Change Your Image
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNjEyYmM1ZWItNzk0Yy00OGFmLWEzNDEtOWMyN2I3NzM1NWYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzc4OTI4MQ@@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
Chris_Lacon
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDRkMTNiNjgtZDIyOC00NmE1LTlkZjEtMGZiNTcyZDQ0NjcxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTE1NjY5Mg@@._V1_SX86_CR0,0,86,86_.jpg)
Included among the list are mainstream programs, animated series, documentaries, television movies, classic sitcoms and beloved cult classics among many others.
Comments, thoughts and recommendations are welcome and appreciated.
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGViZWZmM2EtNGYzZi00ZDAyLTk3ODMtNzIyZTBjN2Y1NmM1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1_SX86_CR0,0,86,86_.jpg)
“Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important”- Vladimir Lenin (1870 – 1924)
An ever-growing compilation of some of the greatest and most influential, imaginative, powerful, thought provoking, controversial or simply enjoyable films in the world, and the films that anyone who considers themselves a true cinematic connoisseur should see before they die. The list is both ongoing and international, including films from the USA, UK, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, India and Germany among others.
Included among the list are mainstream movies, independent movies, animated movies, documentaries, black and white movies, classic movies, contemporary movies, cult movies, silent movies, short movies, foreign-language movies and propaganda movies among many others.
Comments, thoughts and recommendations are welcome and appreciated.
Reviews
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Despite a grittier feel and the return of Hamilton, "Dark Fate" ultimately feels like yet another subpar rehash of the vastly superior "Judgement Day".
Ignoring all of the post "Terminator 2" films in the franchise, "Terminator: Dark Fate", the sixth film in the franchise, is a direct sequel to James Cameron's ground-breaking 1991 sequel to his 1984 hit, with Cameron himself returning as producer. Whist it does succeed in jettisoning some of the campiness that had been gradually seeping into the franchise, "Dark Fate" ultimately succumbs to many of the same problems which have plagued all of the other sequels in the series, bar 2009's largely forgettable "Terminator Salvation": Simply being an inferior rehash of the only superior sequel in the franchise.
Firstly, however, lets address the film's most controversial moment: John Connor, the franchise's central figure, is gunned down by another Terminator whist his horrified mother looks on. Needless to say, the death of not only a major character, but one who's survival was a critical component of previous films in the franchise, drew howls of outrage from fans of the series, the likes of which had not been seen since Newt (Ironically another beloved child character created by James Cameron) was unceremoniously killed off in the opening of "Alien 3". Alas by putting the shock twist at the start of the film, it ultimately feels like not only a slap in the face to fans of the franchise, but also something of a missed opportunity. Personally, I felt that the death of John Connor, whilst a poor decision by the screenwriters, could have potentially had more shock value if, instead of being within the first five minutes, had occurred at some point during the second act of the film, as not only would it have defied audience expectations and made John's death more impactful, instead of just the cheap nostalgic moment of seeing Edward Furlong in the role again, but also would have raised the stakes considerably for the remaining cast members, with nobody, regardless of their previous importance to the plot, being safe.
The two new primary cast members, Mackenzie Davies and Natalia Reeves, playing the cybernetically enhanced resistance fighter Grace and Danni, the ordinary Mexican woman targeted for termination respectively, fail to make much of an impact as the franchise's new protagonists. Davies, despite coming from a similar war-torn future that Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese came from in the original "Terminator", lacks the same level of PTSD induced intensity that Biehn brought to his role, subsequently succeeding, where Davies fails, in making his character feel believable as traumatized guerrilla fighter. Whist, the idea of an augmented human protector is an interesting enough concept for the film, not enough is actually done with it to make it worthwhile. Reeves, like Davies, fails to make much of an impact as the franchise's new messianic figure. Lacking both the street-smart toughness yet underlying vulnerability or the reluctance to face his destiny that Furlong and Stahl brought to the role of John Connor, as a character Dani feels flat, with no real characterization other than simply being the franchise's rebooted central figure.
Similarly, Gabriel Luna, as the Rev-9, also fails to add anything new as the film's main antagonist. Like "Terminator 3"'s T-X, the Rev-9 is liquid metal over a solid endoskeleton, however it has the ability to separate one from the other, making it effectively two terminators in one. Despite this, nothing is really done with it, outside of the same actions scenes we've seen done before and much more realized in the franchise. The Rev-9 also comes off as both far too convincingly human and not convincingly threatening enough. Whist previous antagonistic Terminators showed they could, to varying degrees, effectively pass as human, their physical performances, such as Schwarzenegger's almost shark like hunting of Sarah during the Technoir scene or Robert Patrick's raptorial head movements in "Terminator 2" helped remind the audience that they were, literally, killing machines.
Schwarzenegger's return to his iconic role, continues the gradual decaying of the character that we've seen since "Terminator 3". A far cry from the brooding lone killer we saw in the first film or the unintentional father figure in the second, after killing John, this version of the T-800 settled down with a family and started a drapery business. Whilst the film does reduce a lot of the campy humour and meta-jokes at the T-800 comically serious expense, the idea of a killer cyborg from the future running a small business as well as marrying and raising a family, stretches the credibility of the film to almost breaking point.
Undoubtedly, the films main selling point is that Linda Hamilton, after almost 30 years and two other actresses tried and failed with their takes on the iconic role, has returned to the franchise as Sarah Connor: Cinema's ultimate mama grizzly. Whist its far from a triumphant return for Hamilton, as like many aspects of "Dark Fate" her character arc is virtually identical to "Judgement Day", Hamilton does her best with the material she's given. At times however, it feels like she's simply going through the same motions she did, and much more convincingly, three decades prior.
Ultimately, whist cutting down on the increasingly campy humour of the previous instalments and restoring some much needed grittiness to the franchise, as well as the return of Hamilton, questionable narrative choices as well as thinly drawn, if not outright dull new characters make "Dark Fate" a mediocre entry in an increasingly tired franchise, one which is desperately in need of both new ideas and new direction.
GoldenEye (1995)
Whist not quite as timeless as the classic Bond's, "GoldenEye" is a slick, entertaining film and an assured debut for Brosnan.
James Bond: The world's most adaptable secret agent. In 2006, Daniel Craig and director Martin Campbell gave us "Casino Royale" which resurrected the ailing franchise and made it fresh and relevant once again in the post 9/11 world. Campbell however successfully revitalised the Bond franchise once before with Pierce Brosnan's 1995 debut "GoldenEye". Back then, the Bond series was in a crisis. The world had changed: The Soviet Union had collapsed and audience's taste's had shifted towards big, blockbuster action movies, like the various Stallone and Schwarzenegger vehicles being produced. Bond was increasingly seen as archaic and outdated. MGM, the company that produced the franchise, was mired in financial difficulties and eventually in 1994, Timothy Dalton officially resigned from the role. It seemed increasingly that Bond's relevance and appeal had ended with the Cold War.
Campbell however, managed to successfully reinvent the franchise and make it relevant again for the post Cold War world. Much like he would do eleven years later with "Casino Royale", Campbell took clear inspiration from the new generation of action films and applied them to the Bond franchise. As a result "GoldenEye" is a slicker, faster paced film than its predecessors. Boasting an impressive array of action set pieces, the opening scene, for example, which depicts Bond bungee jumping from the top of a Soviet dam, is one of the best openings to a film that I have seen and the now famous Tank chase though Saint Petersburg is now considered a classic Bond moment,. The film does retain some of the grit of Dalton's two films, whist having something of an ironic and self deprecating sense about itself. On the downside, the film has noticeably dated in the two decades since its release and several of the aspects that made the film entertaining and appealing in the 1990's, now make it look archaic, especially when compared to Craig's recent outings. The film's various jabs poking fun at Bond's post Cold War relevance can also begin to feel tiresome after a while.
In his debut outing, Brosnan aquatints himself well, bringing a smooth charm and his natural charisma to the role. Brosnan's Bond has the glib charm and off the cuff humour of the late Roger Moore and occasionally shows hints of Connery and Dalton's ruthlessness. Whist Brosnan is the most emotionally expressive of the actor's who have played Bond, he plays it subtly. An example would be the beach scene in Cuba: He makes it clear to Natalya, that killing Trevelyan is part of his occupation, but he is clearly conflicted about it on the inside. Whist Brosnan does bring a youthful vigour to the role, this is a double edged sword in a way, as his baby faced features, somewhat undermine the fact he is supposed to be a ruthless assassin. In fact, I would say it wasn't until 1999's "The World Is Not Enough" that Brosnan grew into the role physically. Nevertheless, Bronson handles the action scenes with ease, especially the final fight with Trevelyan, which hearkens back to the train fight in "From Russia With Love". Regardless, I would say that aside a few minor detractors "GoldenEye" is overall, a strong debut from Brosnan.
Sean Bean plays the main antagonist: rogue MI6 agent Alec Trevelyan. In keeping with the influence of contemporary action films on the revitalised Bond series, Bean's Trevelyan has less in common with Blofeld or Goldfinger, having a more personal and interesting motive then simple greed or lust for world domination. Making the character, a former friend of 007's also adds a layer of complexity to the film, as this makes him a considerably more personal foe for Bond. Trevelyan is something of a dark mirror to Bond himself, which allows him to, like many characters, subvert and smarmily comment on many of the tropes associated with the Bond series.
The main female leads of the film, Janssen's seductive assassin, Xenia Onnatopp and Scorupco's computer programmer, Natayla Simonova, also both conform and subvert our expectation of Bond girls. Onnatop, like Trevelyan, is a dark mirror image of Bond, using his love of sex and beautiful women against him, whereas Simonova is the more straightforward love interest. Neither characters have any real predecessors in the franchise and both reflect the changing world and attitudes that Bond finds himself in. Onnatopp is by far one of the more memorable Bond villainesses due to her rather unique method of killing people, although at times, the character does seem a little too over the top. Simonova, on the other hand, is a considerably more believable Bond girl, and although certainly spunky and assertive, can come across as dowdy and bland, especially compared to Janssen's sultry henchwoman. Ample support also comes from the supporting cast, with Robbie Coltrane and Alan Cumming providing comic relief as a Russian gangster with a grudge against Bond and a sleazy treasonous computer hacker respectively.
"GoldenEye" is undoubtedly a fairly strong film, however problems with pacing, several plot holes and the fact the film is beginning to show its age, detract from it somewhat. The pacing, especially in the second act of the film, bogs the film down with heavy expositional scenes, especially the conversations between Bond and Coltrane's mobster where they discuss "Janus's" backstory. The model effects used in the film, only slightly convincing back in 1995, now look noticeably dated. The fact that many of the characters comment on Bonds seeming irrelevance following the Cold War doesn't help either as they place the film firmly in the mid 1990's.
Overall, I would say "GoldenEye" is one of the better entries in the series and undoubtedly the best film of Brosnan's tenure. Whist not as timeless as the classic Bond's, "GoldenEye" is still, for the large part, confident enough to stand on its own merits, and is a strong debut picture for Brosnan.
Threads (1984)
Harder hitting than its trans-Atlantic contemporary "The Day After", "Threads" successfully depicts the true, terrifying consequences of nuclear war.
It's a true testament to a films impact and power, when its narrative and its images stay with you for years or even decades after its release. It's even more impressive when a television movie, often resigned as cinema's lesser equivalent, manages that same feat despite lower budgets and lesser known stars. "Threads" shot on a shoestring budget of between £250 to 350,000 and first broadcast on 24th September 1984, is one of the few television films that transcends its medium and in many ways, surpasses even cinematic features in its depiction of apocalyptic events. It also say's a considerable amount when, despite relatively few repeats, it's visceral, grotesque images still stay with its viewers more than three decades after its original broadcast.
"Threads" similarly to its American predecessor "The Day After", released a year before, depicts the events leading up to, during and after a Soviet-American nuclear war and the resulting social, medical and psychological breakdown of society. Unlike "The Day After", which shows up to a few weeks after the nuclear exchange, "Threads" shows what would happen 10 years following the attacks, allowing for a greater perspective on the aftermath. That, in my opinion, is why "Threads" packs a far harder punch than "The Day After" which, whist harrowing in its own way, has a more definitive end: with "Threads" the horror never ends.
Key to the film's power is the way the director, Mick Jackson, approaches the material. More kitchen sink drama then disaster movie, "Threads" was written by Barry Hines, author and screenwriter of the excellent "Kes". Jackson gives "Threads" a similar approach to the latter, portraying realistic, ordinary characters caught up in events far beyond their control. There are no scenes depicting Soviet and American generals bickering and blustering, instead, the political and military drama takes a backseat to the human drama. What we have instead, is an everyday scenario regarding an unplanned pregnancy, between two people from different social classes in Sheffield. A subplot details the bureaucratic and ultimately futile plans of a group of civil servants to keep the country running, should war break out. We are kept informed of escalating events between Russia and the United States via scant news reports, scattered radio broadcasts and a clipped, almost matter of fact narration from Paul Vaughan. There are no massive action set pieces showing cities being vaporised: instead inter-titles showing figures and statistics, clinically describe the worlds decent into nuclear holocaust.
Cast wise, "Threads" is, for the large part, devoid of household names, unlike "The Day After" which counts Jason Robards and John Lithgow among its cast. Here, the cast is comprised of mostly unknown actors, adding to the strong sense of realism. Few of the actors are household names, so their performances here are not tainted by their over familiar faces or associations with any other roles. Instead, the actor's anonymity helps the audience immerse themselves in the story and relate to the characters more. Following the attack scenes, several characters are never seen again, effectively putting us in the remaining characters shoes: they don't know what's happened to their loved ones and neither do we.
Ultimately, what makes "Threads" stand out among its contemporaries, are its true commitment to both realism and showing the audience the true, terrifying aftermath of nuclear war. The film shows us, in almost unbearable detail, the graphic and rapid deterioration of humanity once the bombs drop and the fallout descends. . Ironically despite the films subject matter there are comparatively few gruesome scenes, even the stomach churning hospital scene is shot and edited in such a chaotic, fleeting way that it leaves more of a psychological impact then a visceral one and shots of burned corpses are brief. The film's horror instead lies, not in graphic shots of dead and disfigured bodies, but in showing the complete and total breakdown of social order and how quickly the "threads" of society become severed. The majority of the films disturbing imagery is depicted in the third act of the story, depicting ten years after the attacks. What used to be Sheffield is now a burned out wasteland, inhabited by a dwindling population of sick, starving and blind survivors trying vainly to eke out an existence from the poisoned soil. The few children born since the war are illiterate, feral and barely capable of speaking English due to the nonexistent education system. The most horrific image that the film conjures up is its final one: due to years of radiation exposure, the next generation are stillborn and deformed and any lingering hope that the viewer had for a happy ending is brought crashing down.
For all the praise I've heaped on the film thus far, "Threads" does have a few, comparatively minor flaws. Some of the characters feel somewhat underdeveloped, although this could be overlooked, as due to the films style and commitment to realism giving the characters Hollywood style story arcs would have been jarring with the films tone. Secondly, due to the time and political climate when the film was made, it is perhaps unsurprising that the film is by now very dated, however again this can be overlooked as the films raw power overrides the films dated look. Indeed the films gritty, grainy stock really helps convey the squalor of the post war world.
Overall, "Threads" is a true television masterpiece that far surpasses the "The Day After" and the rest of its contemporaries. Powerful, hard hitting and thought provoking, "Threads" is guaranteed to linger in the mind long after it's over. Overcoming its minuscule budget and dedicated to showing the true face of nuclear war in all its grotesque, nightmarish realism, Mick Jackson delivers a truly terrifying glimpse into a world that could have been, could still be and must never be.
The Devil's Double (2011)
Whist slick, glossy and undeniably stylish, Tamahori's "The Devils Double" feels like a missed opportunity.
Based on an (allegedly) true story, Lee Tamahori's "The Devils Double" is a slick and stylish production, featuring an well crafted dual performance by Dominic Cooper, portraying both Uday: the sociopathic, hedonistic son of Saddam Hussein, and as Latif Yahia: the Iraqi soldier forced to become his body double. The film, however, feels like something of a missed opportunity, and that the end result, whist an entertaining film, is somewhat less than the sum of its parts and feels like merely a good film, rather than the potentially great one it could have been.
Cooper's performance as Uday and his titular double is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. As Uday, Cooper allows himself to practically devour the scenery, portraying the dictator's son as a nightmarish cross between Caligula and Tony Montana, raping and murdering with selfish aplomb. Cooper clearly has fun as the monstrous Uday, although according to various sources, the real Uday was far more vicious then Cooper's portrayal. This reflects more on the film's style and direction then Cooper himself, as I felt with a more realistic, grittier take on the material; Cooper's performance could have been as iconic as Pacino's. His second role as Latif: increasingly horrified and disgusted with Uday's excesses, is considerably more understated and at times, can feel a little underdeveloped, compared to Uday's flamboyancy. Ultimately, Latif feels more like a stock character, a mob underling in over his head with a psychotic kingpin, rather than the films emotional core.
The cast is rounded out by Ludivine Sagnier as Sarrab, Uday's concubine and later Latif's lover, Raad Rawi as Munem, Uday's stoic and long suffering security chief, Mem Ferda as Kamel Hannah, a "twittering little pimp" who insults Uday and pays dearly for it and musical theatre veteran, Philip Quast, as Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator and Uday's disapproving father.Out of the supporting cast, Rawi and Quast, are the standouts, with Rawi's body guard, imbued with quiet dignity and subtle authority, clearly fed up with having to look after his psychotic charge and yet unable to do anything about it. One scene, has Latif and Munem discussing Uday's utter insanity, the subtle look on Rawi's face as Latif tells him that "He's a good man in a bad job" sells his characters frustration without saying anything. Quast's Saddam, despite his brief appearances, radiates authority and his scenes, opposite his arrant son, are filled with a deep sense of tension. Sagnier is, however, the weakest link in the supporting cast, playing a typical femme fatale role as Uday's kept woman. Sagnier gives a rather wooden, dispassionate performance and her chemistry with Cooper is lacking.
The films slickness and stylish look both help and hinder the films tone. The visual look of the film is slick and glossy, giving it a gaudy, sensationalised appearance. In a way, this helps the film's narrative, given that the majority of the films scene's happen in the luxurious palaces, homes and nightclubs frequented by Uday and his entourage, places considerably different from where the average Iraqi lived, highlighting the extravagant, hedonistic lives that the ruling family lived. On the downside, the gloss makes the film feel like a generic gangster movie which isn't helped by the other genre trappings (The violent sociopath, the femme fatales, the reluctant henchman) the film displays throughout. I think with a grittier, more realistic take on the story (Perhaps similar to Tamahori's 1994 breakout "Once Were Warriors, depicting violence in the Maori community), the film could have been better, but with the films style clashing slightly with the story, the result is the film feeling rather disjointed.
Overall, I would say "The Devils Double", whist far from a great movie, is not by default a bad movie either. Cooper's performance as Uday is enjoyable to watch, in the same way Pacino is "enjoyable" in "Scarface, or Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas". The films garnish visual tone, however cheapens the film into feeling like a generic thriller. Ultimately,it is a disappointment that what could have been a gritty, brutal take on one of the vilest and cruellest figures of Saddam's Iraq, is watered down into an entertaining, albeit somewhat forgettable, gangster film.
Casino Royale (2006)
This excellent reboot of the long running franchise owes more of a debt to Dalton's films then Brosnan's, Moore's or even Connerys.
Taking inspiration from Christopher Nolan and "The Dark Knight" series, "Casino Royale", is a much needed reboot of the long running spy series. Like its spiritual predecessor, it strips away the bloated, elements from a series which eventually became a parodical, CGI addled shadow of its former self. Casino Royale is a darker, leaner movie, not only in comparison to Brosnan's poorly received swansong "Die Another Day" but also compared to the majority of the films in the series. Ironically, in addition to both Nolan's Batman reimagining and the "Jason Bourne" series, "Casino Royale" owes more a debt to Timothy Dalton's "The Living Daylights" then Roger Moore's "Live And Let Die" or even "Dr No": Connery's iconic debut and the first film in the series.
Similar to "GoldenEye", Bond is fighting, not just against international terrorists, but for both credibility in a changing geo-political world and audiences changing expectations. "GoldenEye" faced this problem, with various characters and critics questioning Bond's relevance following the Cold War and with changing social attitudes. "GoldenEye" however, was successful in subverting audience expectations and breathing fresh life into a stale franchise, due to poor writing and plots, Brosnan's subsequent Bond films were increasingly disappointing, culminating in "Die Another Day", released in 2002. The film and its reception had a sense of déjà vue for many critics, with many of them again questioning the series relevance in the post 9/11 world and also the character alongside more recent action hero's such as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. Once again, it seemed, Bond had become obsolete, "A relic of the Cold War" as Dench's M put it.
"Casino Royale" manages, perhaps more successfully than "GoldenEye", to subvert audience expectations regarding the series by stripping back the majority of the tropes that people had both come to love and expect from the series, Casino Royale manages to successfully craft a Bond film that feels relevant to the post 9/11 world and proves that 007 can still hold his own, regardless of what audiences expect.
This success is due in no small part to Craig's performance as Bond. Instead of the almost superhuman spy we got in the previous movies, here, we get a more inexperienced, rawer 007, who whilst still being capable of shooting a man in cold blood or coldly dismissing the death of his lover with "The jobs done, the bitch is dead", also has a degree of vulnerability that we have not seen in a Bond film for a while. Craig's Bond is not invulnerable; he makes mistakes, is poisoned, beaten, and tortured. When compared to Brosnan spending four movies mowing down bad guys like Rambo without a scratch on him, it feels considerably more refreshing to see a Bond who bleeds. It also makes Craig's Bond feel more real and grounded: Take the scene following the fight in the stairway, Bond doesn't adjust his tie and make a glib remark or pithy comeback, he goes back to his room, pours himself a glass of scotch and washes away the blood from his bruised and battered body, at times even wincing in pain. This is a Bond that owes more of a debt to Dalton's burnt out killer, then Moore's suave playboy.
In terms of the supporting cast, Eva Green as the enigmatic Vesper Lynd, gives a stylish, yet understated performance. Like Craig, she gives a more nuanced performance as Lynd: her portrayal of Bond's love interest is more complex, subtle and tragic then the stereotype's and gimmicks that came before her. Green's Vesper is unlikely to crush a man between her legs, or be a martial arts expert, but she is undoubtedly the emotional core of the film. As the films principal villain, Mads Mikkelson gives a similarly understated performance as Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre doesn't have an absurd plan to take over the world and is armed with nothing more than a inhaler and a eye that weeps blood, however Mikkelson turns in a multifaceted performance. Le Chiffre is a much more believable villain and whist he does come across as a more human antagonist, he never loses his subtle menace.
The action in the film have also been drawn back. Taking clear inspiration from the fight scenes in the "Jason Bourne" franchise, "Casino Royale" provides far more intense, scaled back but still thrilling action pieces with a degree more tension than previous instalment's. The opening construction site chase is a particular highlight, with Bond perusing a terrorist who uses parkour to his advantage. As previously mentioned, Craig's Bond is considerably more human than previous instalments and so, whist it is obvious Bond won't die at any point, it's more refreshing to have an action film where you can actually almost feel the blows. The action is also considerably more realistic and brutal then previous films. During the staircase fight sequence, Bond strangles a man to death with close ups of both the man's face as he gasps for breath and Bonds bloodied shirt following the act. It's not quick, it's not pretty and its unlike anything we've really seen before in a Bond film. This goes to show that Bond is far more brutal that we'd thought which again adds a degree of depth to the character, showing the darker side of his job. This more intense, brutal action style may, to a degree, alienate older fans, more used to a Bond film being mere escapist fun, however I believe the vast majority would agree anything's better then Brosnan riding a CGI tidal wave.
Overall, I would say that "Casino Royale" works, as a reboot of a series that desperately needed rebooting, and once again that the Bond series can evolve from parody to gritty and relevant to today's audiences. Giving us a serious, gritty film without alienating fans, Craig's debut, proves that there is life in the old franchise yet.
Batman Begins (2005)
Stripping away the campiness of the previous series, Nolan's "Batman Begins is a darker, angrier interpretation of the Batman cinematic universe.
Putting my childhood nostalgia aside, I am prepared to admit that, despite a few elements, the Burton/Schumacher Batman films were simply not very good, either as adaptations of the comics or as films. The stories were often poor, focusing more on the villains as opposed to Batman and the films suffered from Burton attempting to mix his "unique" filmmaking trademarks onto already established characters, changing them considerably from their comic book counterparts. Schumacher's Batman films have been savaged and picked apart by both critics and comic book readers in the 20 or so years since their release so I'm not going to be beating the "Joel Schumacher killed the Batman Franchise" horse anytime soon, but I will say this: Schumacher may have put the final nail in the coffin with his Bat nipples and wisecracking Mr Freeze, but Burton dug the grave with his penguin suicide bombers and dominatrix Catwoman.
Nolan's "Batman Begins" however, is an altogether different beast then either Burton's or Schumacher's interpretations. Stripping away the campy nonsense that marred the previous series, Nolan gives us a serious take on the character where the focus is less on over the top villains and more on the title character himself, often sidelined in the previous movies. Nolan also distances himself from the trend set by recent superhero franchises, taking his visual cues and styles more from" Blade Runner" or "Seven" than "Spiderman" or "X Men" and it helps create a comic book adaptation that feels less like a summer blockbuster and something deeper, darker and more mature.
Bale's Batman is also a vast departure from his predecessors. In a first for a Batman film, we spend more time with Bruce Wayne then his alter ego and it is this that sets the film apart from the previous series. Here we actually see Wayne turn both physically and psychologically into Batman as opposed to leaving it mostly untold with the occasional offhand remark or flashback sequence. As I previously mentioned, Batman in the Burton/Schumacher series was sidelined in favour of the villains but here the focus is on Wayne himself and his character arc with the villains taken to secondary characters. Bales Batman is probably the most psychologically damaged and multi faced of both series and it serves the character well. Bale combines the dark psychosis of Keaton with the action heroics of Kilmer but still manages to make the character his own. Bale manages to portray all sides of Wayne's personality: from the rage filled young man to the driven vigilante to the carefree playboy, Bale manages to portray the character truer to the comics then most actors before him and manages to successfully make the character his own.
In addition to the lead actor, the film features a stellar supporting cast. Liam Neeson plays Bruce's mentor, Henri Ducard. In a rare change of pace for Neeson, Ducard is revealed to the main villain in the third act of the film. Ducard is a villain that isn't defined by a silly gimmick or cheesy lines, instead he is simply a very dedicated man who is willing to do anything to complete his mission and it works in the post 9/11 world, Neeson's calm, cool performance add gravitas to his role, although there is the possibility that given Ducard's ideals and obvious real world parallels that it might date the film. Michael Caine plays Bruce's butler Alfred Pennyworth. Caine plays the role well and the character is rightly given a much bigger part then Michael Gough, who's Alfred was often regulated to an extended cameo, although Caine perhaps lacks the class and refinement that Gough bought to his brief appearances. Gary Oldman, continuing his recent choice of more sympathetic characters, plays Jim Gordon. Oldman is always a pleasure to watch and here he plays the world weary cop convincingly. Morgan Freeman plays Wayne's technician Luscious Fox, adding Freemans charm to a somewhat limited role. Cillian Murphy as the sinister Dr Crane is one of the films highlights, turning a villain which could have been campy and gimmicky and turning it into something we hadn't seen in a Batman film before: A villain who is genuinely frightening and a credible threat. On the downside Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is less then convincing. Holmes pales in comparison to the rest of the supporting cast and the character isn't very convincing. Additionally Tom Wilkinson's Carmine Falcone, whist more believable then Holmes, is let down by Wilkinson's less then subtle "wiseguy" accent.
Among the films high points is the production design. Gotham for once feels like a real city for the first time since Anton Furst's work on the original Batman. Nolan's Gotham feels so realistic, you feel like it could actually exist somewhere in the world. The subsequent movies relied more heavily on studio sets and CGI heavy backdrops, declining to use the sets that Furst had built for the first movie and it showed, giving the movies an often cheap feel. Whist Nolan also uses studio sets in "Batman Begins", he manages to successfully blend them with real world locations, giving his Gotham city a much more realistic and vastly more epic scope than previous films.
Despite these strong points, the film does have its share of weak points which I feel I must mention. The fight choreography is often fast paced, which makes it difficult to tell what is going on and who is fighting who, although the final fight does seem to improve on this, as do the sequels. Also, despite Nolan's choice to avoid clichés in regards to modern superhero films, he drops the ball slightly by including a inspirational message, which feels rather forced and awkwardly inserted into the film.
Overall I would say that Batman Begins is a successful reboot of a much ridiculed franchise and despite a few flaws is a generally entertaining movie for both comic book fans and more mainstream audiences.
Fight Club (1999)
Fincher's caustic satire, whist slightly losing its potency upon repeat viewings, still remains a powerful piece of counter consumerist art.
In the closing months of 1999, two films were released depicting modern man in crisis. The first was "American Beauty" directed by Sam Medes and depicting a middle aged man suffering a midlife crisis. "Fight Club" directed by David Fincher and released two weeks later was its angrier, much more cynical counterpart. Adapted from Chuck Palenhuick's 1996 bestseller, "Fight Club" swaggered into cinemas to a lukewarm reception from critics, who found the film polarising and its violence gratuitous, exacerbated by the studio poorly thought out marketing campaign. Since then however, the film's reputation has gradually grown in esteem and is now regarded as one of the greatest films of the 90's. The film's themes still resonate today and I feel that it fares well when compared to its competitor, which seems soapy and melodramatic by comparison Whist I would agree that the film is a unique one, featuring stellar performances from Norton, Bonham Carter and Pitt and slick direction from Fincher, the film loses some of its acerbic potency slightly upon repeat viewings. Nevertheless it's more than apparent "Fight Club" will go down as one of the best movies of the late 20th Century and a landmark depiction of masculinity on film.
Pitt's performance as Tyler Durden is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. Boasting an air of dangerous virility and later mocking, contemptuous threat, Durden will likely go down as one of cinema's most iconic male characters, up there with Eastwood's Blondie, De Niro's Travis Bickle and Pacino's Michael Corleone. Coming at the end of a seminal streak in the 1990's, Pitt delivers a powerhouse performance, playing the anarchic Tyler with rebellious aplomb. His chemistry with both Norton and Boham Carter are excellent, with Durden as the perfectly extroverted yin to Norton's much more introverted yang and his scenes with Carter crackling with sexual tension. Without a doubt, Durden is the films charismatic heart of darkness and Pitt deliver's in a truly exceptional performance.
Norton's role as the anonymous, insomniac narrator is far more subdued compared to Pitt's but Norton's white collar everyman appeal gives the character a relatable appeal. Whist at times, the characters narration can seem dour and neurotic, Norton's anonymous nature makes him a more relatable protagonist then Kevin Spacey's Lester Burnham, and more sympathetic that Michael Douglas in "Falling Down". If anything, Norton's character feels more like Generation X's equivalent of Dustin Hoffman's Benjamin Braddock in "The Graduate" than Spacey's disillusioned baby boomer or Douglas's psychotic vigilante. If Pitt's anarchist soap salesman is the films dark heart, then Norton is its audience surrogate and ultimately the moral core.
Among the supporting cast, the two undeniable stand outs are Helena Boham Carter as the nymphomaniac, destitute Marla Singer and Meat Loaf as Robert "Bob" Paulson, rather unfortunately endowed with a pair of "bitch tits". Here, Boham Carter plays a character a million miles removed from the quirky but increasingly stale characters she's played recently. A foul mouthed, nymphomaniac "tourist", Singer comes across as a interesting and unique love interest and yet, when at the end of the film she displays more typical romantic lead aspects, it feels true to character as opposed to suddenly jarring. Meat Loaf gives the role of Bob, a sense of humour and likability, in a role that could have easily lapsed into parody, which makes his eventual demise and martyr-fication by Project Mayhem all the more tragic.
Fincher's past experience making stylish thrillers such as "Se7en" and "The Game" is clearly on display in "Fight Club". The fight scenes are brutal and gratuitous, not shying away from blood, sweat and disfigurement, but there's logic and reason behind them, as opposed to just being sequences designed to shock or disgust its audience. I feel that if the films fight scenes had not been as visceral as they are, then the films themes would have felt less effective and the film would have been criticised for not developing or exploring them enough. The film is shot through with a glossy sheen, which doesn't detract from the grittiness and brutality of the fight scenes .The more stylised sequences that are in the film however, are handled competently, sequences testament to Fincher's early experience directing music videos, with the film boasting several uniquely stylish and occasionally surreal sequences, from the title sequence depicting a brain's neural network in which the thought processes are initiated by the Narrator's fear impulse, to a disorienting, slow motion sex scene. On the downside, several of the more stylised, CGI heavy sequences now look dated, especially the latter. Whist the films themes may be timeless, evidently the CGI isn't.
Thematically, "Fight Club" is not the first film to explore the "modern man in crisis" theme. Throughout the 1990's, we had several movies exploring that and similar themes, usually with sardonic observations on society and commercialism peppered throughout. "Falling Down" had sly observations on commercialism and advertising and Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" explored the relationship between sensationalist media and violent serial killers. "Fight Club" tackles much of the same themes and whist it does it successfully, at times the films themes and messages tend to overwhelm the plot and frequently feel heavy handed. I felt the bar scene where Pitt explains his philosophy and views on commercialism to Norton was a subtler way of getting the films message across.
Overall I would say "Fight Club" is certainly a unique film with a cynical, acerbic take on consumerist culture. Undoubtedly one of the best films of the late 20th Century and with an enduring male icon in the shape of Pitt's Tyler Durden, the film admittedly does lose some of its satirical bite upon multiple viewings with its message coming across as heavy handed. The films non linear plot line and cutaways can also feel repetitive after a while. The pro's however far outweigh the cons of Fincher's searing satire.