Ford v Ferrari (2019) review

As its title suggests, Ford v Ferrari delves into the heated rivalry between two of the most prominent manufacturers in the automobile industry. On one side, you have the Ford Motor Company, whose founder Henry Ford invented the first ‘affordable’ automobile, the Model T, and revolutionized the process of assembly-line production for his company’s line of cars. On the other side, there’s Enzo Ferrari and his prestigious brand of Italian sports cars that quickly became a staple of auto racing, especially in the 1960s when it won the annual race event known as the 24 Hours of Le Mans in Le Mans, France for six straight years. Ford v Ferrari specifically focuses on the former’s attempt to finally beat Ferrari at this historic event, which it ultimately managed to accomplish in 1966. It is the latest directorial effort from director James Mangold, who has had a considerably lengthy career in the industry with hits such as the 2005 Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line and his 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma. In recent years, however, Mangold has also become known for his major contributions to the superhero genre through the two films that he made with Hugh Jackman starring in his iconic role as the legendary X-Men member Wolverine. The first of these was 2013’s The Wolverine, which fared a lot better with critics and audiences than Wolverine’s first solo outing in 2009, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and was then followed by 2017’s Logan, which gave Jackman’s version of the character the emotionally satisfying send-off that he damn well deserved. And with Ford v Ferrari, James Mangold ends up having yet another hit on his hands thanks to a finely tuned racing biopic that fully benefits from its dynamite cast, thrilling racing sequences, and all-around sharp direction.

It is 1963 and the Ford Motor Company, as led by Henry Ford’s grandson Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts), is dealing with a severe decline in car sales. To fix this problem, Ford’s Vice President Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that the company should start getting into racing to properly appeal to the current generation of potential car owners, which they can achieve through a deal with Ferrari, who has also been struggling financially. However, when Iacocca proposes this deal to company founder Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), the legendary entrepreneur refuses, takes a deal with Fiat instead, and vehemently blasts Ford for “building ugly little cars in ugly factories”. Fueled by this criticism, Henry Ford II launches the company’s new racing division and proclaims that they will defeat Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. To accomplish this, Ford hires Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon), who had previously won the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1959 before being forced to retire due to a heart condition, to run the division and build what ends up becoming the GT40. In turn, Shelby enlists the help of his long-time friend Ken Miles (Christian Bale) with the promise that Miles will be part of the company’s drivers at Le Mans. However, Ford executive Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas) strongly opposes the idea since Miles’ hot-headed nature doesn’t gel with the company’s usual image. Shelby persists, however, since he knows that Miles is quite possibly the only driver that can seriously pose a threat to Ferrari’s success.

Given the nature of this film’s plot, it goes without saying that Ford v Ferrari features some incredible racing sequences. Every single one of them benefits from excellent cinematography and they flawlessly recreate the pure kinetic energy that stems from a day at the racetrack (and yes, they were all done for real). However, this energetic spirit isn’t just limited to the racing sequences. While Ford v Ferrari does boast a hefty 2-½ hour runtime, its strong pacing and impeccably tight editing from James Mangold’s go-to editor Michael McCusker and up-and-coming editor Andrew Buckland (who has also worked on a few of Mangold’s previous films) means that there’s never a dull moment. A lot of this is also thanks to how Mangold excellently handles what can best be described as a ‘David and Goliath’ story on two different fronts. As much as this is a story about how a perennial underdog like Ford managed to dethrone Ferrari, one of the most successful auto racing teams in the world, it’s also very much a story about the two men who played the most prominent roles in making it all happen. They may not have been the kind of guys who flawlessly represent the company’s image, but they knew that going against the norm was the only way that they could possibly beat Ferrari at their own game. All this is especially prevalent when it comes to how the film ends. Without directly spoiling anything (which, I admit, may not be that necessary of a thing to point out since this is a true story), Ford v Ferrari boldly decides to end on a note that, in a different biopic, would’ve just been relegated to the closing text that pops up before the credits roll. But in this case, the decision to include that final plot point is what ultimately gives Ford v Ferrari its most prominent emotional beat.  

The other factor behind this film’s success is its amazing ensemble cast headlined by the potent duo of Matt Damon and Christian Bale. Not only do these two have phenomenal on-screen camaraderie, but they also provide an incredibly fun dynamic that stems from their characters’ radically different personalities. Whereas Carroll Shelby is the smooth-talking, charismatic Southerner, Ken Miles is the cockier Brit who isn’t afraid to express his particularly blunt opinions on any given matter but is also a fully devoted family man. On that note, the film does a nice job of handling the roles of Miles’ wife Mollie (Caitriona Balfe) and their son Peter (Noah Jupe) in the story even though they don’t directly factor into the work that Carroll and Ken do for Ford. Caitriona Balfe benefits nicely from Mollie Miles having just as much of a feisty personality as her husband, thus allowing her to be far more than just a passive supporting character, while Noah Jupe does a solid job with the simple but highly effective arc of a young racing fan who’s forced to learn about the dangers of the sport the hard way. After that, the film is chock-full of excellent supporting turns from the likes of reliable names such as Jon Bernthal as Lee Iacocca, the only Ford executive who doesn’t clash with Shelby and Miles’ ways, and Tracy Letts, who brings the right amount of bold conviction to the role of Henry Ford II.

Ford v Ferrari is easily one of the best films of 2019. Simply put, this is one of those films that flawlessly manages to hit all the right notes when it comes to everything that went into making it. James Mangold’s phenomenal direction sets the stage for an utterly thrilling racing biopic that thrives thanks to its incredible racing sequences and pitch-perfect pacing, with the latter being a vital factor in overcoming the pressure of the film’s weighty runtime. But to be clear, the fact that Ford v Ferrari is 2 ½ hours long is never once an issue because it always maintains an incredibly compelling underdog story with a solid emotional hook thanks to its emphasis on the two men who practically made it all happen. These two men, Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles, are excellently portrayed by Matt Damon and Christian Bale, respectively, as they do, indeed, carry the whole film while still being backed by a phenomenal supporting cast. Because of this, it’s safe to say that these two will be major frontrunners for all the big acting awards during this year’s awards season. And yet, perhaps the best aspect of Ford v Ferrari is that it’s one of those films that’s so universally appealing that you don’t have to be a big fan of auto racing to enjoy it. In other words, James Mangold manages to craft a film that fully succeeds at being both an incredibly well-made awards contender and a good old-fashioned crowd-pleaser.   

Rating: 5/5!

Short Review Triple Feature

Greetings ladies and gentlemen! As I noted a few days ago in my Quentin Tarantino directorial retrospective, I’ve been spending a lot of time developing my ‘Top 12 Favorite Films of 2015’ posts for you folks, which I can confirm for you all will start being published on this blog on January 6^th. Until then, as a result of me being primarily focused on those posts, I haven’t had much time to do full reviews for the films that I usually see around this time of the year; in other words, anything I see during the last few days of 2015. As I’ve established before, I’ve been partaking in an annual post-Christmas tradition in the form of a double feature run that I have been doing with my good friend Matthew Goudreau, who’s currently working as an Entertainment Staff Writer with ‘The Young Folks’, every year since 2012. But due to the both of us being rather busy, we actually weren’t able to do it until the first day of 2016 but even if it wasn’t 2015 anymore, this should still be considered as our 2015 run. In 2012, it was ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Django Unchained’. In 2013 it was ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ and ‘American Hustle’. And last year, it was ‘Into the Woods’ and ‘The Imitation Game’. So today, as one last post before the big ‘Best Films of the Year’ posts, I’ll be doing a pair of quick reviews of the two films that we saw back-to-back this time around. But this time, however, I’ll be adding in an additional review of a film that I saw the day before I did the double feature screening with Matt on the last day of 2015.  

First up on the list is the film that I saw on December 31^st, 2015, New Year’s Eve. It was the last ‘new’ 2015 release that I watched in 2015.

JOY

David O. Russell and Jennifer Lawrence have become one of the biggest director-actor duos in recent years. The two first collaborated on 2012’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook’. That film not only landed Lawrence her second Oscar nomination for Best Actress, after her breakout turn in 2010’s ‘Winter’s Bone’, but also her first win. The two teamed up again the following year, along with her ‘Silver Linings’ co-stars Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro, for ‘American Hustle’. While only in a supporting role this time around, Lawrence once again got major award buzz for her performance as the unstable wife of Christian Bale’s character and earned her third (and second straight) Oscar nomination, this time for Best Supporting Actress. And while Lupita Nyong’o ended up winning that award that year for her turn in ‘Twelve Years a Slave’, Lawrence was still regarded as being one of the best parts of ‘American Hustle’. This year the duo of Lawrence and O. Russell are at it again, along with Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro, again, for ‘Joy’. This time Lawrence is the true star of the show in this semi true story about Joy Mangano, a divorced mother from Long Island who became famous in the 90’s for her invention of the Miracle Mop, a self-wringing mop that kept users from having to touch the wet mop head as they would have to have done if they used a regular mop. Her invention was a huge success and Mangano became a highly successful entrepreneur for the Home Shopping Network. She’s been developing new inventions for the network ever since.   

I say ‘semi’ true story because O. Russell has gone on record saying that the film is not entirely based around Mangano’s life. Instead, the screenplay is based around several different stories of women who dared to change their lives around. So while the film may not delve into the full story of Mangano’s rise to fame, it’s still a solidly-executed story of a young woman with the weight of the entire world on her shoulders who manages to overcome all of that through both her perseverance and her ingenious invention. Her life struggles make her easy to sympathize with and relate to and Jennifer Lawrence is superb as always in the role of Joy, as are Robert De Niro as Joy’s father Rudy, who gets quite a lot of humorous lines of dialogue (If you recall my review of ‘American Hustle’, I questioned why that film was being regarded as a comedy when it really wasn’t. ‘Joy’, on the other hand, does a much better job when it comes to comedic dialogue), and Bradley Cooper in the role of an executive from QVC who helps Joy sell her product on the network. Admittedly the film takes a little while to get going and there is quite a bit of uncomfortableness that comes from Joy’s mother’s (Virginia Madsen) role in the film, a woman who spends all of her time watching soap operas and never leaving her room. But once Joy starts to produce and sell her new invention, that’s where the film really starts to shine. Many of you are aware that even though I really liked ‘Silver Linings Playbook’, I wasn’t too big on ‘American Hustle’ and thought that it was one of the more ‘overrated’ films of that year. ‘Joy’, on the other hand, is a film that I’m happy to say that I’m much more positive towards. This one has been more polarizing with critics but at the very least I feel that Lawrence should at least get another Oscar nomination for her work on this film.

Rating: 4/5

And now we move onto the two films that I saw with Matt on January 1^st, New Year’s Day.

THE HATEFUL EIGHT

Good ol’ Quentin Tarantino is back with yet another balls-to-the-wall cinematic experience with his eighth feature film, fittingly titled ‘The Hateful Eight’. A western set in post-Civil War Wyoming, the film centers around a group of eight strangers who end up stuck together in a Haberdashery due to a harsh blizzard. These people include bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell), known as ‘The Hangman’ due to his insistence on making sure his bounties hang, his current prisoner/bounty Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), fellow bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), ‘new sheriff’ Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), the haberdashery’s caretaker Bob (Demian Bichir), ‘hangman’ Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), cow-puncher Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), and former Confederate general Sanford Smithers (Bruce Dern). The major selling point of the film was that it was shot in Ultra Panavision 70, a format that hadn’t been used since the 60’s with films like ‘Ben-Hur’ and ‘It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World’. Ever the film buff, Tarantino prepared a special ‘roadshow’ release of the film, complete with an overture, intermission, and special booklet, that was 20 minutes longer than the version that would be released nationwide and would be screened in any theaters that still had 70 mm projectors. Of the roughly 100 theaters that screened this special version of the film, the closest to me was the Providence Place Cinema. However, I saw the film in Lincoln so, yes, I only saw the film in its ‘digital release’ form and not in the way that Tarantino had intended. I will see if I can get to see the film’s roadshow release while it’s still running.

But even though I didn’t see the film in the 70 mm format, it is still a beautifully-shot film in terms of its vast landscapes and fresh color palette. As for the film itself, it’s exactly what you’d expect from a Tarantino film. The first half of the film is mostly build-up and exposition between characters but Tarantino is easily one of the best in the business in terms of establishing tension that keeps the audience guessing as to what’s going to happen next and, perhaps most importantly, who’s going to be on the end of another person’s bullet by the end. Admittedly the film is a bit flawed. It loses some momentum in the second half, you do feel the film’s hefty 160+ minute runtime in places, and admittedly Tarantino’s violent action sequences are starting to get a little ridiculous, from heads exploding to people coughing up tons of blood after they drink poisoned coffee. But at the same time, as noted earlier, Tarantino’s direction in terms of establishing suspense and tension is once again superb and the film’s ensemble cast is superb as well. If I had to name the biggest standouts of the film, I would have to go with the three that most people are talking about. Those three are Samuel L. Jackson, of course (this is a Tarantino film after all), as the badass Major Warren, Walton Goggins as arguably the most charismatic of the bunch (even though you really wouldn’t use that word to describe any of these characters) as Mannix, and Jennifer Jason Leigh as, to put it as nicely as I possibly can, the extremely feral Domergue. For Tarantino fans, ‘The Hateful Eight’ will deliver on everything you come to expect from the legendary filmmaker. It’s by no means his best work but still a must-see in every sense of the word.

Rating: 4/5

THE BIG SHORT

Finally, we have ‘The Big Short’, an interesting against-type project for director Adam McKay. Known for his numerous collaborations with Will Ferrell on comedies like ‘Anchorman’ and ‘Talladega Nights’, ‘The Big Short’, based on the book of the same name by ‘Moneyball’ author Michael Lewis, is more of a drama that focuses on the financial crisis of 2007-2010 that came as a result of the fall of the housing market and build-up of the credit bubble. The film primarily follows the stories of three separate parties; hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale), who is the first to notice the impending collapse of the market, another hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell) who is notified of this by trader Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) and uncovers the fraudulent practices of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and up-and-coming investors Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who get involved with the credit default swap market with their help of their friend, retired banker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt). All of these characters spend their time in the film working to take advantage of the practice of credit default swap that would bet against the housing market. And despite the fact that obviously this ends up working in their favor, they pretty much all come to the conclusion that in doing so, they’re profiting at the expense of pretty much everyone else in the world except for the banks, resulting in the question of how are they any better than the banks for doing this.

So yeah, sounds like a pretty downer story, right? Well, that’s where McKay’s comedic talents come in as the film manages to have a lot of comedic dialogue that for the most part sort of makes up for the more depressing elements of the story. A lot of the humor comes from Ryan Gosling, whose character Jared Vennett serves as the film’s narrator and Gosling brings a charismatic and also quite boisterous attitude to the role. Now I’ll admit that I know very little about all of this stuff about the housing market and the credit bubble and so on and so forth. And that’s okay because the film is totally aware about that too. It knows that a lot of us aren’t economics majors. So what it does in order to at least make more sense for people like me who don’t know anything about all of this is by cutting to random cameos where celebrities like Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez address the audience and give us a better understanding of all of this trading business, from Robbie talking about loans while in a bathtub to chef Anthony Bourdain talking about CDOs. I’ll admit that there’s sort of a surreal nature to these scenes but thanks to McKay’s direction, a superb cast (if I had to pick a standout I’d go with Gosling for his aforementioned narration work), and an actually solid mix of comedy and drama, ‘The Big Short’ is a fascinating look into one of the biggest incidents in the recent history of this country while also pointing out all of the BS that was responsible from it; BS that, as Brad Pitt put it, hasn’t gone away.

Rating: 4.5/5

Terminator Franchise Retrospective

A new ‘Terminator’ film is on the horizon in the form of ‘Terminator: Genisys’… and yes, that spelling of the subtitle is intentional. And the fact that I had to highlight that should give you an idea of the general apprehension of most film fans in regards to this upcoming film and some of the creative choices that have been made for it. Personally I’m looking forward to the film as I am a fan of the franchise and contrary to public opinion, I don’t think it looks bad at all. I even like the idea of the film going back to the story of the first film but doing a new take on it through the creation of an alternate universe a la the new ‘Star Trek’ films. But at the same time, I do recognize that this definitely is one of those films that could go either way. But there was recently a video released where the series’ original creator James Cameron stated that he enjoyed the film, stating that it is “extremely respectful of the first two movies”. So if James Cameron, the same guy who hasn’t been involved with the franchise for years and was critical of both of the previous two ‘Terminator’ sequels, says that this new film is good, then I think it’ll at least be solid and not the ‘disaster’ that most film fans on the internet are predicting it to be. Perhaps one of the reasons for this unease towards the film is the fact that the ‘Terminator’ franchise is one of those film franchises that has arguably gone on for longer than it needed to be.

It all started back in the early 80’s before James Cameron was known as the director of the two highest-grossing films of all time, ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’. Back then, his only major directing credit was for the 1981 B-movie ‘Piranha II: The Spawning’. Heck, he wasn’t even the original director of the film… and he was even fired by the producer just a few weeks into the shoot. But if there was anything good that came out of working on that film for Cameron, it is that during the film’s release, he had a nightmare about being chased by a metallic endoskeleton. This led him to develop the story of ‘The Terminator’, which was released in 1984. Produced for just $6.4 million, the film went on to become one of the most iconic sci-fi films of all time, followed by an equally successful and beloved sequel in 1991. The sequel ended up tying up all loose ends, resulting in what would’ve been a proper ending to the series… that is, until Hollywood decided to bring the franchise back, which it did in 2003 by retconning the ending of the second film so that the franchise could continue, hence why we are here today with the newest film set to come out in a few days. So today, in honor of the upcoming release, it’s time to look back upon the last four ‘Terminator’ films, the two from Cameron and the two that were produced without his input.

THE TERMINATOR (1984)

While all three of its sequels are firmly rooted in the sci-fi action genre, the first ‘Terminator’ actually goes down a different route. After all, as noted earlier, part of Cameron’s inspiration for the film basically came from a nightmare he had so as a result, the original ‘Terminator’ film is sort of a sci-fi horror film with its premise of a young woman named Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) being chased by an unstoppable human-looking cyborg known as the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) with only Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), a soldier from the future, to protect her so that she can give birth to the future leader of the resistance, John Connor. This terrifying premise is executed perfectly not only in the writing but also through the film’s noir-like style with its darker-lit environments. All in all, this is one low-budget sci-fi film that uses its low-budget status to great effect. Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly cast in what would become the most iconic role of his career and both Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn do excellent jobs as well. All in all, what James Cameron has since referred to as his ‘first film’ (not ‘Piranha II’) still stands as one of the absolute best films of the sci-fi genre, and it did it all with a minimal budget.

Rating: 5/5!

TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY (1991)

It’s rare when you have a sequel that’s not only as good as the original film, but is arguably the better film. Don’t get me wrong… the first ‘Terminator’ is still a fantastic film, no doubt about that. But at the end of the day, I do prefer the second film, which is much more action-based compared to the horror-like premise of the first film. ‘Judgement Day’ is basically the first film but with a budget that allows Cameron to go all out with the action sequences and effects. As such, the film’s action sequences are excellent and the visuals are quite impressive for the time as the film ended up being one of the pioneers of the use of CGI alongside films like ‘Jurassic Park’. But what really makes ‘Terminator 2’ stand out more so than its action and visuals is Cameron’s exceptional writing which adds plenty of layers to both the story and the characters. Cameron perfectly captures the paranoia of the impending doomsday, Judgement Day, through the eyes of the main characters; Sarah in how much she has changed since her first encounter with a Terminator and her drive to stop Judgement Day from happening, John in coming to terms with his destiny while facing the same situation his mother endured before (except in this case Robert Patrick’s T-1000 is arguably an even more intimidating antagonist than Arnold’s T-800 due to his more ‘unsuspecting’ nature), and so on. But amidst all of that, the film still manages to find moments of levity, namely through the father-son relationship between John and the T-800 that was programmed to protect him. And that is ultimately why ‘Terminator 2: Judgement Day’ is not only one of the best sequels of all time, but quite frankly also one of the best films of all time as it perfectly balances its action with its storytelling to produce a true cinematic masterpiece.

Rating: 5/5!

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003)

‘Terminator 2’ ended on a pretty conclusive note. The Connors, with the help of the T-800, destroyed all traces of Skynet so that Judgement Day could be prevented. There was absolutely no way that the series could continue on after that, right? Well, Hollywood found a way, hence why in 2003, without any involvement whatsoever from James Cameron, ‘Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines’ was released. It pulled a major retcon by establishing that the Connors’ efforts in ‘Terminator 2’ only postponed the inevitable doomsday. So with that in mind, you can probably tell that this film is obviously not as well-liked by fans as much as the first two films. But you know what? I actually think this film isn’t that bad; in fact, I’d say it’s quite underrated. Now again, let me be clear. This is easily one of the most unnecessary sequels of all-time. There was no need to continue this franchise after ‘Terminator 2’ because that film tied up pretty much every major loose end and this film instead goes against that by saying that no, that didn’t stop Judgement Day from happening… that and the film does not feature Sarah Connor, killing her off instead prior to the events of the film. This film also re-hashes the same plotline of the previous film (and technically speaking the first as well minus the fact that Kyle Reese was not a Terminator) of a Terminator being sent back in time to kill John Connor and a Guardian Terminator sent back as well to protect him.

But despite all of that, the film itself is still a pretty darn solid sci-fi action flick. The action sequences are still really solid, especially the highway chase where the Terminator crashes through buildings hanging onto a big hook. The humor is emphasized a bit more in this entry than the previous film but I didn’t mind that too much. Yes, I thought the scenes where the Terminator puts on silly glasses and tells a convenience store clerk to ‘talk to the hand’ were actually pretty funny moments. Of course, the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger to his iconic role of the Terminator is very much welcome. I’d also argue that Nick Stahl has been the best John Connor out of all of the actors who have been in the role so far. Sure he spends most of the film looking/acting depressed as hell but I think that actually works well with the character at this point in his life, forced to stay off the grid and haunted by the destiny that awaits him after Judgement Day. So at the end of the day, I actually really liked ‘Terminator 3’. Did it need to be made? No. In being made, did it go against the excellent ending of ‘Terminator 2’ with a shameless retcon that was the only way the series could even continue? Yes. But is it a ‘bad’ film? No, not at all. It is by no means the best entry of the series but it is still pretty darn entertaining and by no means as ‘terrible’ as some on the internet may put it out to be.

Rating: 4/5

TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009)

On a positive note, ‘Terminator Salvation’ is the first entry in the series that actually takes place during the future and does not rehash the same ‘Terminator hunting the Connors’ plotline of the first three films. But the downside? It’s easily the weakest of the first four ‘Terminator’ films. Ultimately this is one of those cases of ‘style over substance’. Director McG, to his credit, does a solid job with the action sequences even under that pesky PG-13 rating that drew red flags amongst hardcore fans even though it’s really not that big of a deal. But the writing on the other hand… is pretty darn weak. The overall story is fairly dull and despite being a ‘Terminator’ film, John Connor actually isn’t even the main character of the film. And while Christian Bale may be one of the best actors working today, the most memorable thing about his turn here in ‘Terminator’ was his infamous rant at cinematographer Shane Hurlbut and that’s about it. Instead, the main character of the film is Marcus Wright, a death row inmate who discovers that he has been turned into a ‘Terminator’. It may just be because Christian Bale’s turn as John Connor didn’t turn out so good, but Sam Worthington is actually one of the bright spots of the film as what is ultimately the more interesting character. Another major standout of the cast is Anton Yelchin as young Kyle Reese, as Yelchin does a great job in capturing the mannerisms of the character as portrayed by Michael Biehn in the original film. ‘Terminator Salvation’ is by no means a ‘terrible’ film but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily ‘great’ either. McG tried his best but lacked the good writing of the first two films. Ultimately though, ‘Terminator Salvation’ is a decent popcorn flick.

Rating: 2.5/5

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) review

Easily one of the most famous sections of the Hebrew Bible is the Book of Exodus, the story of how the Israelites, who were slaves of Egypt, escaped captivity and left for what they called ‘The Promised Land’, the land of Canaan, led by their leader Moses. Moses himself had originally been born Hebrew but when the King of Egypt demanded that all newborn male Hebrew babies were to be killed, Moses’ mother saved him from that fate by setting him adrift on the Nile, where he was ultimately picked up by the Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted him into the Royal Family. There have been multiple adaptations of Exodus, including not one but two films of the same name; ‘The Ten Commandments’, both of which were directed by Cecil B. DeMille. He first directed a silent version of the story in 1923 and then ‘partially remade’ it in 1956, this one starring Charlton Heston in the role of Moses and is commonly regarded as one of the greatest film epics of all time. There’s also the 1998 animated, and in some cases fairly underrated, adaptation titled ‘The Prince of Egypt’, which was made by DreamWorks. This year, director Ridley Scott takes on the story with ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, a film that has received quite a bit of controversy these past few months in regards to its casting. As for the film itself, it’s a pretty decent take on this iconic story, even though there are certain things it could’ve done better.

The film begins as Moses (Christian Bale) is already a part of the Royal Family, serving as a general in the Egyptian Army working alongside his ‘brother’, Prince Ramesses (Joel Edgerton). One day, Moses travels to the city of Pithom to see into the current situation with Egypt’s slaves and while there, one of the slaves, Nun (Ben Kingsley), tells him about his true lineage as a Hebrew man who was raised by Pharaoh Seti’s (John Turturro) daughter after he was saved from being executed as a result of Seti ordering that all Hebrew newborn males were to be killed. Moses eventually reveals his true identity to Ramesses, who becomes Pharaoh after Seti’s death, and is exiled because of it. He soon begins a new life as a shepherd living in the town of Midian with his wife Zipporah (Maria Valverde) but one day, after getting caught in a rockslide, he comes across the famous ‘burning bush’ and is told by God, represented in this film by a young boy named Malak, to return to Egypt to demand that the Hebrews be set free. Moses does end up returning to Egypt, but Ramesses refuses to free the Hebrews. As a result, God inflicts the ‘Ten Plagues’ upon Egypt in order to try and change Ramesses’ mind, even if Moses isn’t exactly on board with some of the things God does to the people of Egypt.  

This film’s greatest strength is easily its visuals, which do a phenomenal job of recreating key moments in the story of Exodus, from the ten plagues of Egypt (e.g. the water in the River Nile turning into blood, the swarms of frogs and locusts, etc.) to the parting of the Red Sea, even if the sequence itself is admittedly a little lackluster. Still, this is easily one of the biggest takes on the story of Exodus on film to date in regards to its overall scale and scope, perhaps even more so than the Heston version. However, the film does lack a bit in terms of character development, namely in regards to the relationship between Moses and Ramesses. I don’t want to compare this film too much with other adaptations of Exodus, but one of the biggest strengths of ‘Prince of Egypt’ was that it really did a good job in conveying the relationship of these two men in that, despite the fact that they ended up being enemies, they were still brothers (not actual brothers, but you get the idea). This film states that these two had grown up as ‘brothers’ but in the film itself, they don’t spend that much time together before they become enemies. While I’m not saying that this film should’ve 100% copied what ‘Prince of Egypt’ did in terms of the ‘Moses-Ramesses’ relationship, it could’ve really benefitted from more scenes between the two.

As noted earlier, there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding this film, not over the film’s take on the story of Exodus like the controversy surrounding the other major biblical film of the year, ‘Noah’, but in regards to its casting. Namely, the thing that made a lot of people angry about this film is that while the supporting cast of the film was probably cast in terms of race, four of the main roles (Moses, Ramesses, Queen Tuya, and Joshua) were all played by white actors (Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Sigourney Weaver, and Aaron Paul, respectively). Because I never like to talk about the subject of race in film, I won’t go into too much detail about it but I do want to point out some recent comments made by Scott in regards to this whole debacle. He said that the main reason as to why this film was cast the way it was is due to the fact that if he had cast a lesser-name actor of proper race in the lead role of Moses, then he would’ve been unable to get a movie of this scale (on a budget of $140 million, for the record) financed. So ultimately, regardless of what your stance is on this whole ordeal, Scott’s words are pretty true, showcasing a prime example of the recent controversy surrounding the idea of ‘whitewashing’ in Hollywood. Though like I said earlier, I won’t go any further into this matter.

But I will say that from a performance-perspective, the acting in this movie is pretty good, even with the whole ‘race’ controversy in mind. The two biggest standouts are easily Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton in the lead roles. Bale provides a pretty interesting take on Moses, who he referred to as ‘schizophrenic’ (another controversial statement that I won’t be going much into). This is definitely shown in scenes where Moses is talking to God where, from the perspective on an onlooker, it looks like he’s talking to himself. At the same time, Bale also does a great job at conveying both Moses’ leader-ship qualities and his humanity, the latter of which is highly emphasized in scenes where Moses disagrees with some of God’s decisions. Edgerton, as Ramesses, is a bit over-the-top at times but other times he also gives a very subdued and emotionally powerful performance, like in a key scene near the end where Ramesses experiences a personal tragedy. As I noted earlier, while the film could’ve benefitted from having more scenes between the two before they became enemies, Bale and Edgerton do work off each other really well. The rest of the cast is solid too, but some don’t get as much to do as Bale and Edgerton. Despite being one of the main characters in the film, Aaron Paul has arguably only a few lines in the entire movie. The same can be said for Sigourney Weaver, who has a very limited amount of screen-time.

This might end up being a case similar to Scott’s film ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, which was mainly panned when it was initially released in theaters but then got more recognition when the film’s ‘Director’s Cut’ was released. Scott has stated that there is a ‘four-hour’ cut of the film so I won’t be surprised if that version ends up getting released sometime in the near future. As is, ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ isn’t a bad movie. It did hold my interest from beginning to end and the film certainly delivers in terms of its visuals and its overall scale and scope. However, the film can sort of be argued as being a case of ‘style over substance’ as it is lacking a bit in terms of character development. I wouldn’t say that the film is completely devoid of ‘substance’ but it really could’ve been better had certain things been done, like spending more time developing the relationship between Moses and Ramesses and giving some characters more to do. Still, the film definitely benefits from two strong performances from Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton so as is, it’s a decent take on the story of Exodus. I can’t say it’s the absolute best adaptation of the story but I am interested in seeing the ‘Director’s Cut’ of the film to see if it will fix any of the problems with the theatrical cut.

Rating: 3/5

Batman Film Retrospective: Part 1 (Live-Action Films)

75 years ago, during this month in the year of 1939, DC Comics introduced the character of Batman in Issue #27 of Detective Comics. Since then, Batman has gone on to become one of the most iconic comic book superheroes of all time, if not arguably the most famous. He’s been one of the main heroes of the DC universe and as far as his franchise’s films are concerned, he’s had the most successful run out of all of DC’s heroes (and possibly every other comic book superhero, for that matter). And today, to honor the 75^th Anniversary of the Dark Knight’s first appearance, it’s time for a Batman film retrospective. Now I was originally going to save this for when the upcoming ‘Batman vs. Superman’ was to come out in 2015. But, as we now know, that has gotten pushed back to May 6^th, 2016. Basically, I figured that now would be a good time to do it just for the occasion of the Caped Crusader’s 75^th Anniversary. This is the first half of a two-part retrospective, and today’s entry will encompass all of the live-action Batman feature films, from the film adaptation of the 1960’s TV series to the Christopher Nolan ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy. ‘Part 2’ of this retrospective will cover a select few of the animated Batman films.

BATMAN (1966)

Technically, Batman made his first on-screen appearance in two separate serials, 1943’s ‘Batman’ and 1949’s ‘Batman and Robin’. But we’re starting off this retrospective with the 1966 film ‘Batman’ (AKA ‘Batman: The Movie’), the first feature length film that the character starred in and the film adaptation of the 60’s television series of the same name starring Adam West as Batman and Burt Ward as Robin. For those who haven’t seen this show before, let me start by saying this… this show is very, very campy. This was way before the darker ‘Batman’ films that we’ve seen in the years since this film came out. Need proof of that? In one scene, a shark is grabbing onto Batman’s leg and Batman defeats it by spraying it with ‘Bat Shark Repellant’. The shark then proceeds to blow up once it hits the water. Yeah, this is a very goofy movie. But for what it’s worth, compared to a certain film that we’ll get to in a bit, this is a good kind of campy. It’s clear here that everyone involved was able to roll with this film’s silliness and that’s really the reason why this film is so entertaining; it’s campy 60’s fun with an enthusiastic cast. One of the best scenes in the entire movie (and quite possibly one of the funniest scenes ever put on film) is when Batman is trying to get rid of a bomb but he finds that he has a lot of trouble just finding a spot to put it. It’s like they say, ‘Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb…’ Overall, if you’re able to accept this film’s corny tone, then you’ll find that it’s a pretty fun superhero film. It may not be the Batman that you’re expecting, but it certainly captured the essence of the show it was based on.

Rating: 4/5

BATMAN (1989)

But for some, the 60’s ‘Batman’ was not the kind of Batman film that they wanted… and they eventually got their wish in 1989 with director Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’. Even after all of the Batman films that have come out since this was released to theaters, the 1989 film is still one of the best in the entire franchise. Granted, though, it has aged a bit, namely in regards to some of the designs and the soundtrack (which features songs by Prince). Despite that, this film is still a solid superhero film that perfectly captures the dark tone of the character of Batman. Basically at the end of the day, Burton, known for his dark and gothic style, was a great choice to direct the film. However, most people weren’t in support of the casting of Michael Keaton in the role of Batman, mainly because of his previous work as a comedic actor. In other words, this was pretty similar to the reaction that Ben Affleck got when he was cast as Batman for the upcoming ‘Batman vs. Superman’, only this was way before that ever happened. This was WAY before the time of social media and the internet.

However, in the end, Keaton was fantastic in the role and out of all of the actors who have ever played Batman in a live-action film he is perhaps the best in portraying both Bruce Wayne and Batman, whereas other actors have done better as Bruce Wayne then they had as Batman. He has a great presence as Batman but as Bruce Wayne, he is effectively unsuspecting. You would never guess that this guy was Batman, which is pretty ironic considering that this was exactly the reason why many people were against having him in the role and yet that’s why he was so damn good in the film. But of course it is Jack Nicholson who steals the show as ‘The Joker’. What else can I say? It’s just Jack Nicholson at his finest. The ‘hero-villain’ relationship between the Batman and Joker of this film is one of the best in any superhero film, mainly because they each were responsible for making the other who they were today. We see that it was the Joker, back when he was just a criminal by the name of Jack Napier, who killed Bruce’s parents and Bruce, as Batman, was responsible for Jack falling into a vat of chemicals, effectively turning him into the Joker. With an excellent cast, a great production design, and one of the best film scores of all time by Danny Elfman, 1989’s ‘Batman’, though rather dated by today’s standards, is still one of the high marks of the superhero film genre.

Rating: 4.5/5

BATMAN RETURNS (1992)

Following the success of ‘Batman’, Burton was brought back for the sequel and this time, he was given far more creative control than he had during the last film. However… maybe that wasn’t the best idea that Warner Bros. had made. For the record, I’m not saying that ‘Returns’ is a bad superhero film… far from it, in fact. It’s just this is a very notable case of when you give a director too much free reign to do whatever he wants. This is very much a Tim Burton film, but far darker than that of its predecessor. Stylistically, it’s not a big problem and you can really admire the film for its atmosphere and look. However, for a film that was generally aimed at a younger audience, it wasn’t the best move. It’s so dark and sometimes disturbing to the point where it could potentially give kids nightmares. It’s also sometimes a bit too adult at times, like during the scene where Catwoman meets with Penguin for the first time and the Penguin’s dialogue mostly consists of innuendos (‘Just the pussy I wanted to see’… need I say more?). You know… for kids!!!

Also, this film showcases a rather noticeable problem in how the character of Batman is portrayed in Burton’s films. This is not the fault of Michael Keaton, who is once again fantastic in the role. It’s just that it’s very clear that in these movies, particularly here, Burton focuses more on the villains than Batman. In fact, for the previous film, it was Jack Nicholson who got top billing as the Joker. It was fine there because in that film, Keaton still had a very substantial role that was solidly balanced against Nicholson’s. Here, he’s not even in the Batman suit for the majority of the film. He’s still in the film, but the character of Batman basically disappears from the film altogether for large periods of time. As for the villains, this film’s portrayal of the Penguin is a far contrast from what the comics were like. Instead of being a sophisticated criminal, this Penguin is far more sadistic and frightening in this film (like I said, this is potential nightmare fuel). He’s portrayed to be a misfit (a common theme in Burton’s films) but because he’s a despicable character, we can’t really sympathize with him and yet the movie is trying to make us do so. Despite all that, Danny DeVito does do a very good job in the role as it was written. It’s Michelle Pfeiffer, however, who truly steals the show as Catwoman; she really captures the dual personality of the character quite well. Finally, we have a third villain, businessman Max Shreck, played by Christopher Walken… simply put, it’s Christopher Walken. That’s all I need to say about that.

Ultimately, ‘Batman Returns’ is not a bad film, as it is a solid follow-up to its predecessor. However, it’s clear that Burton was given way too much creative control on this film. It’s very much a Burton film, but as a Batman film, it’s way too dark when compared to the other films in the franchise. Also, this one really doesn’t give Batman much to do here to the point where the villains are the main characters in the film. Again, keep in mind that the best of the Batman films are known for their dark atmospheres and tone, but this was a case where the film was just way too dark (figuratively, not literally), especially when considering that it’s basically being marketed to a younger crowd. And now it’s clear why Warner Bros decided to go in a different direction for the next film. Again, this one’s entertaining, but I can’t say that it’s one of my favorites.

Rating: 3.5/5

BATMAN FOREVER (1995)

Because of the controversy surrounding ‘Returns’ for its darker tone, the film wasn’t as big of a hit at the box office as Warner Bros had hoped for; this led to them to make a few changes for the next film, ‘Batman Forever’. In the position of director, Tim Burton was replaced by Joel Schumacher, though Burton did stay on as a producer for this film. This was also the first film to not have Michael Keaton in the role of Batman. Here, he was replaced by Val Kilmer but he would not return for the following film. Simply put, ‘Forever’ is, without a doubt, a far different kind of film than the two Burton films that came before it. Schumacher took his inspiration from the older Batman comics from the 50’s as well as the 60’s television series. The result is a far more ‘family-friendly’ film than Returns and while I can’t say it’s good as something like the 89 film or Nolan’s ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’, I have to admit that, in some ways, I actually think that this is a better film than ‘Returns’. In other words, I feel that it’s actually a little underrated.

For the record, it’s still not the best in the series. Just like its immediate successor, this film is very bright and flashy in regards to its look and tone, resulting in a film that can be quite loud and bombastic at times. However, Schumacher does do a few things here in this entry that work better here than they did in ‘Returns’; namely giving the character of Bruce Wayne a far more substantial amount of development than in the previous film as in this one, he battles his inner demons and begins to question his act of vengeance as Batman. Val Kilmer does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne but as Batman, he sort of stumbles. It’s not really his fault, though, as in this film he’s mainly stuck with just quoting one-liners (“It’s the car, right? Chicks dig the car!”). If this were more along the lines of how Keaton’s version of the character was written in the Burton films, then Kilmer would have arguably been one of the best to have ever been in the role but as is, he’s just not as good as either Keaton or Christian Bale.

This film also introduces the character of Robin (who was originally supposed to be in ‘Returns’ played by Marlon Wayans but was then cut due to an overabundance of characters). While he does come off a bit whiny at times, this film does give him a pretty solid character arc as we see his journey to avenge his family after they are murdered, which almost directly parallels how Bruce looked to avenge his parents’ death many years earlier. For what it’s worth, Chris O’Donnell does a good job in this film. As for the villains, we have a good one… and a bad one. As the Riddler, Jim Carrey may just be Jim Carrey playing… Jim Carrey, but he is easily the scene-stealer of the film. It’s clear that he’s channeling Frank Gorshin’s performance in the role from the 60’s show and in that regard he does succeed in doing so. Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand, just comes off as way too cheesy in the role of Two-Face. That’s rather sad because if in a different movie, he would have been a great choice to play Two-Face but here, he’s just as campy as Carrey as the Riddler though in Carrey’s case, that worked out much better for him. So overall, I’m not saying ‘Forever’ is a ‘great’ film as it is still a very campy film and sometimes a little too goofy. However, some of the good things in this movie turn out really good, namely Bruce Wayne’s character arc. If anything else, it’s better than the next Batman film that Schumacher did.

Rating: 4/5

BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997)

I don’t think I need to go into this one that much because everyone else has, but if for some reason you haven’t seen or heard of this film yet, here’s the rundown. ‘Batman and Robin’ is not only the worst Batman film ever, but one of the worst superhero films period. The campiness factor is through the roof on this one. The sets and designs are ridiculous, the villains are terrible, the acting is just as bad from all involved, and the script consists of nothing but one-liners, especially from Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze. As much as I (along with many others) love Arnold for being one of the best at spewing one-liners, this was a case of a huge miscast. Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy actually could have worked… if in a different movie. As for the main characters, George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman is just… that; George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Chris O’Donnell’s Robin gets way too whiny in this one, and Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl is basically just an afterthought. Also, what the hell did they do to Bane?

But with all of that said, is this the absolute worst superhero film of all time? Actually, it isn’t; don’t get me wrong, this is still a terrible film but I’ve seen far worse in this genre, like 1990’s ‘Captain America’, ‘Catwoman’, and ‘Superman IV’ which, like this film, killed its franchise for many years. However, unlike ‘Superman IV’, there is actually somewhat of an ‘entertainment value’ to this film because it’s so bad. Like ‘The Room’ or ‘Troll 2’, it’s one of those ‘so bad, it’s good’ movies whether it’s because of all of Mr. Freeze’s ice-related puns or the infamous Bat Credit Card. As a result, it’s not really the absolute worst thing ever. Though, as a Batman film, it’s definitely an ‘epic fail’. This effectively killed the franchise for years (a fifth film, ‘Batman Triumphant’ was canceled because of this film’s terrible reception) until Christopher Nolan brought it back to prominence 8 years later and thank god he did.

Rating: 1/5 (Film), 3/5 (as far as Entertainment value is concerned…)

BATMAN BEGINS (2005)

Following the debacle that was ‘Batman and Robin’, there were numerous attempts to get the franchise rolling again, including a potential crossover with Superman that is actually now getting made, just years later with a different cast and crew. Ultimately, it was director Christopher Nolan who brought the franchise back from extinction with ‘Batman Begins’. It effectively returned the franchise to its darker roots and did an excellent job at detailing the origin story of Bruce Wayne, an origin story which we haven’t really seen before. I mean, we all know about the moment when his parents are murdered, but this goes beyond that as we see how Bruce Wayne truly became ‘The Batman’, part of which includes his vigilante-style training with the ‘League of Shadows’. Christian Bale is excellent as Bruce Wayne, as he is given some of the best material that any actor has ever gotten in this role. He does a pretty good job as Batman too, as he has a very nice intimidating presence and as for that highly controversial gruff voice that he uses… I’m not too bothered by it, mainly because it’s just so fun to imitate (‘WHERE ARE THEY!!??’).

Overall, out of all Nolan’s Batman films, this one is perhaps the closest to the comic books, though that is sort of up for debate. Now, with this trilogy, Nolan’s intent was to make a superhero film that was much more grounded in reality. On that note, he does that very well, but he still sort of maintains the atmosphere and lore of the comics. The only problem in this one, though, is that the camerawork and editing during the fight scenes is, well, kind of bad. It’s one of those films where the action is shot close up and the editing is very fast, meaning that it’s sometimes rather hard to see just what is going on during the action sequences. However, I attribute that more to the fact that this was Nolan’s first full-fledged action film. Thankfully, this aspect of the films improved with its sequel but as is, ‘Batman Begins’ is a rock-solid superhero film that we can very much thank for making the character of Batman prominent once again.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Like ‘Batman and Robin’, this is another entry that I don’t really need to delve into that much given that pretty much everyone else has. But where ‘Batman and Robin’ was universally despised, ‘The Dark Knight’ is universally acclaimed and for good reason as it truly is an excellent film. Coming off of ‘Begins’, Nolan takes the superhero genre to a whole new level with this film, giving us a really effective  and compelling story where Batman is pushed to his limits by the Joker and I’m just going to come out and say it; Heath Ledger’s Joker is the best live-action portrayal of the character to date. It’s nothing against Jack Nicholson, but Ledger’s Joker is a much more fascinating character; an ‘agent of chaos’ who’s ‘ahead of the curve’. He serves as a great foil to Batman just as the character always has been in the comics, other movies, and various television shows. In many ways, he’s far more frightening than Nicholson’s Joker, who mainly came off as being rather creepy. It was rightfully fitting that, following Ledger’s tragic death on January 22, 2008 he was awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for what truly was one of the best performances of this past decade.

But while Ledger has basically gotten the bulk of the film’s praise for his work, another member of the cast who is fantastic in this, just as much as Ledger, is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Like the Joker, Nolan does a fantastic job in portraying Dent’s rise and fall where he eventually becomes the criminal Two-Face though he sort of ends the character’s story a bit too early by having him killed off at the end of the film but I think that the implications of what will happen to Gotham because of what he did and the decision that Batman makes to deal with this problem serve as an excellent set-up for the following film.  There’s not much else I can say except… if you haven’t seen this movie yet, where have you been?

Rating: 5/5!

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

This film is apparently becoming a case of what I like to call the ‘Phantom Menace effect’. By that I am referring to a film that is highly anticipated, perhaps more so than usual, but ends up disappointing a lot of people. Now, this is not entirely the same case as ‘Phantom Menace’. This film did get very good reviews from critics and, like its predecessor, it grossed a billion at the box office. However, I find that many people have expressed a lot of disappointment towards this film, specifically more recently. There were some detractors of the film when it first came out (and those detractors more than likely received death-threats from Nolan ‘fan boys’), but apparently after a few more viewings, some are beginning to change their minds about the film. Once again, this shows us that overhyping a film is never going to turn out well. But at the end of the day, I still stand by this film. I mean, yes, it’s not as good as ‘The Dark Knight’, but as we all know, that was an extremely tough act to follow and for what it’s worth, this is one of the few great superhero film ‘threequels’ out there.

So what is it that many are complaining about in this film? Well, amongst some other things, the most common thing I’m hearing about this is in regards to the film’s ‘plot holes’. They include, but are not limited to; Why would Bruce avoid his responsibilities as Batman for eight whole years? How did Bruce’s back get fixed after just being hung from a rope for a few hours? How did Bruce get back in Gotham after it was put on lockdown by Bane? The list apparently goes on and on. There are definitely a few more that I’ve heard people mention, but these are the ones that are pretty much being brought up the most. Overall, these have not really bothered me in the slightest, though I did sort of find the back repair one to be a bit of a stretch. The one about him getting back into Gotham is actually kind of plausible but then again, they don’t really explain it either. He just shows up and the film moves on from there. I do want to point out that plot holes in films are common all the time. It’s just that this film just so happens to be one where the plot holes are frequently talked about for some odd reason. Why? I don’t know…

There is more to the film than just that. What I really admire about ‘Rises’ is its finality. This was truly intended to be the finale of the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy. It brings the story of Bruce Wayne to a close but also ends in a way that, while it won’t be followed up upon (even though they do bait us with the possibility of a sequel), does an excellent job at exemplifying the character of Batman; a symbol that can’t be corrupted, as Bruce noted in ‘Batman Begins’. That is exactly the case as Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character John Blake, whose real name is revealed to be Robin (not the actual character, but still a very nice nod to the fans), discovers the Batcave, implying that he will take over as the protector of Gotham City. It is also here where Christian Bale gives his best performance as Bruce Wayne, who here is a shell of his former self that must get back into action when his city is threatened. Also, sort of like ‘Iron Man 3’, he may not exactly be in the Batman suit for long, but like that film, it’s not much of a problem because this is very much a Bruce Wayne story and as I always believe in regards to these superhero films, the suit doesn’t make the man. The man makes the suit.

Of course, like in the previous Nolan films, he’s backed up by an excellent supporting cast. All of the returning members, including Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine are fantastic once again. Caine is not in the movie as much as the others, which is understandable considering how the character of Alfred isn’t really necessary for this story, but he makes the most out of his time on screen. The scene where he tells Bruce he is resigning is one of the most effective and emotional character moments in any superhero film I’ve ever seen. The newcomers to the cast are excellent as well. As the main villain Bane, Tom Hardy makes the most out of having his face covered up by a mask (like Batman, his muffled voice is fun to imitate) and as Selina Kyle, Anne Hathaway is phenomenal taking over the role of Catwoman (without ever being referred to by that name) from Michelle Pfeiffer. The only one problem I do have with the entire film is how they handled the character of Talia Al Ghul, played by Marion Cotillard. It’s not a problem with her as she does do well in the role, but I feel that they should have introduced her character in one of the previous Nolan films rather than being sort of hastily introduced in this film especially when considering the relationship she has with Bruce in the comics.

Still, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is one of only two ‘third films’ in any superhero trilogy that I can think of that is truly excellent, the other being ‘Iron Man 3’. No, it’s not as good as ‘The Dark Knight’ but it doesn’t need to be. Instead, it is a solid finale to this trilogy and it ends the series on a high note rather than a low one.

Rating: 5/5!

To end off this part of the retrospective, here are my rankings for the live-action Batman films (not counting the ’66 film because it’s its own thing).

1. The Dark Knight

2. The Dark Knight Rises

3. Batman (1989)

4. Batman Begins

5. Batman Forever

6. Batman Returns

7. Batman and Robin

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this Batman retrospective as we’ll look at a few, not all, of the animated Batman films, including ‘Mask of the Phantasm’ and ‘Under the Red Hood’.

American Hustle: 2nd Opinion

David O. Russell’s ‘American Hustle’ has been one of the best-reviewed films of 2013. On Rotten Tomatoes, it currently maintains a 93% overall score with an average rating of 8.2/10 amongst critics. It has received numerous awards from pretty much every major award ceremony this year from the Golden Globes to the BAFTAS and it is tied with ‘Gravity’ for the most nominations at this year’s Academy Awards. So it seems like this is one of the best films of the year, right? Well, from what I can tell, audiences aren’t exactly agreeing with critics when it comes to this movie… and I’m right there with them. I first saw this movie as a double feature with ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ (a film that ultimately landed the number 3 spot of my Best Films of the Year list) and I originally gave the film a rating of 3.5/5 compared to the perfect 5/5 rating I gave to ‘Wolf’. With ‘Hustle’, I found the film to be very overrated for a few reasons but after a while I was willing to give it another chance, which I recently did. With this second viewing, I've warmed up to this movie a bit more… but at the same time I still think it’s quite overrated.

But first, let me start by saying that the best thing about this movie are the performances from its cast. At the end of the day, this is an ‘actor’s movie’ and everyone does a great job, especially the five leads. The main standout of this film actually isn’t Jennifer Lawrence as many critics are saying, although I will say that Lawrence does a great job making the most out of a pretty minor role and is an absolute scene-stealer. Instead, it’s Amy Adams who steals the show as Sydney Prosser, the seductive mistress of Christian Bale’s character, Irving Rosenfeld. One of the biggest reasons why she outshines everyone else in the cast is that while she may not be the ‘main character’ (more on that in a bit), she does the best job at portraying her character’s inner turmoil, being in a situation where she’s in way over her head ultimately resulting with her being unable to deal with the stress and the pressure. All in all, this film just has an excellent ensemble cast from top to bottom (Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, Louis C.K., an excellent uncredited cameo from Robert De Niro, etc.).

However, while this is certainly an ‘actor’s movie’, that unfortunately comes at the expense of the writing, which is a bit of a mess. From what I hear, a lot of the dialogue was improvised by the actors during filming, which for the record can be fine seeing how it allows the actors to find a greater understanding of their characters. But it’s clear that in regards to this movie, the characters and their dialogue are focused on more than the actual story itself. The movie tries to deal with all of these characters and as a result, it sometimes becomes more complicated than it needs to be. As I mentioned earlier, because the film has so many characters that are being focused on, sometimes at the same time, there isn’t really a definitive main character. It seems like Irving would be the main character, but then sometimes it shifts to Sydney and then it shifts to Richie (Cooper). It also drags at certain points, which I find ironic seeing how I saw this after seeing the 3-hour ‘Wolf of Wall Street’, a film that had a longer runtime but never dragged at any point.

I also want to talk about something that has been bugging me ever since the first time I saw this film. According to the general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, critics found the film to be ‘riotously funny’. With that in mind, I have to ask… what the heck am I missing here? I did not find this film ‘riotously funny’. Aside from a few funny lines here and there, what’s so funny about this film? Is it because they are all in that sort of ridiculous-looking 70’s attire? I just don’t get it. In fact, I’m pretty sure this isn’t even classified as a ‘comedy’; it’s a crime period drama. This is sort of a similar situation that happened with O. Russell’s previous film, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’, I view that film more as a drama than I do as a comedy (though for the record, I think it does have more comedy than ‘Hustle’). On the other side of the spectrum, a film like ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is a black comedy and as such, the term ‘riotously funny’ is more fitting for that film.

(Don’t believe me? Watch this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr3151RdQWE)

For the record, I don’t think that ‘American Hustle’ is a bad movie… it really isn’t. It’s just that this is easily one of the most overrated films of 2013 and I really hate to say that because this was a film that I was really looking forward to after seeing ‘Silver Linings Playbook’. But in the end, ‘American Hustle’ is a film that favors its cast over its story. The story’s a mess and because there are so many ‘main’ characters, it’s hard to find a single/solitary main character. Also, I seriously don’t get how this movie is supposed to be ‘riotously funny’ because it’s not really supposed to be a comedy in the first place whereas a film like ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ is. Still, this film benefits from a terrific ensemble cast, an excellent production design, and one of the best movie soundtracks of 2013 (I have a feeling that O. Russell was influenced by Martin Scorcese in regards to that). Unfortunately though, even after a second viewing, I still don’t think it’s one of the best films of the year. It wouldn’t even make it into my Honorable Mentions.

'Wolf of Wall Street'/'American Hustle' (2013): Short Review Double Feature

Last year, I did a double feature of ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Django Unchained’ with my good friend, fellow movie fanatic, and co-panelist on ‘The Feature Presentation’, Matthew Goudreau. This year, the two of us did another double feature and like last year, because I’m currently busy working on my ‘Top 12 Best films of the year’ list, I’m just going to do a pair of short reviews.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

What do you get when you take Martin Scorcese, one of the best directors of all time, Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the best actors working today, and a script, which itself is based off of a true story, written by Terrence Winter, creator of the hit HBO show ‘Boardwalk Empire’? One of the best damn films of the year, bar none; this is one incredible movie. Basically, to sum it up in a nutshell, this movie can get absolutely crazy at times, but even though it’s about 3 hours long, it never gets boring. It’s also ‘riotously funny’ (I say that in quotes because I’ll be referencing it for my review of the second film); one scene in particular that I don’t want to spoil, but I will say that it involves DiCaprio and a car, was probably the most I’ve ever laughed in any movie. DiCaprio of course is excellent as usual in the lead role, as is the rest of the talented cast, including Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey. The latter is only in the film briefly at the beginning but was an absolute scene-stealer. In the case of DiCaprio’s character, the movie does not glorify him (which is apparently what some are thinking from seeing the trailer). His character is actually quite the scumbag… and yet DiCaprio’s charm is still somewhat present. This is easily one of the best films of the year; what else would you expect from the talent that is involved both behind and in front of the camera.

Rating: 5/5!

AMERICAN HUSTLE

The second film of this doubleheader is ‘American Hustle’, the newest film from ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ director David O. Russell and starring a pair of leads from both of his last two films; In this case, Christian Bale and Amy Adams from ‘The Fighter’ and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from ‘Playbook’. This film has been getting quite the reviews from critics, currently standing at a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes… but to be honest I think it’s a little overrated in that regard. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a bad movie. It’s just that it gets a little slow at times and I’m perplexed as to why some critics are viewing it as a ‘comedy’ because it really isn’t. The ‘general consensus’ on RT is that it is ‘riotously funny’. That fits ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ much better and in fact, I think that film deserves a better RT score (at the moment, it only stands at 77%). Heck, ‘American Hustle’ isn’t even classified as a comedy. It’s a crime drama, so what I am missing here? But despite that, the film does have really good things in it, like a great period piece design (being that it’s set in the 70’s), a really great soundtrack, and of course a great cast. As for the standouts, I’d give the honors to the two ladies in the film, Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence. Adams’ character is probably one of the most developed out of the leads and while Lawrence is not in the movie that much she is a scene-stealer. Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner are all great as well. Still, I don’t think this movie’s as good to garner a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes… and I don’t think it will make my Top 12. Perhaps an ‘Honorable Mention’ but I’m not entirely sure.

Rating: 3.5/5