Tenet (2020) review

 

Well, folks, I recently did something that I haven’t done for more than half a year; I went into a theater setting to see the latest film release. To be clear, I’m not referring to the traditional movie theater since I’ll admit that I’m not yet ready to go back to that just yet given the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is still far from over. Instead, I’m referring to the timeless tradition that is the drive-in theater. Prior to this year, one could’ve viewed the art of going to the drive-in as something that was becoming outdated due to the decreasing amount of drive-in theaters in the United States (case in point, the Rustic Tri-View Drive-In, which is conveniently located not too far from my home in Rhode Island, is the only drive-in left in the state). However, due to the need for social distancing, drive-ins have become a lot more popular recently since they provide what is quite arguably the safest method of viewing films with a crowd outside of the ‘watch party’ options that streaming services have started to implement. And while much of this year’s new releases have either been delayed to next year or moved to streaming services, some films have been daring enough to get released theatrically despite the odds, with the biggest of the bunch being Tenet, the latest outing from director Christopher Nolan. At this point, Nolan is someone who needs no introduction as he has very much established himself as one of the top filmmakers in the industry with a wide array of hugely successful films. Not only is he responsible for the successful revitalization of the Batman film franchise thanks to his Dark Knight trilogy, but he’s also been big on delivering original screenplays in an age of sequels, remakes, and reboots with hits such as Memento, Inception, and Dunkirk. This is once again apparent in his new film, Tenet, which is another premier display of his directorial talents… even if his knack for complex narratives does prove to be a bit of a problem this time around.

After an undercover operation at an opera house in Kyiv goes wrong, a lone, unnamed CIA agent (John David Washington) ends up being the sole survivor of his team and is captured by Russian mercenaries. When the agent (who’s also referred to as ‘the Protagonist’) tries to take a cyanide pill to avoid revealing classified information, he learns that this was all a test and that he’s now under the employment of a secret organization known as Tenet. Through the instructions of his new boss Fay (Martin Donovan), the Protagonist learns that he’s about to partake in a mission meant to ensure the survival of humanity by preventing the start of World War III. To do so, he must confront Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh), a key member of the Russian oligarchy who’s on the hunt for a series of mysterious artifacts tied to the various countries that possess nuclear weapons. Aided by his new handler Neil (Robert Pattinson) and art appraiser Katherine Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), Sator’s estranged wife, the Protagonist finds himself in a race against time to prevent Sator from collecting all these artifacts in his efforts to destroy the world. In the process, however, the Protagonist discovers that there’s a lot more to this operation than he was initially led to believe. After experiencing a unique anomaly during that previously mentioned undercover operation where he witnessed a bullet being ‘un-fired’ by an unknown operative, the Protagonist learns about the process of ‘inversion’ where people and objects can travel backwards through time. And if that wasn’t enough, the Protagonist learns that Sator is just as well-versed with the process and fully intends to use it to accomplish his sinister plot.

Tenet is very much a Christopher Nolan film in every conceivable aspect of its production, especially when it comes to its technical merits. Nolan is, after all, well-known for his preference towards practical special effects rather than CGI, which is once again on full display here in many of the film’s signature moments, such as an actual Boeing 747 crashing into a hangar. And just like his previous two films, Interstellar and Dunkirk, Tenet boasts excellent cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema. While the consequences of our current worldwide predicament meant that I was sadly unable to see this in 70mm IMAX (which I’m sure would’ve looked amazing), that doesn’t stop the film from being another visually stunning outing from Nolan. However, if there’s one thing that does hold this film back, it’s its screenplay which, in true Nolan fashion, is a deeply layered and fully complex narrative with all sorts of twists and turns. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the problem is that this film’s plot is too complicated to the point where it’s practically incomprehensible because, to be perfectly frank, that’s not even close to being the case here. At the very least, it does get its main plot-points across in a succinct enough manner. In fact, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it does an excellent job with how certain plot-threads that it builds up result in top-notch payoffs, which ties in quite nicely with the whole time-bending concept. Really, the biggest problem with the script is that, for the most part, it feels like a non-stop barrage of exposition, and that’s even when taking the film’s hefty two-and-a-half-hour runtime into account. In other words, while it doesn’t really drag at any point, its rapid pacing can often leave you feeling quite overwhelmed at the worst possible times.

Another thing that people tend to bring up when it comes to Nolan films is that he’s usually more of a story-driven filmmaker than a character-driven one, which often results in the argument that his films tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to character development. And while that is quite arguably the case with this film as well, it still boasts a phenomenal ensemble. John David Washington headlines the film nicely as ‘the Protagonist’ who, admittedly, is mainly just an audience surrogate without any substantial backstory but the role still lets Washington convey the kind of strong charisma that he clearly must’ve inherited from his father, Denzel. He also has great camaraderie with Robert Pattinson as the Protagonist’s handler Neil, who does get a bit more to work with character-wise once the film starts to reveal more information about Neil’s true connection to the Protagonist. Moving on to the film’s female lead, Elizabeth Debicki as the main antagonist’s estranged wife Katherine, there’s been some debate on whether ‘Kat’ is just a ‘damsel in distress’. This is something that ties into yet another recurring argument surrounding Nolan films where, apart from a few select exceptions such as Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises and Murphy Cooper in Interstellar, their female characters don’t really get much to work with in the grand scheme of things. But with Kat, though, I’d say that this is one of those exceptions. There’s only really one stretch of the film where she has to be rescued by the Protagonist, and overall, she gets to play a considerably large role in the plot given her tumultuous relationship with her husband and how she’s mainly driven by her desire to protect their son. Finally, speaking of her husband Andrei, Kenneth Branagh is another big standout of the cast as a villain who’s appropriately sinister without being too over-the-top.

I’m about to say something that I honestly believed I would never say. For the first time ever, I left a Christopher Nolan film feeling… rather indifferent about it. However, this doesn’t mean that I think that Tenet is ‘bad’ because, well, it isn’t. From a technical perspective, this film is practically flawless. Whether it’s the excellent cinematography or top-notch action sequences that were entirely done on a practical level, Tenet is another prime showcase of Nolan’s talents as a director. Ultimately, though, the biggest thing that hurts this film is its script as Nolan’s habit of overly complicated narratives ends up being a major hindrance this time around. It’s not that this film is so convoluted that you can’t understand it. The problem is that it tries to cram in so much information without ever stopping to take a break, which is something that its substantially long runtime offered it plenty of opportunities for. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t think that this sort of thing was ever a big issue with any of Nolan’s other notoriously ‘complex’ films such as Memento or Inception. Ultimately, though, while it really could’ve benefitted from some steadier pacing, Tenet is still the very definition of a film that’s an absolute must-see on the big screen… you know, if you can. Yes, it’s time to address the elephant in the room that is the continuing devastation that’s been brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic. While Christopher Nolan may arguably be the staunchest defender of the cinematic experience, Tenet has been royally screwed over by COVID-19 just as much as all the other films that were slated to come out this year. Sure, it may have managed to end up being the first blockbuster release to come out after the nationwide shutdown of theaters back in March, but it was still forced to push back its release date three separate times. And even then, Warner Bros. had to release it internationally first since, let’s face it, folks, other countries are handling this pandemic a hell of a lot better than we are here in the U.S. Thus, as much as I hate to admit it, I probably won’t be able to see this film again until after it hits the home video market. Despite this, though, I assure you that I’m very eager to see it again to see if my initial thoughts towards it end up changing in any way.

Rating: 3.5/5

Dunkirk (2017) review

Ever since his feature-length directorial debut, Following, in 1998, Christopher Nolan has consistently proven himself to be one of the best directors in the business. His second feature film, 2000’s Memento, ended up earning him major critical attention, including an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Ultimately, though, he really made a name for himself in 2005 when he resurrected the Batman film franchise after a nearly decade-long hiatus with Batman Begins. Effectively returning the series to its darker roots, he would then follow that up with a pair of billion-dollar grossers in the form of its two sequels, 2008’s The Dark Knight and 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises. The former of the two not only became a landmark of the superhero film genre but it also ended up being one of the most critically-acclaimed films of its time. And while Nolan has since moved on from the world of superheroes, he’s continued to produce top-quality films that have been defined by his reliance on old-school filmmaking techniques. For one thing, Nolan is a director who has been keen on the perseveration of the practice that is shooting on film, which has become less and less prevalent in the increasingly digital age. As a way of keeping the art of filmmaking alive, Nolan’s 2014 release, Interstellar, saw an early release where it was screened on 70 mm film in IMAX theaters. And he continues this practice again with his latest film, Dunkirk. This World War II epic tells the true story of ‘Operation Dynamo’, a full-blown evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Dunkirk is very much a Christopher Nolan film and, sure enough, it’s a technical marvel that fully warrants a watch on the big-screen, especially if it’s in IMAX and via Nolan’s preferred method of film projection.

In late May of 1940, over 400,000 Allied soldiers find themselves stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Driven there by the German regime during the Invasion of France, the soldiers anxiously await to be evacuated back home across the English Channel before enemy forces can close in on them. However, due to the enemy’s heavy presence in the area, the chances of survival seem to grow less likely with each passing moment. The film mainly focuses around three separate parties, all of whom endure the wide range of incidents that occur during this period. On land, young soldiers Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), Gibson (Aneurin Barnard), and Alex (Harry Styles) frequently attempt to get off the beach on whatever ship they can get on to varying degrees of success. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when the primarily silent Gibson is questioned over his true allegiance. Meanwhile, as the Royal Navy commissions civilian boats to help evacuate the soldiers, one mariner named Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), along with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and assistant George (Barry Keoghan), heads out on his own accord to aid in the evacuation. Along the way, they manage to rescue a soldier (Cillian Murphy) who has just survived a devastating U-boat attack, although this then proceeds to cause some problems for them as they attempt to reach Dunkirk. Finally, in the skies above, Royal Air Force Pilots Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) provide air support for the troops in their Spitfire aircraft.  

Dunkirk primarily focuses around three main storylines that are set on land, at sea, and in the air, respectively. The land storyline takes place over the course of the week that the event occurred. Meanwhile, the sea storyline encompasses a single day of that week while the air storyline only covers a single hour of the entire stretch of time. Nolan, true to form, combines these three storylines together in a non-linear narrative. And while it may be a bit confusing at times when the film jumps between storylines that don’t always share the same timeframe, there’s never really a point where you’re lost completely as to what’s going on. There are instances where the characters from different story lines interact with each other, which helps to showcase how they’re all connected to the larger plot that is the overall evacuation. But at the end of the day, the key to the whole film is that Nolan does succeed in crafting a suspenseful war film without ever going overboard with violent action. Whether it’s thanks to things like Hans Zimmer’s pulse-pounding score or scenes that are set within claustrophobic locales (e.g. a sinking ship that’s being fired upon by the Germans), this film will have you on the edge of your seat throughout. Not only that, but Nolan also manages to achieve this without ever showing a single German soldier. Well, okay, some do appear at the very end, but for the most part, the enemy is primarily unseen. And even though you never see them, their presence is always felt, making the situation even more stressful given that they’re inching closer and closer to the beaches of Dunkirk. Of course, the film also benefits from another thing that you can always expect from a Nolan film, high-level production value. Real ships and fighter planes, some of which were even from the actual event, were used to recreate these intense war situations, and these sequences are filmed excellently by Nolan’s cinematographer on Interstellar, Hoyte van Hoytema. These shots look even better when seen on a giant IMAX screen, especially those that showcase wide landscapes out on the open sea.

The other thing to note about Dunkirk is that it relies more on visual story-telling than plot or dialogue. Thus, you shouldn’t go into this expecting a lot of character development. That’s not to say that the characters are bland and underdeveloped, but at the same time, they’re mostly just a bunch of faces in the larger crowd. Ultimately, though, it was perhaps for the best that this part of the writing was minimal. Because after all, setting up backstories for a select few out of the 400,000 soldiers on the Dunkirk beach probably would’ve bogged the film down considerably. Instead, we just get tiny but effective glimpses at the varying dynamics between the characters who make up each of the three storylines. Still, as is the case with Nolan’s other films, Nolan did manage to assemble a solid ensemble cast made up of both recognizable faces and general newcomers to give reliably good performances. Those that make up the former category, like Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, and Tom Hardy, take on supporting roles in the larger narrative but they’re all solid as usual. Of the film’s main ensemble, newcomer Fionn Whitehead arguably gets the most screen-time, and overall, Whitehead does make a solid first impression as a young soldier who, like his fellow men, is just trying to survive. On that note, I should probably address the elephant in the room that is the casting of One Direction singer Harry Styles in one of the lead roles. Given that Styles is obviously known more for his musical career (this is his first major starring role, after all), some have questioned Nolan’s decision to cast him. However, I thought that he did a solid job in the role that he was given. Granted, this isn’t a film where the performances are meant to be the focus, but Styles does slip naturally into his role as one of the many soldiers stranded on the Dunkirk beaches.

There was a bit of controversy prior to this film’s release for one main reason; its PG-13 rating. Despite Nolan’s insistence that the film was more about the tension than the violent side of war, the announcement that Dunkirk would be rated PG-13 didn’t go over well with some people given that most war films tend to be rated R, thereby highlighting the true horrors of war. However, at the end of the day, Nolan did, in fact, succeed at making a war film that didn’t rely on gruesome violence. Instead, he crafts a story that’s minimalistic in nature but is still full to the brim with tension. This also translates well to the film’s narrative, one that doesn’t stop to focus in on a few main characters in the larger story; instead, it just puts them through the same kind of grim and intense situations that their fellow soldiers are going through. In other words, this is more of an ‘experience’ than it is a ‘story’. But, through it all, that never once takes anything away from the film’s greatest strengths. After all, Nolan truly is one of the best in the business when it comes to a film’s technical aspects. With all this in mind, Dunkirk is an absolute must-see in theaters. And if you can, see it in IMAX in 70 mm. At the risk of sounding like an old goat, this already great-looking film looks even better when projected in its classic format. Nolan’s persistence on keeping this style of filmmaking alive has provided modern audiences with some great cinematic experiences that help prove why big films like this are worth seeing in theaters. And if you ask me, IMAX is quite arguably the best outlet for screening films this way. 

Rating: 4.5/5

Interstellar: SPOILER Post

WARNING!!!

The following post contains spoilers for the film ‘Interstellar’. If you have not seen the film yet, avoid going any further for I will be discussing key plot-points of the film in great detail. If you don’t want to be spoiled, please refer to my spoiler-free review of the film (the link will be provided below)… and then go see the film because it’s really a one-of-a-kind cinematic experience that should not be missed.

(http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2014/11/interstellar-2014-review.html)

I’ve been doing spoiler posts since 2013 but have mostly done them just for superhero films. I did do one for ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’, which focused on the big ‘villain identity’ reveal but aside from ‘Thor: The Dark World’ (because I felt that there wasn’t much to talk about with that film) and ‘Man of Steel’ (which, well, I guess you can say I just forgot to do), I’ve done spoiler posts for every major comic book film since ‘Iron Man 3’. But now having seen director Christopher Nolan’s latest film, ‘Interstellar’, I feel that it’s time for me to do another one. ‘Interstellar’ is a film that has certainly attracted a very polarizing reaction from both critics and audiences. As you remember from my review, I gave it a 5/5, meaning that I really loved the film but overall the general response that I’ve heard from people who did like it is that it was just ‘good, not great’. The big topic of debate amongst everyone is about the film’s ambitious scale and scope and whether or not it’s a little too ambitious… but I’m not really going to get into that. Instead, I’m just to going to talk about key parts of the film from the visual design to the performances from the cast to a certain cameo in the latter half of the film. Having now seen this film twice, I will note that while I don’t think it’s ‘perfect’, I still think it’s a fantastic sci-fi epic that not only features incredible visuals but also some great emotional resonance to back it all up. As I noted in my original review, even if you end up not liking the film as much as I did, I implore you all to see this film in theaters as it truly is a must-see film, regardless of what your opinion of it ends up being. So without further ado, let’s dive into Christopher Nolan’s newest sci-fi epic, ‘Interstellar’.  

THE VISUALS

Whether or not you actually liked the film, you can’t deny that the visuals are absolutely fantastic. Nolan has an eye for visuals, especially when it comes to practical visual effects as was previously exemplified in films like the ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’ and even ‘Inception’. And of course, that also applies to ‘Interstellar’ as well. Those dust storms on Earth? They actually created real dust storms that weren’t just added in later via CGI. The new planets that the crew of the Endurance travel to were all practical locations, resulting in incredibly striking visuals like a planet completely covered by water and an icy planet, which was filmed in Iceland. Then of course you have the visuals in space, especially when the characters travel through the wormhole, resulting in some of the most eye-popping visuals that I’ve ever seen in a movie. And from what I’ve heard, a lot of this was achieved by having the visual effects done beforehand and then displaying them for the actors so that they didn’t have to do anything against a green screen. Simply put, for a movie where the majority of the effects could’ve just been done with CGI, Nolan thankfully did not go that route resulting in some incredibly nice practical effects. It’ll be a legitimate travesty if this doesn’t earn this film an Oscar nomination for Best Visual Effects because they’re some of the best visual effects of the year.

PERFORMANCES

Nolan has always been good when it comes to the casts of his films and this one is no exception. While the whole ensemble cast is excellent, two performances in particular really stand out amongst the rest. The first is Matthew McConaughey in the lead role of Cooper. I’ll go into a little more depth about his character and his daughter’s arc in a little bit, but simply put, McConaughey has a great screen presence here and a very likable persona. The other major standout is Jessica Chastain in the role of Cooper’s daughter Murph, and on that note, I’d also like to highlight Mackenzie Foy who plays young Murph. Both do a phenomenal job at conveying the emotional turmoil/heartbreak that the character goes through in regards to Cooper leaving her at a young age (primarily in the case of Foy) and the belief that, after learning from Professor Brand (Michael Caine, in his usual top form) that the whole Endurance mission (‘Plan A’ compared to ‘Plan B’, which would have involved establishing a new colony via frozen embryos) wasn’t going to succeed and that the likelihood of humanity ever escaping Earth was slim, that her father may have known about it (which he didn’t, for the record) and left her and her brother behind to die on Earth.

A lot of Nolan’s detractors point out that he hasn’t done so well when it comes to writing female characters save for Selina Kyle in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. I’d argue that Murph is actually one of the better female leads in a Christopher Nolan film to date along with Selina. Not only is her character pretty relatable given the circumstances of what happens to her in regards to her dad leaving her, but I also admire her dedication and commitment to trying to help figure out a way to save the human race. I can definitely see a bit of Jessica Chastain’s character Maya from ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ in Murph and while I’ll admit I wasn’t the hugest fan of that film, both this and ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ truly benefitted from Chastain’s performances. Anne Hathaway does a very good job as well as Professor Brand’s daughter Amelia, though she is kind of overshadowed by Chastain. As for rest of the cast, most of them don’t really get as much to work with as McConaughey and Chastain (save for Bill Irwin in a scene-stealing turn as one of the robots, TARS, who goes up into space with Cooper and his team), like Casey Affleck as Coop’s grown-up son Tom or Wes Bentley as Doyle, one of Cooper and Brand’s fellow astronauts. Still, it’s another great cast from top to bottom which once again highlights how Christopher Nolan is a fantastic actor-director.

EMOTIONAL DEPTH

Nolan has both huge fans and huge detractors and one of the main things that the latter group always points out when it comes to his films is that they’re more focused on the story than they are with the characters. Now I do see where they’re coming from but I’d also argue that they’re not entirely devoid of emotional depth and resonance. It’s just that, after re-watching his films, I realize that the emotional beats of his films are primarily focused around the main characters while the other supporting characters don’t get as much to work with. The main example I’d use for this would be ‘Inception’, where most of the dramatic moments in the film were based around Dom’s perspective whereas the other characters were really just there to fill out the cast. The same can kind of be said here as Cooper and Murph are the ones who get the bulk of ‘Interstellar’s more emotional moments. Still, I felt that it was done to great effect in regards to both of these characters. You really see how both are affected by Cooper’s decision to go into space; in the case of Cooper, it is how he’s forced to leave his kids behind and for Murph, it’s dealing with him leaving. The scene where Cooper tries to patch things up with Murph right before he leaves got me very emotional as we really see how pain both of them are going through on an emotional level.

However, there is one moment in particular that really stands out for me in regards to having great emotional resonance and that is the scene where Cooper and Brand return from Planet Miller to discover that 23 years have passed since they first left for the planet due to the fact that the planet is right next to a big black hole named Gargantua. Cooper goes through all of the messages sent to him by his kids, most of which are Tom telling him about everything that has happened since he’s been gone from how he got married to the death of grandpa Donald, moments that I’m pretty sure Coop wanted to be there for as shown through McConaughey’s emotional and heartbreaking reaction to all of this news. Then, he watches the first video sent to him by Murph, who’s now grown-up and who just so happens to be sending him on a message on the day of her birthday where she is now as old as he was when he first left and earlier in the scene where they were talking before he left, he told her that he might be back by this point but of course as we now know, he wasn’t able to get back in time for this. This scene once again shows the distress that Murph has gone through as a result of her dad leaving her for all of this time. Thankfully, the two do finally reunite at the end of the film, albeit when Murph is now an old woman (now played by Ellen Burstyn), and it is a very satisfying moment where father and daughter finally reunite after all these years. Say what you will about Nolan’s films lacking emotional development, but if you ask me, this film really delivers on emotional resonance in just the right way and at just the right moments in time.

THE SCORE

‘Interstellar’ serves as the fifth collaboration between Nolan and Hans Zimmer after his work on the ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’ and ‘Inception’ and as I stated in my original review, those who are worried that the score for ‘Interstellar’ will be similar to those films won’t have to worry because that is not the case here at all. I really loved Zimmer’s work on ‘Interstellar’ with some truly stand-out musical motifs throughout the film. The emotional and dramatic melodies were incredibly effective during the more emotional moments in the film along with the more tense melodies during the more intense sequences in the film. I’ve heard some people say that the score is too ‘bombastic’ (similar to what some have said with Zimmer’s other scores to Nolan films) but I’d argue that’s not actually the problem with it. Really, the downside to this brilliant score is that it results in what is unfortunately a major issue of the film, which is…

THE SOUND DESIGN

As many of you have already probably learned by now, the sound design for ‘Interstellar’ is, well, kind of piss-poor in some areas. This is primarily in regards to some of the more intense moments of the film. During these moments, the sound effects and, as noted, even the score can be overpowering to the point where you actually can’t hear any of the dialogue. And this isn’t just one single solitary instance in the film… there are at least three-four separate instances where this happens, like when the Endurance nears Gargantua or when Cooper and his kids are driving through a cornfield in pursuit of a surveillance drone. At first I thought it was just IMAX but after seeing it again in a regular theater, the same issue still occurred. Both times I saw this film, I saw it on, well, film so I’m wondering if the same issue occurs when it was projected digitally. If any of you have seen it this way, sound off in the comment section if the same problem with the sound design occurred while you were watching it. I know that Nolan and his crew were making a major effort to work on the sound design for the film but ultimately it ends up being rather problematic when it comes to some of the biggest moments in the film.

For my next point, I’d like to open with a ‘Team America: World Police’ quote…

MATT DAMON!!!

As many of you already know by now, the key cameo of the film is none other than Matt Damon in the role of Dr. Mann, a renowned member of NASA who had gone up into space during the Lazarus missions where he was sent to survey one of the planets in the galaxy that he and the other astronauts came to after going through the wormhole. However, as it turns out, Mann’s planet (the ice planet I mentioned earlier), isn’t hospitable for humanity in the slightest and that he was only faking the belief that the planet could sustain life just so that he could be rescued. Contrary to some critics, I actually found this part of the film to be incredibly fascinating even though I can see where some are coming from when they say that it felt like it felt like the story was taking a detour when they got to his part. I felt that it was incredibly interesting to have a character like Mann who had become heavily affected by the fact that he was all alone in a mysterious world, so much so to the point where he didn’t even set up a time to wake himself up when he went into hyper-sleep. Before this, Mann is frequently described as being ‘one of the best’ who inspired many and when he finally appears, we see that being up in space for so long has had a very negative effect on him to the point where he attempts to sabotage everything just so that he could be rescued. Ultimately, Cooper puts it best; Mann was a ‘f***ing coward’. I did like this aspect of the film and it was also nice to see Damon in a not-so-heroic role that contrasts quite a bit with a lot of the other roles that he has played over the years.   

THE CLIMAX

So now let’s talk about the climax of the film. After Mann reveals his true colors, he tries to escape but ends up getting killed when his ship imperfectly docks with the Endurance, which also results in it sustaining major damage. Coop and Brand manage to get it under control but find themselves with very little fuel so they decide to try and slingshot the ship around the black hole Gargantua so that they can reach the third planet, Edmunds. In order to lessen the ship’s weight, both TARS and Cooper detach from Endurance and they both fall into the black hole. They end up in a mysterious dimension where Cooper finds that he’s able to view Murph’s bedroom from her childhood at various points in time. Earlier there was discussion about who may have created the wormhole, possibly fifth-dimensional beings. Once in the black hole, Cooper realizes that he is in this ‘fifth-dimension’ and that these mysterious beings are actually humans from the future that are able to ‘communicate’ with others in the past. Cooper does this with Murph, effectively becoming the ‘Ghost’ that she thought she was hearing back when she was a kid, and years later when she’s all grown up, Cooper then relays the data that TARS had collected to her through Morse code, resulting in her figuring out the solution to save humanity and get them off of the dying Earth. Before leaving this ‘tesseract’, he also serves as the ‘being’ that Brand apparently comes into contact with when the crew of the Endurance first go through the wormhole.

Of course, because I’m no film scholar, I’m not going to try and analyze this sequence too much but I will say that, like with much of the movie, I found it to be incredibly fascinating. From a visual perspective it’s brilliant (obviously) but I also found it to be a unique plot-point and like the emotional satisfaction I felt when Cooper finally reunited with Murph at the end of the film, I found it very heart-warming and emotionally satisfying when it was revealed that Cooper was Murph’s ‘ghost’ allowing him to reconnect with her after all these years after they had parted on bad terms when he first went off into space. Not only does Coop reconnect with Murph but she is also able to finally figure out the problem that she has been trying to solve for a long time and she does so while also finally coming to terms with her emotions over her father leaving her. Now with that said, I do have to partially agree with something that YouTube movie critic Chris Stuckmann noted in his ‘Revisited’ review of the film (I’ll provide the link to it below) that this scene maybe would’ve worked a little better had this reveal not be primarily conveyed through exposition by Cooper and TARS instead of imagery, allowing the audience to figure out what is happening on their own. Now for the record, I’m not too bothered by the exposition, but I definitely see where he’s coming from and that this change would’ve made the scene a little more impactful which if you ask me it still very much is regardless of this.

IMAX AND 70/35 MM

Finally, I’d like to talk about what I believe is the best way to experience this movie; in IMAX. Nolan of course got the ball rolling for feature films to utilize IMAX cameras when he shot ‘The Dark Knight’ though I unfortunately never got the chance to see either that, ‘Dark Knight Rises’, or even last year’s big sci-fi hit ‘Gravity’ in IMAX. But this time I really made an effort to see this film in IMAX and boy does it deliver. Even with the problematic sound design, the film is truly a cinematic experience on the big IMAX screens. The already mentioned outstanding visuals stand out even more on the screen and while reading into the film’s production, it’s pretty cool how Nolan and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema utilized IMAX cameras for this film, reworking them so that they can be used in a handheld manner while shooting interior scenes. Also, if you get the chance, check out the film in the 70 or 35 mm formats as opposed to the new standard of digital projectors. Watching this film, both times in the film format, gave me quite a bit of nostalgic memories because I swear I can’t even remember the last time I saw a film in theaters that wasn’t projected digitally. And while I know that some movie theaters were really against having to project it the old-fashioned way, I’d say it actually looks much better on film. I don’t care if I sound an old man for saying that… it just does. Heck, I got a kick out of seeing those old cue marks (or as ‘Fight Club’ puts it, ‘cigarette burns’) to signify to the projectionist to change reels. I know that this old-school style of film projection is unfortunately becoming a dying art so kudos to filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and J.J. Abrams who are still all activists in regards to this format.

Chris Stuckmann’s ‘REVISITED’ review of ‘Interstellar’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Z_M0_dJhY

Interstellar (2014) review

Christopher Nolan is a director who just makes excellent movies. He’s one of those directors who, in my opinion, has yet to make a bad film. Of course, many people will primarily recognize him as the man who revived the ‘Batman’ film franchise with the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy which ran from 2005 to 2012. Those three films not only returned the series to its much darker roots but also differentiated themselves from other superhero movies by opting for a much more grounded tone. Not only is it the best superhero film trilogy ever made, but it’s also one of the best film trilogies period. But those aren’t the only great films that Nolan has made. He’s also helmed projects like ‘Memento’, ‘The Prestige’, and ‘Inception’, which were all very well-written films that didn’t talk down to the audience like some films admittedly do. That trend continues with Nolan’s newest film, and his first following the conclusion of the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy, ‘Interstellar’. This is easily Nolan’s most ambitious film to date in regards to the film’s overall scope and scale. Heck, it’s even its longest film to date at 169 minutes, which beats his previous film, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, by just four minutes. However, under his usual great direction, ‘Interstellar’ turns out to be a truly one-of-a-kind motion picture experience, especially in IMAX which is pretty much the best way to see this movie.

The film takes place in the near future, where the Earth’s resources are slowly but surely starting to diminish, mostly due to blight and dust storms. During this time of crisis, NASA seeks a way to try and save humanity and seemingly find a solution when they discover a wormhole near Saturn. They set up a mission to send a ship into space to go through the wormhole, following a series of similarly manned spacecraft which were all sent up some time ago, and survey new planets in order to find a suitable new home. To lead the mission, NASA recruits one of their former test pilots, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a widowed engineer who currently lives as a farmer with his father-in-law Donald (John Lithgow) and his two kids; his son Tom (Timothée Chalamet, later played by Casey Affleck) and his daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy, later played by Jessica Chastain). Though he is rather reluctant to go at first due to the fact that he would be leaving his kids behind for an uncertain amount of time, Cooper agrees to lead the mission and heads up into space along with his fellow crew members, including Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway), the daughter of one of NASA’s key professors (Michael Caine), Doyle (Wes Bentley), Romilly (David Gyasi), and robots TARS and CASE (voiced by Bill Irwin and Josh Stewart, respectively) in the hopes of finding a new habitable planet in order to save the human race.

‘Interstellar’ drew me in from the very beginning and I was hooked from beginning to end. From a technical perspective, the film is pretty much near-perfect. The visuals are outstanding, especially in the sequences that take place during space and when the characters go into the black hole, as is the cinematography in the first film since Nolan’s directorial debut to not be shot by Wally Pfister. As a director, Nolan has been known for using as much practical effects as possible and it seems like this is also the case, for the most part, in this film as well. The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer is also fantastic and those who are worried about the score sounding too similar to Zimmer’s work on Nolan’s other films will be pleased to know that this isn’t the case here. Now I did say ‘near-perfect’ earlier, and that is because the sound design for the film can be rather problematic at times. Sometimes the audio is so loud, due to either the film’s sound effects or sometimes even the score, that it’s hard to hear the dialogue. But ultimately, the best way to see this film is in IMAX. The visuals are even more eye-catching on the big screen and despite some issues with the sound design, sometimes you can even feel the theater shake during certain sequences like when the spaceships are launching. I also saw it in the 70 mm format which served as a nice bit of nostalgia for me seeing how this is probably the first film that I’ve seen in quite some time (geez, I sound old…) that wasn’t projected digitally. You could actually hear the projector running during moments of in-space silence.

One thing about Nolan’s films that his critics frequently bring up is that when it comes to his writing, he’s more focused on story than he is with characters. While I do certainly see where they’re coming from, I’d argue that his films aren’t entirely devoid of character and substance. It’s just that most of the emotional depth of his films mostly come from the arcs of the main characters while most of the side characters don’t get as much to work with in that regard, and this is sort of the case here with Cooper. However, the emotional resonance of his storyline, primarily his relationship with Murph and the conflict that he faces in regards to having to decide to leave his family in order to save the world, is actually really spot-on and I’ll admit that even I got a little emotional at times because of it. McConaughey of course has been on a big career comeback recently and this film is no exception as he gives one of the best performances of his career in this movie. And while it is true that McConaughey’s role does kind of overshadow every other character in the film, Nolan once again proves to be one of the best ‘actor’ directors in the business thanks to great performances from all involved including Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin (even though he’s just voicing a robot), and Michael Caine. There’s even a neat little cameo by someone you will no doubt recognize in the latter half of the film. Now despite Nolan’s knack for secrecy, you’ve probably already know who it is given the extremely spoiler-ific nature of the internet. Even I’ll admit I knew about it going in. Still, for anybody who doesn’t know about it already, I won’t spoil it here.

‘Interstellar’… is truly an outstanding film. While Nolan’s critics hate to hear the comparisons made between him and Stanley Kubrick, ‘Interstellar’ is very much inspired by Kubrick (namely his own sci-fi epic ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’) and it’s safe to say that this is Nolan’s ‘2001’. Its visuals are outstanding matched by the film’s overall scale and scope. It’s also certainly Nolan’s most ambitious film to date and while some may argue that the film bites off more than it can chew, I do feel that the film does manage to succeed in that regard more than it may fail. Not only that, but the movie does have enough emotional resonance through the arc of the character of Cooper thanks to both the writing and McConaughey’s excellent leading performance. Now I do realize that this is, at the moment, becoming one of the more polarizing films of the year and while I haven’t seen that many negative reviews, most of the positive reviews I’ve heard are describing the film as ‘good but not great’. I for one think it’s one of the best films of the year so far, but regardless of whether or not you end up liking the film, one thing’s for certain; it’s still very much a must-see in theaters, especially in IMAX and if you do have the opportunity to do so, preferably in 70 mm. It’s a film that truly delivers on spectacle and does manage to be more than just that.

Rating: 5/5!

Directorial Retrospective: Christopher Nolan

It’s time for another directorial retrospective and this week, in honor of the release of his latest film, ‘Interstellar’, today we’ll be looking at the films of another one of the best directors currently working today in Hollywood: Christopher Nolan. The London-born director got off to a pretty good start early in his career with a few solidly-acclaimed movies like ‘Memento’ and ‘Insomnia’. But then in 2005, he truly made his mark in Hollywood when he took over the ‘Batman’ film franchise. Not only did he bring the character back to top form after the franchise had died out eight years prior, but also ended up giving us what is quite frankly the best superhero film trilogy to date whereas most other superhero film franchises have weaker third entries compared to the first two (like ‘Spider-Man’ and ‘X-Men’). Nolan is one of the few directors right now who, in my opinion, has yet to make a bad movie. But with that said, let me make something perfectly clear; while Nolan is one of my favorite directors, that doesn’t mean that I’m a Nolan ‘fan-boy’. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who are so huge fans of Nolan that they act like he’s the best director ever and act like jerks to anyone who doesn’t like his movies. You may recall back when ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ came out, they actually sent death threats to any critic who gave it a negative review (and given the current critical reception to ‘Interstellar’, I’m guessing they’ve already done the same thing again to those who didn’t like it). So while I am a big fan of his movies, I’m not ‘that big’ a fan. So now that I got that out of the way, here are the films of director Christopher Nolan.

FOLLOWING (1998)

While Nolan first attracted major attention with his second film, ‘Memento’, his official feature-length debut was 1998’s ‘Following’ and really, for a film made on a $6,000 budget, featuring a cast consisting of what we can assume as a bunch of Nolan’s friends (along with his uncle John, who later appeared in two of the ‘Dark Knight’ films) and with a runtime that’s just a bit over an hour long, it’s actually a pretty impressive directorial debut. It’s a very engaging/twisting crime drama that very much feels like a crime noir. Nolan makes the most of his incredibly limited budget, handling the cinematography himself and only doing about one or two takes of every scene, heavily rehearsing them beforehand, so he wouldn’t waste any film stock. This results in a film that feels incredibly focused from beginning to end due to how careful Nolan was when it came to making the film. Plus, at just 70 minutes long, it’s a breeze to get through. All in all, ‘Following’ is a film that, for its time, was the first to show-off Christopher Nolan’s talents as a director. Things would only get better for him as time went on.

Rating: 4/5

MEMENTO (2000)

 

After ‘Following’, Nolan immediately followed that up with ‘Memento’, which was based off of the short story ‘Memento Mori’ written by his brother and frequent collaborator Jonathan Nolan. This was the film that officially established him as one of the best new directors working in Hollywood at the time although you could also say that he really didn’t become a household name until he took on the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy. ‘Memento’ is a very complicated film, primarily through the way it is structured. There are two parts to this film; a series of black-and-white sequences and a series of color sequences. The black-and-white sequences are shown in chronological order, but the color sequences are shown in reverse order. In other words, one color sequence will begin where the next color sequence will end and the film intercuts between the color and black-and-white sequences. It isn’t until the end when both sequences meet where the film finally starts moving in proper order. So like with many of Nolan’s films, you have to make sure you’re paying attention because otherwise you might get lost.

That’s why ‘Memento’ is such an effective psychological thriller. Because the film is technically ‘out of order’, we’re usually trying to figure out what’s happening due to the fact that we basically go into each scene in the middle of the action. We gradually learn more about what happens as the film goes on. It isn’t until the end, with a great twist regarding the truth behind the events of the story, when we finally understand what’s really going on. It’s all headlined by an outstanding performance by Guy Pearce in the role of Leonard, a man who has anterograde amnesia following an attack on him and his wife, which resulted in her death, by two men who now looks to find the one that escaped to enact his revenge for the death of his wife. It’s a complicated role, and Pearce fits the role of what can be classified as an ‘unreliable narrator’ perfectly. So much so that it’s sad that he didn’t get nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor that year because I feel that this is one of the best performances from any actor/actress that I’ve ever seen. ‘Memento’ is, without a doubt, one of Nolan’s best films as it is a smartly written thriller with an excellent payoff.

Rating: 5/5!

INSOMNIA (2002)

This is one of Nolan’s lesser-talked about films and I’m guessing the main reason for this is because this is the only film that he has directed where he wasn’t primarily involved with the screenplay. Instead, it was someone else who wrote this remake of a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name, though apparently Nolan did write the final draft of the screenplay. Despite this, the fact that Nolan wasn’t in charge of the screenplay does kind of show, as the film isn’t as twisted as Nolan’s other works. It’s a much more straight-forward story. Still, Nolan’s direction shines through in this film, which centers on a pair of detectives who travel to a small Alaskan town in order to help solve the case of the murder of a teen girl. However, during the investigation, the main character Will Dormer (Al Pacino) accidentally shoots his partner Hap (Martin Donovan) dead, resulting in him suffering from insomnia due to both his guilt over what had happened and also because the town he’s staying in is stuck in perpetual daylight. It’s an interesting look into the psyche of Dormer, who slowly but surely starts to lose his mind as the movie goes on. Pacino is fantastic in this, but really the main stand-out is Robin Williams in the role of the killer, crime author Walter Finch. I actually have to admit that this is the first film of Williams’ that I have seen that wasn’t a ‘comedy’ and it goes to show that with films like this, ‘Good Will Hunting’, and ‘The Fisher King’, that Williams was very much a truly great screen talent… and he will be very much missed. So in short, ‘Insomnia’ is another solid effort from Nolan, but while I do feel that it’s definitely one of his more underrated films, I can’t really say it’s his most absolute underrated. Still, ‘Insomnia’ is very much worth checking out.

Rating: 4/5

THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY (2005, 2008, 2012)

Due to the fact that I already talked about these films back in May when I did my retrospective on the ‘Batman’ films in honor of the 75^th anniversary of the character’s first appearance, I’m not going to go into too much detail about them here. For that, just refer back to that earlier post (http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2014/05/batman-film-retrospective-part-1-live.html) but I’ll still do a quick recap on what I had said there. After the ‘Batman’ film franchise hit rock bottom in 1997 with ‘Batman and Robin’, Christopher Nolan revitalized the series in 2005 with ‘Batman Begins’. That film returned the series to its darker roots and gave us a solid look into the origins of Batman, something that we hadn’t really seen before in previous films. Featuring a great cast, great writing, and some terrific visuals, ‘Batman Begins’ is a phenomenal entry in the comic book genre, even if most of the hand-to-hand combat sequences aren’t really that good due to shaky cam work and quick editing. It does something much different in that while it is a comic book movie, it’s much more grounded in reality than what one would usually expect from a film of this genre. It’s a style that has influenced many as shown in films like the Daniel Craig ‘Bond’ films and even some other superhero films like ‘Man of Steel’ and ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’.

Thankfully, that issue of weak fight sequences disappeared three years later with ‘The Dark Knight’… I don’t need to go any farther than that. You all know how phenomenal a movie it is with a well-deserved Oscar win for Heath Ledger who gave us the best on-screen portrayal yet of Batman’s iconic nemesis, the Joker. It was such a great movie that admittedly it ended up having a bit of a negative effect on the finale, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and sure enough there are some people out there who were extremely disappointed by it. I’m not one of them… sure it may not be as great as ‘The Dark Knight’ due to some small issues like the occasional plot-hole (even though I’m not really bothered by them compared to most people) and some rushed character development. But it’s still an excellent conclusion to this trilogy and if anything, you can’t deny it’s still a well-crafted film. In short, ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ is the best superhero film trilogy to date as all three films are superb. That’s because they’re more than just your typical superhero films… they’re incredibly well-written films that ignore the more fantastical elements of the comic books to go for much more grounded storylines that I feel do one of the most iconic comic book superheroes of all time justice. Simply put, this trilogy is a high mark of the superhero film genre.

BEGINS: 4.5/5

DARK KNIGHT: 5/5!

RISES: 5/5!

THE PRESTIGE (2006)

‘The Prestige’ is easily Christopher Nolan’s most underrated film, one that feels like it’s been rather forgotten about in recent years. It’s sad because ‘The Prestige’ is arguably one of Nolan’s best films. It’s an incredibly compelling story about two magicians, played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, who form an intense rivalry as they each try to one-up each other in regards to creating amazing illusions of magic, often leading to dangerous and tragic results for the both of them. As you would expect from a Nolan film, ‘The Prestige’ is full of twists and turns to keep you guessing the entire film. After all, the film opens with the line ‘Are you watching closely?’ which just goes to show how twisty the film’s plot is from beginning to end. I’ve heard some people say that they didn’t like the ending, but I found it to be a pretty neat ending. Now for the sake of spoilers I won’t say anything about what actually happens during the ending. However, if I had to describe it in just one word, it would be this; Duality. If you see the film, you’ll understand what I mean by that. All in all, with great production design, great direction from Nolan (obviously), and a terrific cast including Jackman, Bale, Michael Caine, and Scarlett Johansson, ‘The Prestige’ definitely deserves more attention than it’s currently getting. Like I said back in May 2013 when I reviewed the film ‘Now You See Me’, I feel like the idea of magicians isn’t very popular anymore which I do find a little sad because the art of magic can lead to some amazing results and this film is very much proof of that.

Rating: 4.5/5

INCEPTION (2010)

In between ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, Nolan took on a dream project of his that he had been working on since 2002 about ‘dream stealers’. Originally envisioned as a horror film, it soon became what we know today as ‘Inception’. As is typical with Nolan’s films, the film is very complicated in terms of its plot. This is one of those films that very much requires constant attention throughout… otherwise you might get lost. But if you do stick with it, the payoff is quite satisfying. ‘Inception’ is an incredibly engaging and original story (although some will say it’s just ‘The Matrix’) featuring some incredible visuals that come as a result of the many dreams that the main characters infiltrate throughout the course of the film, like the fight sequence where Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) fights henchmen in a rotating hallway. It’s even more impressive knowing that Nolan, as he did with the ‘Dark Knight’ films, opted to use as much practical effects as possible. The cast is terrific from top to bottom, highlighted by Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role of Dom, a ‘dream thief’ who takes on one last job in order to get back home to his kids following the death of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard), who now haunts his memories due to him feeling guilty for letting it happen. The pulse-pounding score by Hans Zimmer, which as many of you know has been copied quite a lot in many other films since this film came out, is also excellent. My only complaint about the film is that the pacing is rather too slow. When I saw this film in the theaters, I swear that it felt like I was watching a four-hour movie when it was really only two and a half hours. Despite that, ‘Inception’ is just an awesome sci-fi heist film and another great entry in Nolan’s prestigious resume.

Rating: 4.5/5   

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’.