Now a lot has been said, since I first saw The Dark Knight Rises, about the vocal delivery of Mr Tom Hardy. In particular, the filtered, muffled effect of the mask he wears, combined with what some are purporting to be an upper-class British accent (I swear I can hear Dutch in there). I myself had more than a little difficulty making out all of his lines, with many of them only being given context by people's replies and reactions. And apparently this was after the vocals had been ADR'd.
I'm happy to say that the second time around, it wasn't as much of a problem. Nowhere near as much, in fact. Was that because I was already familiar with the nature of what he was saying? Was it because instead of sitting centrally in the cinema, I was beside the wall, and the balance of the surround-speakers was different as a result? Was it because the print running in Screen-1 has a different sound mix to the one running in Screen-5? I honestly couldn't say. Possibly one, possibly all. All I can tell you is, I can see why reports have been mixed, with some people having no problem with making out the speech. There were still one or two lines that whooshed right over my head, but it's no biggie.
Elsewhere, I found tDKR a lot easier to watch the second time. Many of the aspects I had trouble with initially were easier to put into place once I knew where everything was was headed. In other words, I could take my foot off the gas and enjoy the ride without the danger of missing anything. I still don't see the point of holding the stock-exchange at gunpoint to facilitate hacking that could have been performed remotely, and I still don't see the actual need for Selina Kyle to be present (other to provide a happy ending*1 for Wayne). But most pertinently, I still don't see why Bane is the choice "to test Batman mentally as well as physically" *2. Hardy is shorter than Bale to begin with, not withstanding the bat-ears, and while he's bulked up, it's not to inhuman-levels (he's not even the shape he was in Warrior) and it's certainly conceivable that Batman's put down thugs bigger than this guy in the past. I can see why he barges his way through the civilian population of Gotham, but past the Batman? His only advantage seems to be that Wayne is out of practice.
Which leaves his psychological prowess. Now obviously, Bane's no moron in the film, but he's not the mastermind of the operation, he's just the frontman. Talia al Ghul is running the show, here, and Bane is essentially hired-muscle whichever way you look at it. Articulate muscle to be sure, but even that's up for debate given his choice of face-wear. Ultimately, I just didn't see Bane as a credible threat to Batman. He was kinda cool, but not a threat.
Outside of this blog, I've also been discussing Bruce Wayne's ongoing medical issues. In tDKR, he walks with a cane and a limp, and the doctor at the hospital makes a pretty plain case of how shredded his body is, but he doesn't seem to have any trouble winching down to Jim Gordon's room for a chat and back again. He also doesn't have much of a limp when he's dancing with Selena Kyle, but that's by-the-by. I've heard it argued that the x-ray shots the doctor is referring to could be falsified, and that Wayne's battered, failing body is part of his cover-story get him into the hospital, and to distance himself from Gotham's dark saviour. That said, if Batman hasn't been around for eight years, why continue the cover? Because of the approaching storm?
Either way, Bruce does construct himself a leg-brace to wear under the Batsuit, and the only other person who knows it's there is Alfred. There'd be little/no point in keeping up the pretence of limited mobility around his trusty servant, so it's safe to assume he needs some assistance in moving around. So if that's the case, why isn't the leg-brace needed once he escapes The Pit? He's in prison-garb, so clearly someone's stripped him down en-route to his new home, and they wouldn't leave the brace on, would they? If the idea is to restrict his movement and leave him to rot in the nick, they'd be as likely to leave him his utility-belt as they would to let him keep the leg-brace.
And while I'm on the subject, I'm not medically qualified but I really don't think the best treatment for a dislodged vertebrae which has been un-tended for several weeks, is to have Tom Conti string you up under the shoulders with a damp, tatty rope and have him punch-you-better in the spine. Even Conti admitted that it's the guy in the next cell who's the actual doctor. But hey, it could catch on.
All-in-all: It is great, but the points I've mentioned there show no sign of being explained with subsequent viewings, and I still don't think it's as cohesive a film as its two predecessors. It's a great complement to them, but it's not quite on the same level.
While I have no problem with films getting better each time you see them, it certainly shouldn't be a requirement…
*1 Not like that, filthy mind. *2 Chris Nolan quote. (link) DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
I wasn't sold by the trailer, as I'm wary of a Seth McFarlane vehicle. That said, I've heard great, great things by people who went to the preview showings the other week, which only serves to make me even more cautious…
The Plot: A young boy's Christmas wish is granted as his teddy bear comes to life and a lifelong friendship is formed. But how long can a boy be a boy, and what happens when it's time to let go..?
The Good: Hats off to Wahlberg and Kunis for playing it so straight. Seriously. Both performers are seriously under-rated, if only because they frequently seem to star in films that demand so little of them. Added to their performance is the marvellous CGI of Ted (and mostly great voicework of McFarlane, even if he's just being a dialled-down Peter Griffin), and the film's masterstroke: That no-one questions the existence of a living teddy bear. Shock? Yes. Disbelief? No. It's a bold move, and it pays off massively as the audience don't doubt it, either. The viewers aren't allowed to connect too closely with Wahlberg's John or his bear, because they're both portrayed as being likeable enough to lead the film, but flawed enough that you don't mind when they're beating the shit out of each other. As a film, it's very likeable, but I had a hard time loving it.
Despite what I'm going to go on and grumble about, there are lots of laugh-out-loud moments in Ted. Maybe not enough to justify over 100 minutes, but it's frequently funny when it's not trying too hard. The cameo by Ryan Reynolds is underplayed to perfection, and even the overworked Sam Jones appearance still holds its own. It's a shame that a premise as innovative as this is mired by such a formulaic plot, but it is still better than a lot of things I've seen this year. I just feel like it needed more work and less incidental characters.
The Bad: You know how certain episodes of Family Guy aren't as funny as the others for some reason, and you get the impression that Seth McFarlane's sat there and thought 'hmm, I can't think of anything intrinsically funny for this part of my comedy show, and I seem to have painted myself into a corner. I know, I'll just have one of my characters say fuck for no real reason, or be gratuitously offensive in the hopes that the nervous-laughter of the audience is confused for amusement…'?
The first half of the film features lots of that. After a deceptively sweet setup, the film shifts into gross-out-comedy™ mode, and while we're assured that John and the titular Ted are besties, we don't really see much evidence of that outside of them sitting on the sofa getting wasted all the time. Don't get me wrong, I get that aspect of it, but all the character development is saved for the second half, which co-incidentally is when the swearing is reined back. It's not that they can't work together, just that McFarlane can't pull it off. 60% of Ted is brilliantly inventive, the other 40% is the most lazy clichéd writing I've seen in a long time. That said, I did guffaw when Wahlberg punched that kid. Trust me, it's funny.
The Ugly:They all live happily ever after in a house just like at the start. Do you see? All Mila Kunis' character had to do was stop whining and accept that things were great the way they were! But would she listen? No. Still, she learned in the end that it was her attitude that had to change. Tch, women eh?*
Worth £8+? I don't think it's really a cinema movie. More of a DVD-night with beer. Lots of beer.
After the credits: Nothing to see, here. As soon as the names hit the screen, you can move along, move along.
An interesting and occasionally beautiful second-draft. It'll be great when it's finished.
* That's the film that I saw, anyway.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
This is what happens when my local has Batman on three of its five screens and Magic Mike on the fourth. In a bid to avoid the hubbub around the Sports Day that's opening as I type this, I went to see a kids film during the summer holidays. That's how desperate I am for cultural fulfilment.
The Plot: In an isolated town that has forgotten about nature, a young boy Ted learns of a mysterious creature named The Once-ler: the only one who knows the story of what happened to the trees. The Once-ler recounts the tale of the young man responsible, and the guardian of the forest that tried to stop him - The Lorax.
The Good: The animation itself looks great (although most animation at this level looks great these days), and as usual the 3D works a treat in this format. The voice-acting's solid enough, and when it's not being hampered by the story the characterisation's quite good, too. There are a lot of sight-gags involving the forest dwelling creatures that should please everyone, and they were certainly the highlight for me.
The Bad: There are two or three musical numbers in the film which seem jarringly out-of-context, given that it's not a musical. I can forgive the opening titles that introduce the town of Thneedville, but after that the songs are too widely-spaced to be a motif. It's not a biggie, and it probably won't bother the kids.
The Ugly: From the trailer, I was worried that the film would descend into a hand-wringing eco propaganda reel, and it certainly tries to become the conscience of the audience, but the problem for me is that the environmental message is hammered home so tactlessly that it actually comes off as insincere. The film seems to have things to say about ecology, consumerism and authority, but they're mish-mashed into an unconvincing morality tale that shoots itself in the foot as it's delivering it. Apparently fans of Dr Seuss are unhappy with the way the story's been butchered, and without being familiar with the source-text, I still get the feeling they have every right to be. The core of the story itself is so far at odds with the medium of delivery that it renders the whole thing pretty much pointless.
Worth £8+? Not really. The little ones will enjoy it, but they could just as easily enjoy it on DVD.
Final Thought: If trees are so great and plastic is so bad, how are you going to market spin-off merchandising? Did you think of that, Universal?
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
*DISCLAIMER:Although this review doesn't feature any plot-spoilers, it could well colour your view of the film if you're reading this before seeing it. Obviously, this applies to reviews of all films, but it seems especially appropriate to mention it here. My advice? See the film without reading any reviews. Including mine.
This will be short, for two reasons: 1) I really need to see the film again to absorb things more fully, and 2) Without spoilers, I'm limited to what I can say.
• On the whole, it's as dark and intense as the previous two films in the series. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but always around the same watermark.
• For a Batman film, there's not a lot of Batman. When he is around, everything's so 'explodey' that it's difficult to enjoy his presence. He's toned down his 'growly voice', thankfully, but he gets a couple of quippy lines that seem woefully out of place in the film.
• Bane seems underused, but I say that as someone with no real history with the Batman comics. Most of the Bane-hype has been built up by people who are versed in his history, and I suspect there's going to be a bit of grumbling in the Batfanverse over his portayal here. He didn't come over as a genuine threat, to me somehow. A lot of this is down to his ridiculous voice. About a third of what he says, you can't make out until someone replies to him to give his masked mumbling some context, and the rest of the time he sounds like Goldmember speaking through a Darth Vader mask. From a largely civilian point of view, Bane seems wasted here, and Tom Hardy is definitely wasted in the role, as he's capable of so much more. It was always going to be difficult to follow the charisma of The Joker, let alone best it, and it feels like the film-makers realised that, so didn't try too hard.
• Before today, I wasn't entirely sure what value there'd be putting Catwoman in the story. After watching the film, I'm still not sure. With all of the other characters that are introduced in tDKR, as well as familiar faces making appearances, it seems a little crowded for someone who doesn't bring that much to the party.
• I did enjoyed the end-sequence. I think they missed a trick, but it still made me smile, and it's a great way to end the trilogy.
After the credits: Nothing. As soon as the names appear on the screen, you can make your way to the exit.
All in all:Very enjoyable, despite my grumbling. It just feels like there's too much story fighting for attention, and the flow suffers as a result. But keep in mind that I wasn't head-over-heels with the previoustwo movies on my first viewings, either.
A strong five, but The Dark Knight Rises doesn't seem to have the intrigue or fun of its predecessors. As with Prometheus, the mainstream-anticipation for this film may be its undoing.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
