Showing posts with label Kim Basinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim Basinger. Show all posts

Sunday, 19 May 2019

Review: Batman





Batman (1989, 30th anniversary screening)
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Tim Burton / Trailer



Well, it was my birthday last week and as if to hammer the point home, time is teaching me I'm now of an age where I can go to 30th anniversary screenings in full nostalgia mode, having attended the cinema to watch the movie the first time round, too. Tim Burton's Batman ushered in the age of me regularly Going To The Pictures with my friends*1. I didn't live particularly close to a cinema, and movies before this tended to either be family outings or even just waiting for the VHS (and bear in mind that back in those days, the journey to the small screen took around a year).

MACHINE


Batman also drew me into the multimedia marketing machine surrounding its release. The specially produced comic adaptation featured scenes and character likenesses based on stills from the film, and along with the high-contrast, tonally-blended, full colour printing it was leagues ahead of the rapid-fire, block-colour-and-halftone pulp Marvel fare I'd been used to previously. I loved comics anyway (mainly Marvel, although that stands to this day), but this was in indicator that they could be more.

And that score. Danny Elfman's iconic work here was the first time outside of John Williams' Star Wars that a movie soundtrack had really excited me, one I could listen to separately and still clearly evoke the imagery inside my mind. It was the album which made me understand the role that the right music can play in enhancing a film while adding to the overall identity. A far cry from Williams' equally superb work for Superman, there were no romantic overtones to this new Batman theme, just a pounding, dynamic urgency.

PUGH


Prior to 1989, our superheroes had arrived onscreen clad in brightly coloured spandex (a reflection of their comic origins, to be fair). Batman rocked up in black, bulletproof rubber body armour, patrolling the streets of a Gotham City which looks for all the world like Blade Runner's Los Angeles if it had become run-down before the off-world boom. There's very little daylight in the movie, every character seemingly a nocturnal creature or one who just doesn't need to sleep. With 1980s tech meeting 1940s wardrobe and a self-awareness which that's ahead of its time, Burton's work is a great foundation for the Nolan retelling.

Along with writers Warren Skaaren and Sam Hamm, Burton brings a theatrical, borderline pantomime, classically gothic take on the anti-hero, flamboyantly dark and knowingly playful (a point which went over my head when watching this as a youngster). There's a lightness of touch that rarely feels the need to rely on outright gags, but coasts along with a wry subversiveness. The film broods but it never wallows. I'm looking at you, DC.

CUTHBERT


Michael Keaton may not be the most fearsome Batman, but he's the most accessible Bruce Wayne and is far and away the best combination of the two. He brings a fragility to both halves of the role that other actors have been unable to accomplish - or worse still, just haven't attempted. We shouldn't sympathise with either a billionaire businessman or a surly vigilante, but we're on this guy's side all the way through. Keaton shows us Batman's vulnerability and determination, not his inflexible strength. As well as showing us how Batman does his thing, Keaton gives us a window into why.

It's also worth noting that Keaton and Michael Gough make the most endearing Bruce/Alfred combination to date. There's genuine warm emotion there on both sides, and we understand their relationship instantly. Y'know, rather than having Michael Caine trying to remember how to cry while Christian Bale looks faintly embarrassed*2.

DIBBLE


And put your hand up if you're old enough to remember the clamour of "yeah, this new movie Batman is DARK like it's meant to be, man! This is how grim the original comics were!", while Jack Nicholson prances around in a purple suit with Prince playing in the background. Nicholson is terrible of course (his usual form), but his performance as The Joker is definitely what this movie needs. It only really tips over in the scenes he shares with Jack Palance, where they're trying to out-overact each other onscreen and are somehow both succeeding.

The pacing of the first half is masterful, perfectly formed and spinning the plates of its main characters with care and precision. The story begins to run out of steam once the setup is accomplished, dragging its heels in bringing everything to the cathedral-top conclusion, but it's so much fun that this doesn't matter. On the whole, it's still a hell of a lot more focused than a lot of other Batman appearances, even (let's face it, especially) within its own series.

GRUBB


And the remastering on display for this presentation is absolutely gorgeous. Crystal clear and with vivid colours, the care which has gone into this is a credit to all concerned. Even when you notice the very-obvious miniatures (ie when the chemical plant is exploding), the craft which has gone into assembling them is still evident, first and foremost. There are a couple of very brief shots which don't seem to have been re-touched, but the optimist in me things that this is to reinforce the amazing work throughout the rest of the film. That said, it's been a long time since I watched this (to my shame), so those moments may always have looked terrible.

Batman 30th anniversary screenings and vintage marathons are happening across the country via the major chains and a few of the independents. If you can, do…



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Er… Batman films?
I mean it's definitely also Tim Burton™, but that aspect is far more restrained here than other work where he's allowed free rein. If anything, this makes Tim work harder to produce a better film, but there we go.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
If you get the opportunity, hell yeah.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
It is.
(even though I don't have this at home as noted, so who am I to make recommendations?)


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Quite possibly, for the major players here.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
No, because obviously you love this film as well.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
No, you'll have to watch the sequel for that.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Well…
Lando Calrissian is in this.
And Biggs Darklighter is in this.
And Jek Porkins is in this.
And Lt. Renz is in this.
And Uncredited Rebel Pilot From The Empire Strikes Back is in this.

Which is pretty good going, I think.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 There were a few sporadic others before this - Spaceballs being one, although we don't talk about that film here - but Batman was the opening of a door, so to speak. [ BACK ]

*2 Look, I do love the Nolan films and I respect the Caine's canon as much as anyone, but he's generally not a good actor. He can act well, he just usually chooses (and is somehow permitted) not to. [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Sunday, 29 May 2016

Review: The Nice Guys





The Nice Guys
Cert: 15 / 116 mins / Dir. Shane Black / Trailer



While I try to remain open minded about the film business (no really, I try), first impressions count for a lot in this game and Shane Black's new buddy-actioner was on an uphill climb with me from the first time I saw the poster. Everything checks-in tonally, but the title and tag-line combination The Nice Guys: They're Not That Nice indicated that this would be a film which revelled in explaining its own jokes. And it was because of this that I was also lukewarm to to the trailers when they arrived, promising a film which couldn't quite commit to the raucous comedy that was clearly taking place in the background. Yep, catch me on the wrong day and I'll be the worst audience you could want for your movie. But hey, at least I'm upfront about that.

Nevertheless, I was still going to watch The Nice Guys, of course. While I've never exactly raved about the principal cast, this was the new movie from the director of Iron Man 3, for crying out loud. Alas, I needn't have worried after all that. Black's crime-romp is a sort of garishly-lit 1970s noir which, while it's consistently funny, is a lot more deadpan than the pacing of the trailer suggests. The film opens with dual-voiceovers from both private investigator Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and private enforcer Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe), narrating the similarly haphazard state of their lives and the circumstances that bring them together; the untimely death of porn-actress Misty Mountains, and disappearance of the Chief of Justice's daughter, Amelia. That the two are linked is in no doubt, how the two are linked will take the investigative pair on a trail of intrigue which goes full-circle through the criminal underworld, adult film-industry, automotive industry and law enforcement itself…

Now how much you enjoy the film will probably depend on how you're watching it. Personally I had it categorised as a comedy before we started, and the film is laugh-out-loud funny in its own alternative way. The film works as an actioner, but car-chases and fight-scenes aren't the strongest weapon in its arsenal; that would be the laughs. The screenplay's humour is by no means 'dark', but the director brings a certain bleakness to this caper which undercuts the gags, turning most of them from hearty guffaws to dry chuckles*1. While there's always plenty going on, The Nice Guys often feels like it should be more fun than it is (although I also believe it's a better film for all that). Russell Crowe makes for a reassuringly solid comic straight-man and excels when he's hitting or shooting people, but struggles with his own humorous lines in comparison to Ryan Gosling (who seems far more comfortable as Hapless Fool™ than he does in many of his dramatic roles).

While the two leads carry most of the film, an honourable mention has to go to Angourie Rice as March's daughter, Holly. Her comic timing is perfect, and acting as the mature-half in the relationship with Gosling as her inept father, easily handles the most subtle role in the film with arguably more skill than any of the grown-ups handle their more pedestrian ones. Oh, and while I'm on, what's with the soft-focus on Kim Basinger's close-ups? You'd think after hiring her, they'd at least have the common courtesy of showing her face properly. If it's an in-joke to the way that 'mature' actresses used to be treated in Hollywood, then it's out-of-keeping with the realist 1970s aesthetic; if it's meant to be cinematic politeness, then it comes off as the underhanded opposite.

Too cynical and self-aware to be a mainstream smash, but too much fun for a serious statement, I think that this movie will gain more of a cult-status than the casting and marketing would suggest. As fantastic as the end result is, The Nice Guys can never quite decide if it wants to be a black comedy or a wry, self-effacing action movie.

But even though the two strands never quite join seamlessly, it still makes a pretty good stab at them both…



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
It's a sort of halfway-house between L.A. Confidential and Inherent Vice, with maybe a smattering of Jackie Brown thrown in for good measure.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Only if you like 'em big and loud.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Just about, yeah.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Not quite, but damned close.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Probably not.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't, although we do get a boot-shot and a "I've got a bad feeling about this…"
(The film is set in 1977 yet there's not a mention of Star Wars to be seen. Well played, Mr Black. No, seriously: few writers would have been able to resist that one.)


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Let's go for the easiest route here: Ryan Gosling is due to star in the upcoming Blade Runner sequel, as is Harrison 'Solo' Ford...


And if I HAD to put a number on it…
^^ That's not necessarily a strong 6, but it's definitely a better movie than a 5 would indicate.

*1 Although not everyone took the comedy in a contemplative, genre-defying manner. One particular patron sat two rows behind me found the film so hilarious that they started laughing when the BBFC card was displayed. I wish I was joking about that. Still, they enjoyed it very much, it's safe to say…


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Review: L.A. Confidential

I can't believe I haven't seen…

L.A. Confidential Poster

L.A. Confidential (1997)
Cert: 18 / 132 mins / Dir. Curtis Hanson / Trailer
WoB Rating: 5/7


You've got to hand it to Curtis Hanson, L.A. Confidential is a film which knows exactly what it wants to be, and wastes no time slipping on the plaid sports jacket of 1950s sleaze and intrigue. A pantomime of a crime-romp, it never quite descends into camp territory thanks to the poker-faces of the cast, with the leading trio of Kevin Spacey, Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe playing their roles completely straight despite clearly having an absolute hoot as the three-degrees of police corruption.

They're supported ably by a raft of both character and leading actors, most notably Danny DeVito and Kim Basinger, each commanding the screen entirely in parts which are almost understated, narratively. (As an aside, am I the only one who things the young Russell Crowe here is like a young Ewan McGregor in his look and mannerisms? There's a vulnerability in his performance which I haven't seen before or since*1, and this might be the most likeable performance I've ever seen him give. What happened, Russell?)

The only eyebrow-raising aspect of the film is the absurd amount of ADR going on, whereby the slightest and most indistinct of mouth-movements appears to result in some of the clearest dialogue you've ever heard. I'm not complaining about that as I can't stand mumbling in films, but the effect is quite jarring at times, especially if you're watching in hi-def.

L.A. Confidential is a quite remarkable and wholly uncynical homage to the gangbuster movie of Hollywood's golden age, the likes of which wouldn't get made in 2015.

In fact, I'm amazed it was even made in 1997…



Have you really never seen this before?
One didn't watch Kim Basinger thrillers in the 90s. It wasn't the done thing.


So are you glad you've finally have?
I am.


And would you recommend it, now?
I would, in a sort of Sunday-afternoon-movie kind of a way.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Not that I heard.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
Kevin Spacey starred in 2009's The Men Who Stare At Goats, as did Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Although to be fair, I find Crowe non-specifically unlikeable to the point where he's not 'a draw' for me when it comes to choosing movies to watch, so he could be putting out the most touching films that humanity's ever seen and I wouldn't know about it. But I doubt that, somehow. I doubt that a lot.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.