Change Your Image
MemnochZERO
Reviews
Batman Begins (2005)
Finally, a PROPER Batman Film.
As a fan of Tim Burton, I like his Batman films, but as a Batman fan, they couldn't have been further from the Batman flavor. Or that's what I thought till Joel Schumacher killed Batman with his 'films'. It's sad when a cartoon has better writing then FOUR feature films combined, but that's all the real Batman fans were left with if they wanted well told intelligent stories about Batman and his multi-layered villains aside from reading the books. That is until a ballsy director and writer came along, those people being Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, and FIXED Batman. Goyer, I had faith in. I'd just hoped he could retain the characters' personalities. Nolan, has MORE than proved he can deliver a dark and gritty Batman film without turning it into dark camp like Burton,or something so insane and flamboyant it would never happen, like Schumacher. I think that's why this film succeeds where the other films failed miserably, because aside from a man in a rag/mask calling himself Scarecrow, and another man in a Batsuit calling himself Batman, the film is camp free, a first for ANY live action Batman representation.
Nolan gives us a gritty city with slums that echo the worst from around the world, AND he makes it dark enough to be very 'Batman' without making it look unnatural. Gotham City is supposed to be ugly and decayed, a virtual urban cesspool of crime, and a nightmare for the viewer. I loved Burton's Gothic flavor, but he couldn't capture reality. Everything felt like a fantastic set, but what Nolan does, is give us something that exists. Part of the nature of this film is the internal. Fears, primal impulses, what drives us to do the things that we do. How does a well meaning person go down a path of corruption? What is a person willing to do for justice and is it that far away from vengeance? These are the things the other films NEVER touched on, or if they did, it was never done right. This film does that. It's gritty, it's a crime movie. I think it's the first time since Batman'89 where organized crime was touched on at all, which is a large staple of the BATMAN comics. The other side of Batman, which usually revolved around insanity, or the criminally insane was also focused on, and once again.. DONE RIGHT. We finally see the inmates of Arkham Asylum as the criminally insane, sadistic predators they are. They are camp free,it's done damn near perfect. The film addresses these men are too sick to be put into prison, rapists, murderers, etc.
This is a film that should shatter the preconceptions the inferior films have left with the mainstream film going audience, as well, please the REAL fans of Batman. I think the only people who MIGHT throw a fit are the people who swear on Burton's films as the ONLY way to be Batman or people who loved Schumacher's films. Secondly, I think strict Batman purists might have a problem with some story development, other than that, it's an excellent film. Another great thing about this film is it shows you can have multiple villains in a comic book based film and NOT have it pointlessly cluttered. The last time a Batman 'film' attempted to use three major villains, we ended up with the messy 'Batman and Robin'. This film delivers an intelligent mature plot (which easily could have come from the books, Long Halloween, No Man's Land come to mind) which involved three villains; Ra's Al Ghul, Carmine Falcone, and Scarecrow, and balances them perfectly keeping everything in the realm of believability. Bad guys shouldn't be scheming one dimensional stereotypes, they should be real people with goals. It's the first film to understand the psychology of Batman. It's adult, without being Restricted, entertaining, without being mindless, visually stunning without being unrealistic, and finally, WELL ACTED.
Bale was BORN to play Batman, my only issue is him using his angry 'I'm gonna kill you' voice from Shaft and American Psycho for the Batman character to the point where it can be a bit much. That aside, he is STELLAR. Katie Holmes as always, it's great. If you're a fan of hers, you'll love her in this, especially visually. Cillian Murphy, much like Bale, he was BORN to play Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. He did it perfect; creepy, intelligent, everything the Scarecrow is without going overboard. What Nolan Goyer and Murphy have done here is bring the Scarecrow to life, possibly making him one of the coolest on screen villains in the history of film. That's a bold statement, but I think it's warranted. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, do I need to say anything about these guys? They were fantastic. Most noteworthy for the comics fans, we have a James Gordon who LOOKS like Gordon, and works with Batman UNLIKE the previous films. We also have another great Alfred. Comical, fatherly, and all around awesome, it's MICHAEL CAINE, you can't go wrong. I'd also like to address how awesome it was that Linus Roache was cast as Thomas Wayne, he LOOKS like Christian Bale. Liam Neeson, next best thing to using David Warner.
I think I have addressed everything about this film that'll give you an ideal of what it'll be like without getting too far into the plot. In order to talk about Ra's Al Ghul I'd have to get into some detail, so I'll skip my big Ra's paragraph. I'm over the word limit, so I will say it was all done perfect but the stunning Katie Holmes should have played Talia, Ra's daughter. They got the PERFECT man for Ra's Al Ghul, trust me. So many films when they add a twist like this, it's done wretchedly, but not BATMAN BEGINS. I think the REAL Batman fans will love this, and fans of well made, acted, and written films will as well. 10/10
Van Helsing (2004)
If You're in the mood to watch Kate Beckinsale and Hugh Jackman fight practically every monster, or enjoy the work of Stephan Sommers, see it, if not...
I must start out by saying something about this movie; it is NOT for everyone. There are elements here that for some people will just not gel. What we have here is not a horror film, but an adventure movie with monsters, that said, there may be minor spoilers here.
It was really different from what I thought it was going to be. Originally I expected it to be a story about Van Helsing. THE Dr. Abraham Van Helsing of Bram Stoker's novel. Secondly I expected it to be a really dark horror movie. What I found was, it was more of an adventure/action movie with horror characters, this is because it's a Stephan Sommers film, the dude that did the Mummy films. In Van Helsing, essentially he took these horror characters/monsters and then created his own bigass story. Van Helsing really isn't the Van Helsing of the Dracula novel, but a monster hunter of a similar name (Gabriel Van Helsing, not a doctor). I think you really have to walk into that movie knowing this won't be a film that purely reflects any of the stories that inspired it. Such characters as Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde, Victor Frankenstein and his Monster, Igor, the wolfman, even Dracula and Van Helsing are almost recreated specifically for this film.
As I said, Van Helsing exists purely as a monster killing tool, he isn't a professor or anything like that, much as the other monsters exist in this movie for the purpose of him eradicating with them in some manner, mostly killing them with a variety of Blade-type weapons. It's a monster movie without being a horror movie. It's visually dark, yet maintains the light adventure nature of the Mummy films. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on what you want to see. I think given what this film was going to be about, it all fit together surprisingly well. I mean, I was rather worried about how all these characters would all fit into a 2 hour movie without being ridiculous like the always s****y 'Street Fighter', and what I found was rather cohesive, and at the very least, entertaining. Of course this film would've worked perfectly had it solely been about Van Helsing and Dracula without the other monsters, and could've truly embraced the dark horror element, but went in the direction of the Mummy.
As far as casting goes, Hugh Jackman is easily the next badass of action films, and we even get some Wolverinesque moments. Kate Beckinsale rules as always, though her accent in the film, as most characters, isn't as convincing as it could be. Regardless of this, she not only kicks ass, but looks great doing it. Casting wise, the more interesting thing, for me anyway, is to see David Wenham playing a character so far removed from Faramir (Lord Of The Rings). He was quiet, shy, and even his posture felt small. His character was said to be about 5'7", meanwhile he in real life is 5'11" yet his posture and acting pulled it off completely. His character was also cowering behind Jackman for most of the movie so that might've had something to do with it. Another great turn in the casting was Kevin J. O'Connor (also from The Mummy) as Igor. Though visually unrecognizable, his voice and acting filtered through his make up and just put a big smile on my face. Without getting into the plot too much, I will say this; I enjoyed the portrayal of the Frankenstein Monster. Unlike what most movies have done, they showed him for what he was. He wasn't evil, he was just a monster. He didn't ask to be made, but yet he was. The debate over the right for him as an individual to exist is addressed quite nicely in the film. Van Helsing, a man who exists to destroy monsters even sees he is not evil even when Anna (Beckinsale) and Carl (Wenham) cannot.
Now, besides the fact that I REALLY wanted to be watching a badass horror movie and didn't get that, I did have other problems with the film. Namely, the insane use of CGI. I understand with a film in a setting like this, CGI is needed, that's great, I accept that. However, the unnecessary use of it really can kill a film. I love a CGI character as much as anyone else (go Sméagol) but the extent to which it is used for nearly every creature in the film actually really annoyed me. The thing with using mad CGI is that you see so much of it in a frame that it no longer becomes movie magic, but just a lazy effect. Some films do it great, like the Lord Of The Rings films or X2 (go Nightcrawler sequence), and some films really can't master it in full, like The Hulk, or even the first Spiderman. The effects in this film essentially use the same style of the Mummy creatures, and transplant them onto vampires and werewolves, and Mr Hyde. Sure it's great I guess, but it starts to take away from the film after so much of it is used. Not to mention, the vampires got progressively predictable as the wanted to feed because their mouths kept extending much like the warrior mummies in The Mummy Returns.
I've always been impressed with great makeup and prosthetics and this film kinda bummed me out at the fact some great monsters were reduced complete CGI trash. While Frankenstein's Monster was pure makeup, the werewolf was all computer, and it bugged the Hell out of me. There was so much potential here, but it was wasted. I did enjoy the way Dracula and his Brides were represented in their pure vampire form though CGI, well, more the Brides, Dracula looked rather tacky at times, specifically in the end. But my favourite parts of the film only were about a minute, maybe, combined, but did make it interesting. No movie before that I've seen has attempted and succeeded in representing werewolf or vampire sight, this film does. The werewolf point of view shots are very animalistic, blurry and black and white, and really put you into its head. The vampire sight is something I've only read in books. As much as vampire movies try to illustrate how vampires see different, it has never been shown. Even the Anne Rice novels which go to great detail to describe this, weren't translated into the films based on them. This film does it and does it well. We finally see what a vampire sees as it hunts in the dark. It's wonderful.
In any case, the film probably isn't for everyone. If you want to watch Kate Beckinsale and Hugh Jackman beat the s**t out of almost every major monster in literature and classic film, and/or appreciate the work of Stephan Sommers, see it. If not.. well, chances are you'll leave less than impressed.
Street Fighter (1994)
The Crap, crap is made out of.
This movie really has no redeeming qualities at all. I saw it opening day, and i couldn't believe what total crap it was. Very recently I saw it on TV as a late night movie. And you know what? It's still total crap. It saddens me to see Raul Julia wasted in this farce.
Tru Confessions (2002)
Watch it, and you won't regret it...unless you do...and Clara Bryant is GREAT in this.
I seriously saw this film by chance, and thank Hendrix i did. Actually, I don't watch Disney movies, and I probibly wouldn't have tuned in had I not remembered Clara Bryant was in it. I'm a fan of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and Clara played a character named Molly this past season. I found not only the underdeveloped and underused character to be interesting, but more importantly, what Clara Bryant brought to it. She made the role so much better than it would've been if played by a weaker actor. Ok, so this comment thing isn't about Buffy, but it is about how great Clara is. Actually after seeing Tru Confessions, I've very upset Clara wasn't given a better part, because her acting really shows here, far more than on BTVS. For starters, she's the lead, which made this 90 minute movie really fun for me. I started watching it because she looked really hot, then I noticed her strong acting abilites. Once I noticed how natural she was delivering the lines, she ceased being Clara Bryant in a Disney movie, but BECAME Trudy Walker. I can't say that for a lot of actors in her age range, but she pulls it off so well. Story wise, it was very engaging. I mean, one thing, I never watch films like this, number two, if a movie isn't The Crow, La Bamba, or Edward Scissorhands, I don't cry. Now this movie didn't make me cry at the time...but it DID trigger alot of emotions in me, which I was surprised by. I got all emotional while explaining the plot to my mom. What's that about? I found Tru and Eddie's relationship in the film to be really..touching. Alright, i think I'm cutting it close here, coming close to 1000 words maybe. All I have to say is, if you haven't seen this movie, try to. It's entertaining at the very least, plus the story and acting are great, and the overall production of the movie doesn't reak of weak TV movie production. Oh yeah, and if anyone out there doubts Clara Bryant as an actor based on her less than stellar Cockny accent on Buffy The Vampire Slayer, watch this movie. There's no accent, but her acting comes through. I'd also like to say I want this thing on DVD at some point. Ok, I hope this rant here didn't ruin the movie for anyone, if it did, I'm sorry. Watch the movie. it's cool, and Clara Bryant rules.