviewing it every time I watch it, but I’ve made a couple of quick observations on it in this context.

And with that said…

It’s important to re-emphasise what I just said: that this Bat-retrospective was provoked by my realisation that I hadn’t watched these films for six years, since a time when Begins was the pretty-successful new kid on the block. To an extent the changed perspective brought about by the events of the last six years (primarily, The Dark Knight, and (I perceive) a boost in acclaim for Begins by association) colours how we see all of these films now, but I think none more so than this first.

This used to be the dark and serious take on superheroes, treating them in a more grown-up fashion. In the wake of memories of the camp ’60s Batman and the colourful, optimistic Superman film series, that’s certainly what it is. Watched today, it looks positively comic book-y. Sure, it’s a bit grown-up — there’s elements of psychology and adult relationships, not just Boy’s Own Adventure — but the level of heightened reality and camp… it’s nothing like comic book adaptations now. I honestly can’t think of anything made in the current wave of superhero movies that has this tone.

Also, you forget just how true it was that the earlier Batman films focussed more on the villains than the hero. Batman’s in the first scene, but that’s it for a while, and it takes Bruce Wayne ages to appear; when he does, he barely speaks and the scenes aren’t really about him. The story instead follows Jack Napier/the Joker and a pair of journalists, primarily Vicki Vale, though (again) I think it’s easy to forget how prominent her partner (Alexander Knox, played by Robert Wuhl) is. The film puts a little more emphasis on Wayne/Batman later on, but for a hefty chunk it’s not really about him at all. You can really see why Nolan & co thought that was a seam waiting to be tapped when it came to Begins.

Batman feels dated today. I know it’s 23 years old, but it really feels it, in a way the next few films just don’t. There’s still a lot to like here, but it doesn’t impress me in the way it used to when I was younger. It still retains huge nostalgia value at least. Perhaps, with the scales now fallen from my eyes, when I next come to watch it (whenever that may be) I’ll enjoy it more again.

P.S. The first three Batman films have a chequered rating history, but Batman has perhaps the least explicable. Rated a 12 in cinemas in 1989, it’s consistently been given a 15 for home video. since 1990. The first two times it was classified (in 1990 and then 1992) this would’ve been because the 12 certificate wasn’t available for video, but why it wasn’t downgraded to a 12 in 2004, God only knows. It certainly feels like a 12.

Tim Burton’s first Batman film is great, no doubt, but Returns is a much better film in so many ways. The direction, writing, acting, action and effects are all slicker. They spent over twice as much money on it and it really shows. Plus they have exactly the same running time (to the very minute), but Batman feels surprisingly small scale and Returns feels epic. Watched today, Batman feels Old, whereas Returns… it’s from ’92 so of course it doesn’t feel New — but it feels more like newer films, in a good way.

Some criticise it for being too dark. Well, it is and it isn’t — there’s a lot of black humour in there. I think it works as a tonal whole — it’s not one-note, but it doesn’t swing wildly around either. What’s wrong with a film having a dark tone? Should every blockbuster pitch for exactly the same light-but-not-too-light area? Because they went for that in Forever and it didn’t go down as well.

And that’s related to another thing — some people criticise it for being a Tim Burton film rather than a Batman film, as if that’s a bad or even valid thing. It’s directed by Tim Burton and you don’t expect a Tim Burton film? I’d rather have a director who puts his own stamp on the material than a hired hand who churns out something generic. What’s the point in hiring someone good if they can’t bring their own influence? You don’t think the current films are as influenced by Nolan’s sensibilities as anything else? Look at his personally-authored Inception and tell me that’s in a vastly different style. Then look at Burton’s Planet of the Apes and see what happens when an individualist director is forced into a studio style. Bad things happen, that’s what.

These are meant to be short reviews so I won’t go on about all of Returns’ plus points, but oh my are they many. This is easily the franchise’s best effort until at least Begins, arguably even until Dark Knight; and for those who prefer their Batman less grounded and more fantastical, it could well be the best of all.

P.S. Believe it or not (and some will know this and so believe it, but I didn’t until now), Returns is only uncut in the UK as of 2009! Back when the SE DVDs were classified in 2005 it was still cut by seven seconds for “imitable techniques”, and then got a 12. I don’t know if an uncut 15 was offered then, but that’s what it has now.

Four observations I personally hadn’t made before:

1) everyone goes on about how the pre-Begins Batman films dealt with the villains and ignored Bruce Wayne. That’s true of Burton’s pair, but this one spends a ton of time with Bruce (a lot of that’s about Robin, but it’s about Robin in relation to Bruce). The one who’s hard done by is Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who gets relatively little screen time and most of it is spent as a cackling halfwit sidekick to the Riddler. Not befitting the character at all.

But 2) talking of Two-Face, wow does Tommy Lee Jones over-act furiously! Perhaps that’s not news, but crikey it’s so unlike anything else I’ve ever seen him in.

And 3) I swear Elliot Goldenthal’s score referenced the music of the ’60s Adam West series on several occasions. Which, considering the overall tone of the film, feels entirely possible. (I watched the featurette on the BD about the music but they didn’t mention it, sadly.)

Finally, 4) I was aware they’d completely re-edited the first act to put an action scene up front (and get a lower certificate in the US after all the furore that accompanied Returns), but I wasn’t aware of all the casualties. At one point Batman and Two-Face engage in a car chase that happens for no good reason; in the original cut, Two-Face & co ambush Batman on his way back from attending a Bat-signal call. That at least makes some sense, whereas in the film as-is he seems to go out simply for the purpose of having a chase, then goes home.

Believe it or not, Batman & Robin isn’t a complete disaster. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to mount a defence of the film — it is mostly awful. But only “mostly”.

Relatively significant screen time is given to a subplot involving Alfred being very ill. Thanks to the general warmth of feeling felt toward the character, plus the acting abilities of Michael Gough and George Clooney (who is severely untested by the rest of the movie), this storyline deserves to be part of a far better film.

Also, the realisation of Gotham is impressive. Mixing gigantic sets, model work and CGI, Schumacher and co crafted a towering fantasy landscape straight out of the comic’s wilder imaginings. The neon colouring may not be to the taste of those who prefer Burton’s darkly Gothic interpretation or Nolan’s real-world metropolis (if forced to choose, I’d be among them), but this is an animated-series-style Gotham writ in live-action, and judged as that it’s a resounding success.

The rest of the film is an irredeemable mess, however. Characters speak almost exclusively in one-liners centred on dodgy puns, and even when it’s not a one-liner it’s delivered as if it is. Schwarzenegger is the worst culprit for this, but Uma Thurman overacts horrendously also. She’s defeated by being kicked into her chair, just another of the script’s multitudinous stupidities. Her origin is a weak rip-off of Returns’ take on Catwoman; Bane is reduced to a monosyllabic idiot (at one point he has to plant a series of explosives, grunting the word “bomb” every time he puts one down); Barbara ‘borrows’ a bike from Bruce’s collection and, thanks to editing, appears not to return it for about two days without anyone noticing; and so on. I know they were aiming a little more in the direction of the camp ’60s TV series, but even if you allow for that it just doesn’t pull it off (and I gave the ’60s movie 4 stars, so I believe it can it done).

The “toyetic” approach (i.e. focusing more on the tie-in merchandise that could be generated than the story, etc) results in a foul new look for the Batmobile (though the DVD featurette on the film’s vehicles almost makes you appreciate it — the behind-the-scenes version is much more impressive than what we see in the film) and, famously, the heroes arriving at the climax in new costumes with absolutely no explanation! All it needed was them returning to the Batcave, “we better put on our ice-suits”, something like that. Heck, it would’ve allowed Schumacher to indulge in his suiting-up T&A shots one more time. But no, they just magically change into nastily-designed toy-ready outfits. Ugh.

There is ever so much to hate about Batman & Robin that even the really-quite-well-done Alfred plot can’t prevent me from placing it with the lowest of the low at a single star.

Chris Nolan’s first foray into Bat-world really is a stunning piece of work in many respects. It’s a film with the confidence in its story to take its time and do things its own way. The first 40 or so minutes jump back and forth constantly between Bruce Wayne’s childhood around the time of his parents’ murder, his college-ish days when he runs away around the world, and his present day training with the League of Shadows. But, as is Nolan’s trademark, this mixed-up chronology is never confusing, never unclear, and always serves a point.

Then there’s the fact that Batman himself doesn’t turn up for a whole hour. That’s nearly half the film. But that’s fine — we’re not left wanting, it’s just the right time for him to emerge. When he does, the film becomes suitably action-packed and drives its plot on. Until that point, we’ve had such a thorough basing in the world of Gotham City and the mental character of Bruce Wayne that it seems plausible he’d choose to fight crime by dressing up as a bat.

The Nolan Batman films have become known as the ‘real world’ superhero movies, but of course what we see depicted isn’t the real world, and things wouldn’t happen like this in real life. But it’s the way Begins identifies itself with other movies that creates that feeling. The previous Batman films occur in the exaggerated world of Superman and other superhero fantasy movies; here we’re in an exaggerated world more like James Bond, say, or indeed any other technology-driven action-thriller you choose. It’s not our real world, but it’s the real world of that genre; one closer to our own than the dark fantasy of Burton’s films or the dayglo cartoon of Schumacher’s.

There’s much more that could be said about Begins and naturally I’m limiting myself here (this is meant to be a short comment, after all), but it’s important to note what a fine job Nolan does of making Gotham City a character in the film. All of the Batman films have done this to some degree — it was Burton’s stated aim to make Gotham “the third character” in his first effort — but by giving the city recognisable landmarks, districts, a true sense of history and on-going interrelations, it feels like a real place. And those recognisable landmarks continue into The Dark Knight (particularly spottable are the split-level roads, the Narrows and its bridges, even if the vital-to-this-film’s-plot elevated railway completely disappears between films), cementing the importance of this cityscape. I do hope it continues into Dark Knight Rises. I’ve already read one review that said they should’ve named the final film Gotham City, so I’m optimistic.

The monumental achievement of The Dark Knight has come to overshadow Begins, which is now rendered as a functionary prequel to the next film’s majesty. Don’t let that reputation fool you: on its own merits, this is very much a film at the forefront of the action-adventure, blockbuster and superhero genres.

I was, oddly, a little nervous sitting down to watch TDK for the first time in four years. I’d had such an incredible experience viewing it in the cinema (twice) and, by not watching it since, it had built up some kind of aura in my mind. But I dismissed such silliness and damn well got on with it.

Thank goodness, it’s a film good enough to stand up to such memories. That’s the main thing I wanted to add, I suppose, because everything I had to say in my earlier reviews still stands. The IMAX sequences look almost as incredible on Blu-ray as they did in the theatre (as much as they ever could), but I’m sure you knew that.

What’s interesting is watching this directly after Begins. While Nolan’s first film isn’t even close to being as all-out fantasy as the earlier entries, it errs more in that direction than this one, in my opinion. Begins has a kind of fantastical warmth to it, alongside the more urban-realism aspects. I say “warmth” probably because of the sepia/brown hues of the sequences set in the Narrows and so on. The Dark Knight, by comparison, is set in the cold grey-blue steel world of skyscrapers and the modern metropolis, inspired by towering architecture in its visual style and by epic crime-thrillers in its plotting. Compare the two posters I’ve used here for the gist of what I’m driving at.

Begins is, at heart, still a superhero action-adventure; Dark Knight is a crime thriller that happens to take place in a world with superheroes. Does that make it inherently better? No. But it does make it more unusual for the genre. And as Nolan & co pull off the crime thriller style and feel so damn well, it flat out makes it a great film.

The star rating, of course, stays the same.

In case you missed the links above, my two previous Dark Knight reviews can be read here and here.

And that’s it for the Batman films… so far. Because at the exact time this set of reviews is posted, I should be sat in a large darkened room with a number of other people, about to embark on the concluding chapter of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. I imagine later today or tonight I’ll have some initial thoughts on that one too.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: Sci-fi