Reel Rave!
Aug 14, 2008
NEWS: Christian Bale won't face charges
"Batman star Christian Bale will not face charges relating to an alleged assault last month on his mother and sister, prosecutors said Thursday, suggesting their decision was based in part on the family members' wishes." (CNN.com)
Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, CNN, news
Jul 31, 2008
REVIEW: The Dark Knight
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, movies, review, The Dark Knight
Jul 10, 2008
REVIEW: Batman: Gotham Knight
(Image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Holy anime Batman!
If you like Batman and you like anime, then Batman: Gotham Knight should be right up you alley, street, thoroughfare, whatever.
B:GK is the first time, EVER, that one of the most enduring comic book characters of all time has be touched by Japanese animation [for the newborns, also known as anime].
It was figured by the powers-that-be that casting the Shadow of the Bat with a new anime light would be a sure sell, plus it would be an excellent way of collecting the pocket change of Bat-fans and anime-junkies ahead of The Dark Knight.
For me, Batman: Gotham Knight did not meet my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the idea that anime could capture the essence of Batman wasn't a bad one. The execution of that idea, however, comes crazily close to making a joker out of B:GK.
The story [or more accurately six interconnecting stories] fills in the gaps between Batman Returns and the upcoming Dark Knight. While I will not spill the beans on the story for each of the segments, I will say that the various animation styles used for each [while interesting] ended up segmenting the tale more than I found desirable. One segment 'Field Test' had Bruce Wayne looking more pubescent than playboy-ish. Another segment [you'll see which one] gives a glimpse of the Batmobile from a different time.
Don't get me wrong, each of the anime styles featured brought something different to the film, but the uniqueness of each style kept a disjointed feel constantly apparent. Imagine a Batman comic cobbled together with artwork from Jim Lee, Stan Lee, and Alex Ross, or a puzzle done by an enthusiastic three year-old.
Batman: Gotham Knight did mark Kevin Conroy's first return to voicing what is perhaps his defining role as Bruce Wayne/Batman. While Conroy's voice-acting brought a sense of the familiar to B:GK it did not fit as well as it might have if the film did not skip through several different anime styles.
A couple of the segments, 'Crossfire' and 'Deadshot', do capture the essence of Batman quite well IMHO, easily making them my favourites, while the lead-in segment 'Have I got a Story for You' does an excellent job of showing how the Bat becomes an urban legend.
Hiccups aside, Batman: Gotham Knight does a decent job of bridging the gap from Batman Returns in terms of the progress of Batman as a character, and his battle against the darkness of Gotham. I wouldn't advise anyone who is following that same progression to skip this anthology film before watching Dark Knight.
(Image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Holy anime Batman!
If you like Batman and you like anime, then Batman: Gotham Knight should be right up you alley, street, thoroughfare, whatever.
B:GK is the first time, EVER, that one of the most enduring comic book characters of all time has be touched by Japanese animation [for the newborns, also known as anime].
It was figured by the powers-that-be that casting the Shadow of the Bat with a new anime light would be a sure sell, plus it would be an excellent way of collecting the pocket change of Bat-fans and anime-junkies ahead of The Dark Knight.
For me, Batman: Gotham Knight did not meet my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the idea that anime could capture the essence of Batman wasn't a bad one. The execution of that idea, however, comes crazily close to making a joker out of B:GK.
The story [or more accurately six interconnecting stories] fills in the gaps between Batman Returns and the upcoming Dark Knight. While I will not spill the beans on the story for each of the segments, I will say that the various animation styles used for each [while interesting] ended up segmenting the tale more than I found desirable. One segment 'Field Test' had Bruce Wayne looking more pubescent than playboy-ish. Another segment [you'll see which one] gives a glimpse of the Batmobile from a different time.
Don't get me wrong, each of the anime styles featured brought something different to the film, but the uniqueness of each style kept a disjointed feel constantly apparent. Imagine a Batman comic cobbled together with artwork from Jim Lee, Stan Lee, and Alex Ross, or a puzzle done by an enthusiastic three year-old.
Batman: Gotham Knight did mark Kevin Conroy's first return to voicing what is perhaps his defining role as Bruce Wayne/Batman. While Conroy's voice-acting brought a sense of the familiar to B:GK it did not fit as well as it might have if the film did not skip through several different anime styles.
A couple of the segments, 'Crossfire' and 'Deadshot', do capture the essence of Batman quite well IMHO, easily making them my favourites, while the lead-in segment 'Have I got a Story for You' does an excellent job of showing how the Bat becomes an urban legend.
Hiccups aside, Batman: Gotham Knight does a decent job of bridging the gap from Batman Returns in terms of the progress of Batman as a character, and his battle against the darkness of Gotham. I wouldn't advise anyone who is following that same progression to skip this anthology film before watching Dark Knight.
Labels: anime, Batman, comics, Gotham Knight, Marc Gibson, review
