X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

2009 #23
Gavin Hood | 107 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

X-Men is a Great Big Action Movie Franchise — you know, the kind that sprawl on through increasingly lengthy films with the constant risk of diminishing quality. Well, at a relatively brisk 107 minutes, this fourth entry in the X-series is actually the second longest. Shocking I know. But while it counterintuitively conforms to the first rule, it fortunately doesn’t to the second, despite what others may say.

Wolverine, to put it simply — much as the film would — entertains. In this respect it may lack the depth of X-Men or X2, both of which played with subtexts of social exclusion and derision evoking especially the historical treatment of Jews and homosexuals; but, taken as a straightforward action-adventure movie about people with extraordinary abilities fighting each other, it more than satisfies. To this end the action sequences are mostly very good. Only one suffers notably from dark cinematography and choppy editing, both common faults these days, while others manage to exhibit the odd bout of originality — the climax atop a nuclear power station is brilliant, making good use of the characters’ superpowers while also delivering on the ol’ punching-and-kicking front. Some have criticised the action for being physically ludicrous, but perhaps they should be reminded that they’re watching a film about people with superpowers. With that in mind, Wolverine never goes beyond what’s plausible for the world that’s been created across all four films.

In fact, lack of subtext aside, this isn’t as distant from the other X-Men films as the single-character focus and prequel status may suggest. It’s mutant-packed, with numerous cameos from characters familiar to comics fans; it begins with the activities of a superhero team, ends with the rescue of a bunch of mutant kids, and the main plot revolves around some humans doing Bad Things to mutants — just like the first three. The most obvious difference is that Wolverine is now very much the central character, but even that isn’t a great change: he was in the first two, however much they tried to convince us otherwise, only neutered in the third because they knew this prequel was on the way. (For me, the abandonment of Wolverine’s backstory was The Last Stand’s biggest fault, the primary thing that made it feel truly separate from the first two films where it was the central — and unresolved — subplot.)

Elsewhere, the vaguely Watchmen-like opening titles are quite neat, conveying backstory and building up the Wolverine/Sabretooth relationship in an attractive fashion, while also slightly distancing this film from the rest of the series by being in a very different style. While the dialogue is rarely more than efficient, there is the odd good one-liner, my particular favourite being when a grossly overweight character mishears Wolverine’s trademark “bub” as “Blob”, a neat use of one familiar element to create another. Even with these moments, almost all the actors are above the script, especially Ryan Reynolds considering how briefly he appears. All do good work nonetheless, the standouts including Dominic Monaghan, whose character is so different from the violence-centric rest that you wish there was more of him, and Liev Schreiber, who is absolutely fine at what he has to do but would benefit from a few more dramatic scenes to get stuck into. Some of his scenes with Wolverine feel very much like a pair of good actors attempting to transcend the material they’re working from.

Around these weaker parts, Hugh Jackman unquestionably carries the film, and is occasionally granted more to do than just fight people. He even gets to attempt something we’ve not seen from Wolverine before: happiness. Even knowing where it’s all going to end — and there is sometimes a sense that we’re just being told a story we’ve either heard before or worked out for ourselves — there are bits like this that help flesh it out, that show us elements of Logan we might not have bothered to consider otherwise. There’s still the odd instance of box-ticking though, as the few pieces we know from the trilogy are strung together by this film’s plot. They’re not too awkwardly slotted in, but there is an awareness that someone was joining up dots.

While this can be ignored, the same can’t always be said for Wolverine’s noticeably silly hairstyle — one particularly bouffanty moment during the climax even provoked laughter from the audience I saw it with. Intriguingly, Jackman is the second of three Aussies with bloody silly hair this summer, following Russell Crowe’s L’Oréal locks in State of Play and preceding Eric Bana’s Picard pate in Star Trek. I’m sure there must be some deeper meaning to these bad barnets…

Unfortunately, a dodgy ’do isn’t the worst of Wolverine’s problems. There’s some very poor CGI, as if the effects guys thought claws were easy so didn’t worry about them too much. Clearly, this isn’t so. The much-criticised de-aging of another recognisable character is also weak, but, for my money, no weaker than what we saw in The Last Stand. Gambit is miscast and underused, and I’m told Deadpool is the latter also. Not being familiar with the character I had no real problem with his treatment here, but perhaps this is why fanboys dislike the film and some others won’t mind it: if you know what these two characters can be or are meant to be, their sidelining might feel like a betrayal; but if you don’t know them, there’s little wrong with them.

The biggest sin for others is that, at times, Wolverine merrily rolls out clichés. One might argue that it’s set in the ’70s and conforming to some kind of ’70s movie schtick, but that would be a pretty thin argument considering it’s not in evidence anywhere else. Personally, I was amused how some of these lines or moments are sped past, as if everyone involved knew they were shooting a bad cliché but felt they had to leave it in.

This year is surprisingly light on superhero movies, with only Watchmen and now Wolverine to satiate that particular fanbase. Of course, last year was exceptionally packed with them, and as the build to Marvel’s massive Avengers team-up kicks off next summer we’ve got a heavy few years ahead. A bit of a break is nice then, and while Watchmen dealt with the more intellectual front of superheroes (or, if you disliked it, tried to), Wolverine caters to the other side with its unashamed action-adventure entertainment. In fact, by being Actually Quite Good when almost everyone is laying into it, Wolverine manages to become the most underrated film of the year so far.

4 out of 5

Watchmen 2: a couple of suggestions

After finding Total Film’s humourous suggestions for a Watchmen sequel a little lacking in the funniness department, I thought I’d jot down a few myself. It doesn’t mean they’re actually any better, obviously, but it kept me amused for a few minutes.

Betcha can’t spot all the references…

The Watchmen Strike Back
In which the Watchmen form a rebel alliance to fight crime and try to repeal the Keene Act! Sounds depressingly plausible…

The Watchmen: Part II
Split between shocking events of the present day (which, for the viewer, is still the past) and flashbacks to the beginnings in an even-more-past New York. Oh, wait, that’s the first film…

Watchmen: The Superhero Who Shagged Me
The first one deconstructed the genre, the second spoofs it! Hey, it can’t be any worse than Superhero Movie… probably…

Watchmen Supremacy
Modern-day version that induces motion sickness.

2 Watch 2 Men
In which the least memorable lead from the first film goes on some redeeming mission for no reason other than more ‘cool’ action sequences. Stars Silk Spectre, but no one else.

Watchmen 2: Judgement Day
In which the bad guy turns out to be a good guy and an implausible nuclear explosion destroys a major US city. Oh, wait…

Watchmens
“Get away from her you bitch!”, screams Nite Owl as Ozymandias tries to steal his woman.

Watchmen to the Future Part II
Dr Manhattan takes everyone to the future, and then back into the events of the first film, and into the past, and things get mucked up, and the present starts getting erased, and then the future’s different too, and it barely makes sense but it’s still pretty good. And then it ends with them in the Wild West.

Watchmen Reloaded
In which things get even more convoluted and pretentious. Most likely option, then. No need to do the rubbish sex scene set to inappropriate music in the sequel this time though.

Watchmen: The Two Towers
I think leaving it at that is insensitive enough.

W2 (or, in the US ad campaign only, W2: Watchmen United)
Bigger, better, and even more focussed on The One Everyone Liked (i.e. Rorschach). Refuses to resolve his plot line, but then doesn’t do it in a third film (directed by Uwe Boll as Snyder goes on to relaunch V For Vendetta) because Watchmen Origins: Rorschach is scheduled for a couple of years later.

The Dark Nite Owl
Just had to get that one in there.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

2008 #93
Guillermo del Toro | 115 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

This review contains minor spoilers.

Hellboy II The Golden ArmyDespite enjoying the first live action Hellboy movie last year, I didn’t make it to the cinema for this sequel. Unfortunately neither did a lot of others, choosing to see The Dark Knight again and again instead. Of course these days the DVD release is almost as important… except Hellboy’s was on the same day as Dark Knight’s. I don’t have sales figures, but I expect it was thoroughly overshadowed again — which is a shame, because Hellboy II is actually a very different beast.

Despite shared roots in the pages of comic books, Hellboy II sits comfortably apart from last Summer’s other two big comic book adaptations, The Dark Knight and Iron Man. While the former was aiming for a real-world crime-epic feel and the latter a more humour-littered sci-fi, they both still dealt with billionaires investing in identity-hiding suits to fight crime of one kind or another. Hellboy exists in a completely different place. Of course there are still wise-cracking heroes (with requisite Issues) and scheming villains, action sequences and a liberal use of CGI (mixed with “we did it for real!” bits, thankfully the ‘in thing’ right now) — but it’s not Sci-Fi, it’s Fantasy.

Del Toro uses this to his advantage, allowing his incredibly fertile imagination to run riot over every frame. There are more creatures than the first Hellboy and Pan’s Labyrinth combined — in the Troll Market sequence, there’s probably more in each shot — and, in the vicious Tooth Fairies, a wonderfully gruesome twist on a familiar concept. Though couple these with certain other inventions, such as a baby-like talking tumor, and one might begin to wonder how this got passed as a 12 / PG-13; and you’d think a giant red demon getting a human girl pregnant might be enough to raise the classification. (I jest, of course — giant red demons are entitled to all the same rights as the rest of us.)

Imagination isn’t limited to creature design either. An attractively animated prologue manages to both bring back the ever-excellent John Hurt and find a way to convey the huge back story without making it tediously dull (it also has a Christmassy feel that was perfect for when I watched it). The action sequences have all the requisite coolness too, especially the closing duel on giant moving cogs. In fact, del Toro’s creation seems to overflow — the laying of plot threads for a further film is even more overt than it was in the first film — which makes it even more unfortunate that the director’s long term commitment to The Hobbit and its sequel, plus about half a dozen projects after that, makes a proposed trilogy-closer seem increasingly unlikely. This isn’t a major problem with the film, however, just an annoyance that we may never get a third entry.

One of the most amusingly idiotic criticisms I’ve encountered of Hellboy II was that it was “comic-book-ish” — not only does that make one think, “well, duh”, but also, “and why not?” When the other big comic book movies are aiming for real-world seriousness, it’s nice to have a more fantastical alternative. Hellboy II is more than up to the task.

4 out of 5

Hellboy II: The Golden Army placed 8th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2008, which can be read in full here. The brief comment there is probably more eloquent than this review, so please check that out too.

Ultimate Avengers II (2006)

aka Ultimate Avengers 2: Rise of the Panther

2008 #83
Will Meugniot & Richard Sebast | 70 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

Ultimate Avengers IISome things in life baffle me. Form dictates I now list a couple of humorous examples, but we’ll skip that and get to the point: why would you make a direct-to-DVD movie that has a subtitle on the box but not on the film itself? I can understand why titles get tweaked on cinema-release posters and/or subsequent DVD releases — for marketing purposes, say; or clarity — but why, when your title is going direct to the DVD stage, do the titles not match? And why does the box add the subtitle rather than remove it for on-shelf simplicity? I have no answers — it baffles me, remember — but this is the sort of thing I sometimes muse about. The sort of thing that most other people don’t even notice, never mind care about.

Insignificant title issues aside, the fact that (as of writing) 2,365 people have bothered to rate the first Ultimate Avengers on IMDb, while only 1,325 have bothered to rate this second, suggests many were so disappointed by the initial film they didn’t bother with the sequel. Which is something of a shame, because it’s a lot better. Problematically, it’s heavily grounded in the first, picking up several threads that were left hanging — enough so as to make that weak franchise opener required viewing, sadly.

Why’s it better? We’ll get the obvious out of the way: yes, it’s a modern genre sequel, so yes, it’s ‘darker’. In this case that means “more adult”, touching on issues you might not expect in superhero animation with such a low certificate — marital problems, survivor’s guilt, political isolationism, even vague allusions to alcoholism. None are dealt with in any great depth I should add, but it will likely please adult fans wishing for something more “grown-up”. There’s also a greater amount of violence, though much of it is implied, or just off screen, or against bug-like aliens. The animation still isn’t great, though at times seems improved. Equally, while both script and story are better — there’s no pace issue this time — there’s still plenty of clanging dialogue, and the adult subplots aren’t exactly subtly executed.

The climax also has its share of flaws. While most of the story is nicely balanced, it’s over-efficient in wrapping up, in the way that only animation seems allowed to be — for whatever reason, this exact story would comfortably fill a two-hour live-action version. The worst effect of this is that some points aren’t treated with their deserved weight — the death of a major character is so hasty and glossed over that I didn’t even realise it had happened until a brief shot of a memorial in the closing scene. On a less pressing note, the giant alien robots of the final battle leave the film just one leg (per robot) away from becoming a total War of the Worlds rip-off. But this tale is of American origin, so the aliens are defeated not by a clever plot twist, but by brute force.

Despite my attention to the film’s weak points there’s actually plenty to enjoy here, provided animated superhero movies are your thing. There’s more action than the first instalment, a more interesting story, more character development… Even if it’s done at quite a basic level it’s still adequately entertaining, enough that you might wish there was a third. An improvement then, if still flawed, but — ultimately — enjoyable.

4 out of 5

For my review of the first Ultimate Avengers, please look here. Live-action sequel Avengers: Age of Ultron is in UK cinemas from this Thursday, 23rd April 2015.

Ultimate Avengers (2006)

2008 #82
Curt Geda & Steven E. Gordon | 68 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13

Ultimate AvengersWith the big-screen live-action Avengers movie on its way in just two-and-a-half years — once we’ve had a variety of tie-ins to lead into it, of course — now seemed as good a time as any to check out this direct-to-DVD animated version (and its sequel).

I won’t say too much about the plot because, if the rumours are true, the live action film may follow it fairly closely — indeed, the first 15 minutes of Ultimate Avengers presents a roll call of elements already introduced in this summer’s Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk: the Avengers Initiative, a super solider serum, a black Nick Fury, Captain America frozen in ice (OK, so that was only in a deleted scene…) But to follow this story wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing… as long as there were some tweaks.

The primary problem is balance. Ultimate Avengers spends the entire first half assembling the team, the story crawling along at a snail’s pace; consequently, there’s nothing like enough time to do the remaining plot justice, leaving much of it to feel rushed. However, the tale itself retains an appropriately comic-book feel — no surprise considering it’s adapted from a specific storyline — while still containing just about enough information to keep newcomers covered. Were it properly paced, and bolstered by the main characters being introduced in their own films, there’s no real reason this wouldn’t suffice in live action.

On the other hand, in its current incarnation it’s very much Captain America’s story — possibly a problem for the 2011 version, as it will follow Cap’s debut feature by just two months. If his solo outing isn’t a success — particularly if whoever plays him is no good — it would likely sink an Avengers movie that was as focused on him as this. Not encumbered with such problems here it works fine, though it’s disappointing how little we see of other major players — Tony Stark/Iron Man barely features and there’s even less of Thor. That said, Bruce Banner/Hulk gets a key subplot which could be even better if fully developed.

Dodging further predictive comparisons for a moment, the animation quality is variable. Some is very good — mainly the opening World War II-set action sequence — but most is no better than you’d expect from a kid’s TV cartoon (unless they’ve got even worse recently). It does the job adequately, but there’s little exemplary. If there’s a theme emerging it’s this: promise is shown, but not fully realised. That’s not the fault of the medium of course, but rather the brief running time and unbalanced structure.

When the live-action Avengers reaches our screens, I suspect this animated outing will be of greater interest — an intriguing point of comparison between a direct-to-DVD fan-aimed version and a Summer Blockbuster mass audience version of (possibly) the same story. Of course, by that point, Ultimate Avengers will be half a decade old and no longer such a contemporary — or memorable — example.

3 out of 5

Ultimate Avengers II will be reviewed tomorrow, Tuesday 21st April 2015. Live-action sequel Avengers: Age of Ultron is in UK cinemas from Thursday 23rd.

Batman: Gotham Knight (2008)

2008 #65
Shojiro Nishimi, Futoshi Higashide, Hiroshi Morioka, Yasuhiro Aoki, Toshiyuki Kubooka & Jong-Sik Nam | 73 mins | DVD | 15 / PG-13

Batman: Gotham KnightGotham Knight is an American-Japanese produced anime — the animation is Japanese and anime-styled, but the original soundtrack is English — that aims to bridge the gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In this case that equates to six short films, with some narrative connections, strung together to make a movie.

Overseen by executive produce Bruce Timm (Batman: The Animated Series, and most of the DCAU) and all with story credits to Jordan Goldberg (Nolan’s assistant on Batman Begins and now associate producer on The Dark Knight), the shorts, in order of appearance, are:

  • Have I Got a Story For You, written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and directed by first-time director Shojiro Nishimi;
  • Crossfire, written by Greg Rucka (Gotham Central and other comics) and directed by first-time director Futoshi Higashide;
  • Field Test, written by Goldberg and directed by Hiroshi Morioka (Tsubasa Chronicle);
  • In Darkness Dwells, written by David Goyer (Batman Begins, Blade trilogy) and directed by Yasyhiro Aoki (one episode of Tweeny Witches);
  • Working Through Pain, written by Brian Azzarello (100 Bullets and other comics) and directed by first-time director Toshiyuki Kubooka;
  • Deadshot, written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and directed by Jong-Sik Nam (He-Man 2002).
  • Compiling that list, one has to wonder about the blurb’s claim that these shorts are directed by “some of the world’s most visionary animators”. I suppose the key word is “animators” (rather than “directors”), as some have worked on things like Neon Genesis Evangelion, various iterations of Gundam, and even Akira. Regardless of their level of experience, they all seem to do a fine job here, even managing a couple of vaguely memorable moments among fairly stock dialogue scenes and effective, if occasionally unoriginal, fights.

    The six-stories/one-film concept works well enough on the whole. While these are clearly standalone pieces in terms of style and each telling a complete story, they still work best when viewed together — most follow on from the preceding entry and some elements skip across films. These links are nicely varied. For example, while the end of Film 1 merely leads directly to Film 2, there’s a relatively minor action at the end of Film 3 that is picked up in Film 5, and a large chunk of Film 3 is spent on something seemingly insignificant that is picked up on in Film 6. There are some missed opportunities in this respect, such as the transition from the fourth to fifth entries. It would be neater if Batman’s injury in Film 5 was the one from Film 4; based on the settings and their consecutive sequence, I presume this is what was intended, so it’s a shame the wound’s in a completely different place.

    Gotham Knight seems to be squarely aimed at fans — who else could work out that the long-haired mustachioed crime lord here is actually Eric Roberts’ character in The Dark Knight! This is just one of several other factors that seem strange considering Gotham Knight is meant to bridge Nolan’s two live-action Bat-epics: Alfred is the traditional posh Englishman; few/no other characters sound like their Nolan-era counterparts; one segment even features the Burton-style Batmobile! It’s also a shame that the Scarecrow short isn’t last as it would lead even more directly into The Dark Knight. On the other hand, it succeeds in crafting a decent-enough ‘real world’ explanation for Killer Croc, which is no small feat, and Kevin Conroy, now in his mid-50s, still makes a good younger Batman. Thankfully he doesn’t attempt Bale’s over-done Bat-voice, though a nod in that direction might’ve been nice.

    I’ve managed to get this far without invoking The Animatrix, unquestionably the forefather of this and other similar projects. Gotham Knight takes the concept a step further by linking its shorts so clearly, and while it’s not wholly satisfying in this respect, it’s a successful enough step in the right direction. If we do get a The Dark Knight 2, I’d be quite happy to see another direct-to-DVD effort in this vein.

    4 out of 5

    Superhero Movie (2008)

    2008 #52
    Craig Mazin | 85 mins | in-flight | 12A / PG-13

    Superhero MovieYears ago, I saw Scary Movie. I don’t really know what I thought of it anymore, but I never expected I’d find myself watching another entry in the critically-derided …Movie series. But then I found myself on a plane, half asleep and with a choice of films I’d mostly rather watch on a decent-sized screen, and decided that maybe Superhero Movie wouldn’t be so bad after all…

    As anyone who saw a trailer will have guessed, Superhero Movie is mainly a spoof of Spider-Man… a film that is now six years old. Unfortunately, this means that most of the best jokes have already been done in numerous other sketch-length spoofs, amongst them one at the MTV Movie Awards and one during Comic Relief 2005. The latter even did the green costume thing, though the hero was ‘Spider-Plant Man’ rather than the (less funny) Dragonfly employed here. Superhero Movie takes all this sketchery to the next level, however, crafting its story simply by reworking the first Spider-Man film almost scene by scene, inserting jokes (and, more often, ‘jokes’) where it can — which is about once per scene.

    There are also asides that spoof X-Men, Fantastic Four and Batman, but they barely warrant a mention. They’re certainly not any funnier. In fact, the climax is the only wholly original plot point — or, at least, plot point not directly lifted from Spider-Man, as it may well come from some other comic source. This incessant copying makes the film feel like an over-extended sketch, and so it becomes clear that something like Mystery Men, with its genuinely original plot, makes for a much better superhero comedy movie.

    As for the gags themselves, they’re childish, lewd, offensive (“isn’t Stephen Hawking funny!”), too specific to American culture, too topical (they’ll be dated within six months), already dated (“isn’t the Windows paperclip annoying!”), too obvious… It’s very much a movie made for now, not for posterity. Actually, to be fair, it’s very much a movie made for six years ago. In this respect I suppose it’s just like the rest of the …Movie series, which I’ve always felt looked like cheap TV specials owing to their specificity and, well, rubbishness. Still, believe it or not, some bits are actually amusing. Or amusing enough while they’re on. Perhaps I was just laughing out of desperation. I certainly can’t remember any of the jokes now.

    Intriguingly (a word I use loosely here), there are a bunch of deleted scenes and gags during the end credits — not bloopers, but genuine deleted bits. It’s a mystery as to why these aren’t either in the film itself or relegated to DVD extras — it’s not like running time is an issue, and clearly pacing isn’t. In fact, some of the deletions are much funnier than gags that were left in. They’re probably the only reason to keep watching Superhero Movie to the end, though they’re not reason enough to start it in the first place.

    2 out of 5

    Superhero Movie featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2008, which can be read in full here.

    The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience (2008)

    2008 #48a
    Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | IMAX | 12A / PG-13

    The Dark Knight: The IMAX ExperienceOne of the joys of spending five weeks of this summer in New York is that I have the opportunity to see anything that’s out in the US before the UK early. I haven’t entirely used this to my advantage (no trip to Hellboy II, for example, which has almost left theatres here but is still a few weeks off at home), but I have been to the much-anticipated new Batman movie, The Dark Knight… twice. Unlike in the UK, I have relatively easy access to an IMAX here, and, as any good Bat-fan will know, this means I was not only able to see TDK one week early, but also on the screen it (or, at least, parts of it) were specially shot for. Of course, despite the film virtually being on loop at Manhattan’s sole IMAX screen, the high demand for tickets means I had to wait til the second Saturday to see it writ so large — and even then I was fairly lucky, as some showings sold out inside of two hours.

    As I’ve reviewed the film before, and my feelings on it have barely changed with a second viewing just one week later, it seems sensible to focus on the IMAX aspect. For those who somehow missed the news, The Dark Knight is the first Hollywood blockbuster to be specially shot for IMAX — not all of it, but six key sequences… or so they say. From what I could tell, while some whole sequences were indeed shot on IMAX film, often it was used just for bits of scenes, or now and then for the more dramatic establishing shots. For example, every aerial shot in the film — and, as those who’ve seen it will know, there are a fair few — appears to have been shot with IMAX cameras. The choice of sequences to shoot on IMAX is also intriguing. Some reviewers asserted it was “obvious” scenes were IMAXed even on a 35mm print, but I think they might be in for a surprise. Yes, the bank robbery opening, the car chase, and elements of the climax all receive the IMAX treatment, but elsewhere smaller scale action sequences and even some dramatic scenes are awarded the vision-filling honour.

    It all looks stunning, of course: the resolution is visibly increased whenever the IMAX film kicks in (the rest of the film, blown-up from 35mm, is blurry and grainy by comparison but still doesn’t come out too badly) and the added size and scope of the format serve to underline the scenes for which it’s employed. While most of them are worthy, if sometimes unexpected, there are times when one wonders if scenes were picked just to make up the numbers with something not especially challenging. That said, it’s always nice to see, so one can’t complain too much. I didn’t find IMAX to be an especially viewer-friendly format for a two-and-a-half-hour feature though — it’s designed to fill your vision, an aim it achieves admirably, but when trying to watch a regular movie it entails an unusual amount of head turning, as well as trying very hard to notice everything right into the depths of your peripheral vision. It was certainly an experience, as the advertising subtitle suggests, but it won’t be for everyone and I’m not sure I’d bother again without some notable incentive (such as the one Dark Knight offers — none of these new-fangled 3D films have been interesting enough to tempt me yet). In some respects, what interests me most is what debates and opinions the use of IMAX will provoke about the film’s correct aspect ratio when it comes to DVD/Blu-ray time. I don’t care to predict what people will say, but I suspect it will be amusing to observe.

    One final note: watching this just one week after I first saw it in a normal cinema (one week & one hour, to be exact!), it seemed to me that the odd shot was trimmed slightly or actually missing. Quite why this would be I don’t know, and it may just be my memory playing tricks, especially as the running time listed on the BBFC is actually slightly longer for the IMAX version (as seems to be standard, from a quick look at a few other IMAXed films — I’m sure someone knows why). The differences — if indeed there are any — are minor, but I felt I should mention it.

    There’s no questioning The Dark Knight‘s brilliance in its own right, in my mind — it may be questionable whether it’s the Best Film Ever (surprisingly, it still sits at #1 on the IMDb Top 250), but at the same time I genuinely enjoyed this more than any other film I’ve seen from that top ten (and probably beyond). Whatever size screen you see it on, this film is an amazing experience — but some of it was shot especially for IMAX and those bits do look spectacular on the extra-huge screen. If you have the chance, this is really how Dark Knight should be seen — especially as it’s always possible that you won’t have the chance again.

    5 out of 5

    As if two reviews wasn’t enough, I shared more of my thoughts on The Dark Knight (this time when considered next to Batman Begins) here.

    On the off chance anyone’s wondering what happened to #48, it’s WALL-E and the review’s on its way. But I’ve been sat on this one for a week (and not got round to the WALL-E one for over a week!), so I thought I’d just get on and post this, sequence be damned.

    The Dark Knight (2008)

    2008 #47
    Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

    The Dark KnightThe 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-led gut reaction for you… but, even when time’s passed, I’m certain it deserves to remain high on the list.

    5 out of 5

    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. You can also read even more of my thoughts on the film (this time when considered next to Batman Begins) here.

    The Dark Knight placed 1st on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2008, which can be read in full here.

    The Incredible Hulk (2008)

    2008 #45
    Louis Leterrier | 114 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

    The Incredible HulkNow 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.

    4 out of 5