Change Your Image
MaverickMind
Reviews
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Unique, but extreme, preachy, and overrated film
This will likely be the most modest review you'll read of this film in the first few pages of a sea of 10s. I nonetheless, am convinced a 7 is the highest the film deserves. Aronofsky creates a unique film about the horrors of four characters spiraling into a chaotic conclusion due drug addiction. However, his reliance on creating an extreme, hyperbolic film undermines the movie's appeal. The film seems to be an example of pushing the boundaries simply for the sake of pushing boundaries, as no real message. It would be similar to calling a horror movie a 'classic' because the director showed a bloody decapitation after bloody decapitation or a romance movie being considered a 'classic' because it has 1/2 hour of real sex. Nonsense. The best films are the ones that leave the gory or gruesome details to the imagination yet leave you with an extraordinary impact and a message. I really got no message from the film which is heavily focused on torturing four miserable characters again and again....and again and again. What's the point? The four main actors in the film are phenomenal. Marlon Wayans surprisingly gives a stunning break out performance for someone known for starring trivial and mediocre pop culture comedies. He may have given the best or second best performance of the four. Jennifer Connelly gives a credible performance as a desperate and loyal girlfriend forced to do unthinkable sex acts. The actors strengths are their modesty and ability to succumb themselves to the most demeaning things possible.
The music of the film is memorable. The film has one main theme song, but it is the most memorable and haunting theme song ever I've ever heard. I downloaded it immediately after the film. The music emphasized the tone of the film.
The major weakness of the film, despite the great acting, are the characters. There's no bones about it, the characters are pure idiots. The fact that they're idiots leaves me little ability to sympathize with them, and I was trying my hardest. Furthermore, despite other reviewers efforts to paint them as "tragic heroes", the main characters are not heroes in any form. It's even a stretch to suggest that they're good people. For instance, Connelly's character initially seduces an older man simply to get money. Leto's character upsets his mother repeatedly by selling her television set. Yes, they all do this to subdue their addiction.. but the term hero cannot be thrown around aimlessly. They're simply dubious protagonists. Yeah, they try to aim to get out of the drug culture and start prosperous lives. The characters have great chemistry with each other, they are somewhat slightly charismatic, but they don't do anything remotely generous or pious in the film to warrant praise as "tragic heroes."
You can watch this film and immediately see the end coming. Part of you naively and helplessly hopes the film takes a sudden right turn into brighter pastures, but that is simply not the case. Aronofonsky might tease you in the beginning, but he brings you to the most overly dramatic conclusion like a car crashing into a brick wall. Ironically, while many critics bashed 'The Passion' for overemphasizing torture and maiming of Christ again and again and again and again over other aspects of Christ (and rightly so, that film has its flaws as well), it surprising these critics praise similar methods of repetitive "how can it get any worse" torture done to rather shady characters nonstop.
I'm not saying this film needed a happy ending to be a good movie. But if it has a tragic ending, it should have a message. If it's just "don't do drugs", than that's a grave disappointment and waste of time for a supposedly deep experimental film.
To his credit, the director utilizes a neat and impressive artistic style known as "hip hop montage." The surreal spinning directing was a doozy but a great asset to the film.
This film I guess is worth a watch once. But once is only time I've seen it, and I'll never sit through that film all the way through again. Period. I'm pretty confident in saying that most of those "10s" people have only seen it once and will make an excuse not to see it again. The only people who will see this film again are overly depressed and eccentric, pessimistic types.... A classic has to be more than a overly nihilistic novelty act.
Batman Returns (1992)
Misguided, decent sequel to Batman
I can somewhat understand why this film is cherished so much. This film is the darkest installment of the Burton/Schumacher franchise. The movie has a star cast and Michelle Pfeiffer gives a memorable performance as exotic, seductive, but vile Catwoman. The great Danny Elfman music is all still there. Danny Devito and Christopher Walken bring decent comic relief in their roles as villains.
The movie suffers from a silly plot devices and rhetoric , which is ironic considering this is supposedly the "darkest, most serious" film in the franchise. Yes, its dark, but in a very superficial, stylish way. The film never aroused in emotion of despair or sympathy for any of the characters because it was filled with ridiculous premises. There is more violence in this film, unnecessary death, even some minor blood, but especially near the end, the violent conflicts never seemed to have a point.
The big problem with this movie is that its apparent Tim Burton wasn't sure where to take the character of Batman after the first film. Burton essentially focused on making fantastic Burtonized Gotham City and Burtonized villains. Whereas the first movie was somewhat realistic, gritty and a decent Batman film, this movie makes Gotham City more surreal and goth fairy-tail. Burton changes the origins and motivations of the two major villains (The Penguin and Catwoman) DRASTICALLY from their comic counterparts. The Penguin is changed from a deformed, calculating, crime boss into a genetically altered, naive, and angry mutant who lives in the sewers and never knew his parents (who are human). Catwoman's transformation and origin is almost as absurd. Their motivations are so dimensional, Catwoman is reduced to a simplistic poster boy for feminism.
The first half of the movie has a decent plot, but after a semi-climax, the movie spins out of control wrecklessly and nothing makes much sense. For all the flack Batman & Robin got for being campy, this movie has the Penguin......talking to and commanding an army of penguins with rockets on their back. I couldn't believe I was seeing this in a what some considers "the Best Batman movie of all time". There are too many convenient plot devices and inconsistencies throughout the ending. The other minor characters from the first film are gone or do little to almost nothing in this film.
Keaton's Batman is still good and convincing. What's bad though is that the film is even less about Batman waging a war on crime than the previous film, and more about angry, unloved, or ugly people (the hero and the villains) never finding happiness or love that they deserve. Burton definitely imprinted his artistic, fantastic, Gothic but dreary style throughout this film, for better or worse. Thus, this isn't really a superhero film, but a typical Gothic "nobody loves me, so I have to wreck havoc" film. Batman's dedication to fighting crime is ambiguous in this movie and I don't feel he becomes a stronger or a resolute character in the end.
The movie is decent, there are some good action scenes, and as said before Pfieffer is awesome and attractive in this film. Christopher Walken is sometimes funny and Danny Devito has some good scenes. I think the dark nature of the movie has successfully hid the fact that this movie is just as campy and silly as the next two sequels. In some aspects, Batman Forever is even better at somethings, such as characterizing Bruce Wayne. This film has little to no direction, point, and is more stylized art over substance.
Batman Begins (2005)
Not only best Batman movie, but excellent crime-drama, psychological thriller...
It simply doesn't matter if you hated the other Batman movies, you will LOVE this film. Nolan hits gold here because he directs a film that transcends the superhero genre but is a brilliant addition to the crime-gangster genre, film noir genre, suspense/thriller genre, and the realistic drama genre. Not only is Batman Begins the best Batman film ever, this could easily be one of the top 3 best films EVER based on a comic book (move over Spider-man, there's competition in town).
The other Batman movies ranged from good to decent, but they all ironically lacked an obvious key ingredient which Begins has...a main character. The other films were never about Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, but rather about the villains, special effects, the jokes, or the artistic Gothic scenery. The Burton/Schumacher franchise was doomed to early failure because the franchise had no soul, it was going to sputter out mindless clichés similar to the James Bond franchise. Schumacher took the campiness to horrible extreme in Batman & Robin which would temporarily kill the franchise. Honestly, what Schumacher did is a blessing, not a curse. If it weren't for Schumacher going to the campy nonsensical extremes, Warner Brothers would have continued spitting out more moderately silly "Batman Forever" James-Bondish caliber films that would spawn critical ridicule but make loads of money at the box office. The death at Batman & Robin allowed Warner Brothers to learn start taking the comic book films seriously.
The film explores how Bruce Wayne grows from innocent child, to traumatized, confused young adult, to martial arts student who learns the tricks of the trade and becomes the disciplined, focused crime fighter known as Batman. Christian Bale gives an impressive and best performance as Bruce Wayne. Unlike the other Batman films, you will finally understand and empathize with Bruce Wayne and Nolan will make you believe (sorta) that a man in the real world could actually wage a nocturnal war on crime. Batman Begins presents a more realistic but captivating interpretation of Batman as opposed to the fantastic, go-go gadget but soulless hero shown in the other films. Batman is the star here, not the silly flashy villains. In fact, Nolan creates a truly grimy, corrupt, and ferocious Gotham City that there is simply no room for flashy, nonsensical circus villains or bizarro plots. The villains here are realistic mobsters, realistic psychos, and realistic criminal ideologues. Sure, the Batman rogue gallery is still here (Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow are the main villains), but the villains are more threatening in that their motivations are given depth. What truly crept me out about this movie is the thought that characters could exist live in your own city.
Micheal Caine gives the best performance as Alfred I've ever seen...he's a surrogate father for Bruce Wayne and strict, yet lovable personal confidant for Batman. Liam Neeson gives a brilliant performance as a martial arts trainer and social commentator for Bruce Wayne. Morgan Freeman gives the same performance he usually does in most movies, as a cynical but smart and slightly humorous adviser to someone. He plays Lucius Fox, head of the military specialist department for Wayne Enterprise. Surprisingly, Katie Holmes, who I thought could have ruined this movie doesn't, and gives a convincing performance as a childhood friend. The acting is the best highlight of the movie.
The music isn't as fantastic and triumphant as Danny Elfan's classical score, but that's because that type of score would be outtaplace in this film. This movie is about a man's journey around the world, quest to discover himself, and a man's destiny to wage a conquest against evil in Gotham. The score in this film is great and gives an epic and timeless feel.
Nolan directs the story in his typical Memento fashion, presenting certain captivating achronologial events in Bruce's life simultaneously, forcing the viewer to really pay attention in this fast-paced film. Unless you have a short attention span, you should have no problem doing so, though. The latter half of the movie is chronological and shows Bruce Wayne creating the personas of Batman and cad playboy Bruce to the general public.
The only minor flaws are the addition of few cheesy one-liners and some bad dialogue, but that was obviously added to appease children or casual movie goers will short attention spans. The movie has enough light humor to give breathing room in a rather dark,..Alfred delivers the best jokes in the film.
Overall, this is a great film to kick off the new Batman franchise.
Batman (1989)
Decent but over-hyped superhero film
Honestly, I think nostalgia of the first time seeing a dark interpretation of Batman on the big screen has over-hyped this film a tad bit. Burton created a decent adaption of Batman in a time where Adam West's campy series was all that the general public knew. Burton should be applauded for his effort. His Gotham City was interesting, the Danny Elfman score is legendary in film-making history (Although I'll never understand why Prince music is anywhere in this film). Jack Nicholson gave a good performance as the Joker, he's truly a great actor.
While Batman is a good fun, the movie has several problems. The plot and the script is a mess and almost missing. The director utilizes too many clichés and convenient plot devices to propell a rather a dull story. There is no exploration into Batman's motivation and character development here is really lacking. Some have excused it away as Burton wanted to Batman to be "mysterious." Whatever. This is usually just called bad character development. It's obvious Burton is not fully sure where to carry this character and decides to give him offbeat eccentric behavior to make up for it. Keaton's Bruce Wayne never grows and you never connect with him. The other characters besides the Joker are one-dimensional and forgettable. Basinger gives a less-than-decent portrayal as Vicki Vale, but she's really just eye candy in this Lois Lane rip-off role. Vale is a damsel in distress throughout the entire movie and has no real purpose, presence, or meaning in the movie. Her chemistry with Keaton is rather forced and its clear her purpose is just a mandated Warner Brothers "love interest" that is required in every superhero movie.
Keatons gives a solid performance as Batman (as opposed to his dull and foppish Bruce) although I wasn't too impressed with his portrayal of Batman as a wreckless stoic James Bondish killer whose methods isn't all that different from the villains he fights. However, the movie is more about the Joker, giving his origin more focus than Batman's. After he's introduced, coincidence after coincidence after plot device occurs clicheingly tying the villain to the hero. The Joker is responsible for Batman and 30 years later Batman is responsible for the Joker. Small world. Then, the Joker is interested in Bruce's love interest for some reason. Then Batman figures out who the Joker really is through another lame plot device. The other characters are ignored while Nicholson (a great actor) takes all the spotlight. Batman is reduced to a distant man wanting violent revenge as opposed to a mythological crime fighter. What Batman gains from this whole ordeal isn't clear to anyone. However, once the score plays, the film is over.