Another of Audrey’s wonderful, memorable, and comical outfits
How to Steal a Million wins by being very charming and funny. The cast carry their material with a light heart and embracement of the absurdities. Some tropes of the era are present, like the chic leading lady with really attention-grabbing fashion, serious subject matter has a really relaxed tone, and the romance. Especially with the latter, these tropes are cleverly used to actually play into the main story and serve the most important purpose of the film, to get laughs. Audrey Hepburn as Nicole Bonnet has well fleshed out desires and objectives, which make for interesting developments when she has to compromise her values. Hepburn’s minor changes in body language paints a full picture of a character.
Peter O’Toole as Simon Dermott follows many more archetypes. He projects a light charm and class that feels rehearsed and too perfect, but you can’t look away due to how much personality is in his character. When he does things like throw the boomerang around, you want to see what he’ll do next, with the gears in his head clearly turning, just like with Nicole. The other two prominent characters are the weaselly Eli Wallach as Davis Leland and the big eyed and overconfident Hugh Griffith as Charles Bonnet. Neither are as developed as the leads, but are no less entertaining. You can imagine Griffith making a career off of his unique facial hair and eyes. Wallach is amusing in his determination with such ridiculous dialogue.
The story does take a little while to get going. A lot of time is killed establishing the premise and the characters. The highlight of the narrative is the main plan of the leads. While there is some value in the setup, especially in emphasizing the development of Nicole, it could’ve been heavily trimmed down. Nicole is also often looked at in a purely sexual context. While she fortunately has more to her, a few men will do something like plant a kiss on her or remark on her beauty, as if that’s all she’s worth. Once we’re at the height of the story, it is somewhat predictable, but not too much. In trying to think out what would happen next, I got some stuff wrong. The fact I even cared to do that shows the movie got me hooked!
SPOILERS
The heist the leads go on is not as absurd or implausible as one might imagine, with lots of novelties to make it interesting. Simon uses a magnet to move a key across a wall and eventually over a corner. He finds a clever way to unlock the door he’s stuck in from the inside. Things don’t ever really go wrong for him or Nicole, though they easily could’ve. When he is throwing his boomerang around, what if he hit something he didn’t mean to? What if after the alarms went off, one or more guards were told to remain in view of the sculpture? At one point, trouble is hinted at with Nicole leaving the closet she was in to just watch Simon. Nothing wrong comes of that, unlike what you’d expect. Not that it needs to, as it demonstrates Nicole starting to enjoy what she’s doing. Nothing particularly not going as planned is not an issue, as the adventure is in itself so well paced and creative.
The movie spoils what could have been a great twist by revealing early on that Simon isn’t actually a thief. At the end when he reveals it to Nicole would’ve made for a good shocker. Nicole’s response to this is nice and silly, adding to the hyper and fun tone. Challenging Nicole’s image as a nice girl, she seems to really enjoy the escapade and implies she would want to do something like it again. This arguably goes in contrast with her strong desire to not get in heat early on, but this is not an impossible turn and does work as a bit of absurdism. Similarly ridiculous is that Simon goes through so much just out of love for Nicole, which could be seen as an accidental parody of old Hollywood romances often being based on wild situations. The ending is similarly ridiculous, with Davis ending up with what he wanted. A highlight is when he’s afraid to even say a word to Nicole after being told to avoid her. He acts like a fool. Him ending up with the engagement ring he gave Nicole is humorous, though it is confusing how it got there, instead of Nicole or Simon retrieving it beforehand.
Another missed opportunity is not seeing how the leads escaped when the police showed up. You’d think that area would be heavily monitored. Our heroes in turn appear out of place, especially if they look like they’re carrying a reasonably big sculpture. Also, an explanation of why they couldn’t just walk out the front door immediately after stealing the sculpture would’ve been ideal.
OVERVIEW
How to Steal a Million supplies the laughs to be a solid film, though some filler and no strong theme would detract to those who want a story to make an effort to be as tight as possible.
The Star Beast is more style over substance. Those that are getting back into Doctor Who for Russell T. Davies will find a lot of his trademarks, which maybe were emphasized more heavily for this outing that is designed to appeal to people that had fallen off the show since Davies left in essentially 2009. In fact, a lot of it is laid on a little too thick. Essentially at random, David Tennant as The Doctor can burst into some witty or comedic tangent. The mock trial is the prime example. While that and many other scenes do a disservice to the tone, they are at least entertaining. Tennant himself is very breezy with the material, doing a better job than most would at balancing all these disparate tones.
The opening scene of Tennant and Catherine Tate as Donna Noble monologuing about their past encounters and where their minds are at proves succinctly that these actors have a solid grasp of their characters, even when their lines are extremely unnatural. To give the writing some credit, it seems this opener is not even supposed to be canon, just being here to establish the episode. Much of the information is said later on in the story, so why even have this? Tennant is also in front of a greenscreen of space, which implies he’s just out in the stars standing on literally nothing. One of the biggest issues with the 2000s-present era of Doctor Who is how it can be mostly serious, but include odd bits of absurdity that really pull you out of the moment. While it’s good and also common for this show to go for these stylings, some scenes really ask to be taken seriously and they just can’t be because of this sort of thing. They can be balanced a lot better.
The pacing also is often very fast, with little time to let us sit in a certain situation, which makes that situation feel pointless. A lot of information is shot out in long exposition from characters in ways that don’t feel realistically written or it doesn’t make sense why they even would be monologuing. The music choice can also be offbeat, like the light guitar music after the opening titles that sticks out against the intimidating setup. A very common problem in the show that is especially bad here is when the heat gets down on the Doctor, but then he pulls his sonic screwdriver out and saves the day with far too much ease. Later, there’s a wheelchair that also just seems to be able to do whatever is needed for the plot.
The best performance in the episode is the relatively lowkey Jacqueline King as Sylvia Noble. Sylvia is rightfully terrified that her daughter might die, though then when required the character will stay off to the side, even when you’d think she would want to be more active and trying to keep Donna safe. Her pain is also played for laughs, when it could make for a really touching and dramatic plot point if taken seriously. You regardless can’t deny how heart wrenching it is when she’s yelling at Donna that the alien right in front of her isn’t real, because she’s so afraid of what will happen. Catherine Tate herself is very effective in her role of a selfless mother and person in general that always wants to do the right thing, while being easily agitated.
Yasmin Finney as Rose Noble gives a fine portrayal, as well. It would’ve been better if her story of feeling like an outcast connected more to the main plot. It arguably does a little, but the general disconnect makes her feelings come off as tacked on. That being said, it’s certainly not uncommon for shows like this to include relatively blatant commentary of whatever is going on culturally. Also, Rose being trans does play into the storyline and it couldn’t easily be replaced with something else. It does feel like we are being given a message, as opposed to a story, when this comes up. Rose is supposed to be fifteen, though Finney was eighteen and looks a little older.
Note that this episode is pretty much the closest thing to the 60th anniversary special. It aired on the 25th of November, two days off of the actual day of the 23rd. Thus, it’s disappointing how few references there are to the history of the series. Hopefully such a thing would be included in the later episodes with Tennant, possibly whenever it’s explained why the Doctor looks like a past incarnation. Considering the fact that it was established on the 50th anniversary that the Doctor may regenerate into his “favorite” incarnations essentially explains this.
SPOILERS
Rose trying to hide Beep the Meep from everyone else doesn’t serve much purpose. Donna immediately finds the Meep. There’s not even a scene where Rose’s sneaky leanings lead anywhere. Later, Rose talking about feeling like she has gotten over her issues and is finally herself is pretty silly. Her problem was with feeling like an outcast due to dealing with transphobes. Those people have not gone away, nor has her dysphoria. While of course it is possible to change your mindset with that stuff, she would not just get over her stress in a second. This is a very ham fisted way to tie up Rose and her story, which could have just left her an open book that could be explored later. It also would’ve been interesting if the episode covered the fact that if she had not trusted Beep the Meep, the Meep may not have been able to do as much damage as was done. The Doctor was similarly loosely responsible for some of the deaths the Meep caused, which is not taken very seriously or even looked at.
The Doctor seemingly made Donna remember him so she knew what buttons to press, but couldn’t he have just told her which to press? The scene of him realizing that Donna will have to die just flies in seemingly at random, like the script will contrive any reason to make it appear Donna will be killed. Tate and especially Tennant do a good job portraying this struggle, despite some theatrical dialogue and some yelling which furthermore is desperate to pull at the audience’s heart strings. What would’ve made this land better is if this was all covered over a few episodes. Maybe the Doctor feels Donna is destined to die, but he tries to keep her safe, then after a few hours of screen time he realizes he can’t? He even shows off things like the sonic screwdriver, which could remind her. That sort of moment would fit a lot better in a story just about Beep the Meep and new characters and not Donna.
One highlight is Donna acting brassy like she’s done in the past, being annoyed with herself for giving up her lottery winnings. With very little difficulty or fanfare, the day is saved essentially by the Doctor and Donna pressing a lot of buttons, as opposed to something more complex. Beep the Meep has a very over the top villain voice and overconfidence, yelling about how the Meep will win immediately before being defeated. Beep the Meep literally destroying the streets before that is undone is such an absurd way to “save the day”. Why even show such destruction if it means nothing? The workaround for how Donna can live after getting her memories back is quite clever, other than her and Rose to a degree just “letting it go”.
The sudden cliffhanger is, just like much of this episode, a little too convenient. Seeing as Donna is now learning about her past, why not just have her decide to go with the Doctor, instead of it happening by accident? I feel bad for Sylvia.
OVERVIEW
As a Doctor Who fan, I really enjoyed this. However, The Star Beast suffers in delivering a structured and competent narrative, feeling like a collection of tropes. As an example, there are points where the heroes would be worse off if something happened even a few seconds off from when it did. Embracing the silliness of this concept, as seems to be done by the way the creatures look and their names, works in isolation, but it should’ve been married to a story that will let that thrive. The lightness of the threats and how clean most of the issues are does not fit with the fifteen year long storyline of Donna and her threatened safety, which asks for something more serious.
The Irishman is a slow burner. A lot of its runtime is dedicated to long discussions of the business and politics of its characters. While that does make for a rich and layered story, which would be very satisfying to those either interested in gangsters or those that will watch this movie multiple times, a lot of it ultimately is superfluous. The movie gets away with that by having it be an important theme of the story, which does indeed matter throughout. Point is, don’t expect something like Bill Bufalino’s knowledge of the law to still be relevant by the final act. There are many moments that are less about discussing affairs and more about intense character scenes or at least action.
To discuss the elephant in the room, the de-aging technology is not perfect. Especially when protagonist Frank Sheeran, played by Robert De Niro, is at his youngest, the effect is off-putting. Quickly the story gets going and you forget. When the characters eventually age up to middle age, the actors in their late 70s look more convincing. De Niro basically always sounds and behaves like an old man. Regardless, he proves why he’s a master of acting with his performance. Despite often being just off to the side, his realism sells you. His aging and lifestyle slowly making him wary and cautious of his surroundings is so electrifying to watch. The continual usage of De Niro, as opposed to having a younger person play Frank in the beginning, allows us to not feel disconnected and just see this one man in a cold, yet personal way. Maybe one day, possibly after director Martin Scorsese has died, there will be an attempt to improve the special effects and have everyone look more authentically whatever age they’re supposed to be? Less forgivable are when someone is fighting and you can tell the victim is not actually being hit or when Frank fights anyone period. They probably could have worked around it so the man himself does not look so silly pretending to fight like he is young.
The other more notable role is Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Pacino manages some laughs with how animated he is, though this is at the cost of having as much depth as De Niro. Still, you can tell his behavior is refined by constantly dealing with people and learning what bothers him. The character is written much better, with him more than most letting power come to his head and often thinking that because he maybe once had control he always will. Joe Pesci as Russell Bufalino by comparison is almost forgettable, though very solid in whatever he needs to give to the story. This story being based on the recollections of the real Frank Sheeran suggests that these are representations of how these people were perceived, not how they really were. That can explain everyone being less developed than Frank. The comedy scenes, which often involve Jimmy, might be a bit much to some, but they fill this same purpose of coming off as memories or in some way foreshadowing something about the characters.
While the narration initially seemed to distract from getting into the story, it does represent the theme of people just becoming distant memories. People can be known more for their deaths or one thing about them, when they really were a far more complicated thing. The visuals that accompany the narration are always attractive, as is the look of the film in general.
SPOILERS
Throughout the narrative, powerful men that often feel unstoppable are killed unceremoniously, very suddenly reduced to nothing, with others moving on around them. It is painful to Jimmy when he dies in a spiritual way by going to prison, with everyone essentially wanting him to quietly go away. Frank may feel more security from the resources he’s gained by shooting people, especially as those around him go to prison or die, but he is aware that essentially something is gunning for him, time. While he has hardened himself to the best of his abilities from confronting what he did, shown in when he lacks remorse for his actions at the end, that sense of it all eventually coming for him persists. When he is tasked with shooting Jimmy, he hesitates initially, as if feeling like this will continue a cycle that will eventually reach him. The camera focuses on Jimmy’s body, representing Frank processing what he’s done.
Characters like Frank’s daughter, Peggy, are horrified by what Frank has done, though due to his line of work he must be cold, though humanity shines through when he tries to justify his behavior by saying it was to keep his family safe. Jimmy’s death also represents how everyone will eventually live on, by being remembered. The long shot of the body shows that Jimmy will become mostly associated with his death beyond anything else. He will also live on in Frank. Frank in turn will live on in the mind of Peggy, who sees him as not even deserving of a conversation. He’s asked at the end to tell his story, as everyone he’s ever had to protect is gone. Frank will continue as a tale. This also serves to make the fact that we’re here watching this movie part of the narrative. Frank does not like these terms of how he will exist after death. Him having his door left open at the end is another way of attempting to “live on”, do what he knows best to try and look out for or escape death, as well as from being cut off from others, thus trying to preserve himself in the minds of as many people as possible. Ironically, he is confined to a wheelchair and needed someone else to leave the door open. His power and story has more or less ended and he hates to know it.
While some have pointed out him killing Jimmy as a crucial mistake in his life, us going all the way to the end of Frank suggests that it doesn’t really matter, as Frank will still be alone. It was stated everyone else died already, so Jimmy probably would have died of natural causes by then if he escaped murder. This also mirrors how old these actors are. They might not have it in them to do this type of movie for much longer, with them eventually being stories as well.
OVERVIEW
The Irishman’s long runtime does benefit the narrative. The murders of the beginning and the youth of Frank eventually become distant memories, representing a major theme of the story. While Frank does keep himself at a bit of a distance from everyone, including the audience, this intense look at his life leaves us feeling the withering and age of both who is depicted and the actors, who are not much younger than the former. Just like with most people, you are mostly cut out from them, but you can still witness their behavior, with us only speculating how they must be feeling. Some of the confessions of the real Frank being disputed only goes to show how people are reduced to others’ ideas over the truth.
The Public Enemy for the time is very daring and bar-pushing. It’s extremely violent and unrelenting in showing people this darker side of life, which might’ve been considered too glamorous of such a thing if it wasn’t for the screen card at the end that tells people not to follow the ways of the protagonist. Some scenes just show people committing a crime, which possibly could’ve been seen as exciting and fun to some viewers. We even see two children get into crime in the beginning, challenging the notion of minors being always innocent. The movie is comparatively tame by modern standards.
Even though the movie directly says you shouldn’t go the path of the lead, Tom Powers, played by James Cagney, he is still portrayed with depth and some sympathy. While Tom does do really bad things, they mostly come from a sense of feeling pressure to. Ignoring the spoilers for now, and while this is never directly stated, it’s possible the reason Tom got into crime was so he and his family could have money. He takes a lot of pleasure in being able to give money to his family. If it wasn’t for bootlegging, he might not have ever had the fortunes to help anyone.
Cagney’s portrayal is the heart of the film, being emotionally complex, with an explosive temperament that you can imagine coming from living a life of getting hurt by people. He makes up for the limitations of the story. This tale of “the story of an American gangster” is one most would be familiar with, though this one lacks a personal touch, beyond the electrifying Cagney. With few changes, it could come out at almost any time as a typical gangster flick. Notably, very little time is dedicated to anyone else, with us only seeing someone emote if it relates to Tom. Thus, it does feel a little unreal. More developed characters would’ve helped this story, but it’s still perfectly satisfying and entertaining as Tom’s journey. Second billed is Jean Harlow as Gwen Allen. While she does provide a little bit of perspective in essentially preferring dangerous men, she is overall a great missed opportunity by doing so little and really just telling us information we already know about Tom. Harlow is really wasted in this role.
Tom’s bond with his friend Matt Doyle, played by Edward Woods, serves to give more humanity to the story, suggesting that such friendships can push you to do wrong. Having friends that commit crimes can make such a thing seem more appealing. Tom’s brother, Mike, played by Donald Cook, is also a hothead that very aggressively pushes Tom to reform, which won’t work nearly as well as the kindness of Matt. Cook’s performance is also very good. His temperament shows how similar Mike is to his brother and how such a thing can be utilized differently. Mike’s heightened emotions pushed him in an extreme direction, as well, to war. Him going to war and Tom going to crime are both things their mother does not approve of. At one point, Tom criticizes war, comparing it to his lifestyle, which is a really progressive message even for now. “You didn’t get them medals for holding hands with Germans.”
SPOILERS
The story is well paced and structured, with little bits of foreshadowing here and there. Someone at one point says no one can make it on their own. When Tom and Matt’s main support is killed, they quickly die as well. While it is a cliché for a protagonist character in old movies to reform, there is logic to it here. Seeing as Tom lost Matt, the gangster lifestyle would seem less thrilling and more risky, seeing as he was now getting consequences. His family could offer him more security. We also see the two men be eaten apart in little ways. One of the main ones is how Tom is pushed to the point of being more and more violent, even mass murder. This of course would lead the opposing side to fight back, which only continues the cycle of violence. The ending reveals that the mob that killed Tom knows where his family is, which causes worry that they’ll go after them. A smaller moment of this is when a woman takes advantage of Tom for sex, with it probably bothering him inside how this makes him feel used and at others’ whim.
The movie fortunately doesn’t just tell of the brutality of this lifestyle, but shows it. We get little pointless gestures, like the lead shooting a horse and the famous scene of him putting a grapefruit in the face of his girlfriend. After Tom fires on a group of people, he does not walk away unscathed, we even see blood on him, though the same cannot be said for when Matt is shot. The very end of the movie is horrific in the look we get of the killed Tom, whose death does not even mean much. To the gangsters, he is just another person in a line of those that have or will go down.
OVERVIEW
There is some intimidation and power to calling the lead character a “public enemy”, as if he is some great menace to society, as if a large group of people could harbor someone like this. They could even be a child. Still, it is hard to say if this movie would deter anyone. Cagney does act like a movie character more than a real guy, sometimes being really animated. That makes for a more exciting narrative, but something harder to relate to. Also, don’t watch this movie for Joan Blondell. She’s barely in the thing.
Batman admittedly looks a little silly here in costume.
The Dark Knight Rises famously makes no sense. Virtually every step of the way there’s a giant stretch in logic or at least believability. This messy tone is established as soon as the first scene. It’s a completely mindless and superfluous action set piece where the big baddie of Bane may as well be a cartoon character. He seems to just exist to be evil. By contrast, the Joker in the last film had clear goals. The mild humor in the dialogue doesn’t do it any favors. Most of the plot beats of this whole story are extremely basic, with little to distinguish it from any other story about a disheartened and defeated hero getting back in the game. The overly witty or comic dialogue just goes to show how little it has to say. Characters can even just say some thought provoking phrases in hopes of getting an emotional response from the audience, sacrificing realism. Admittedly, this was also in the first two films of the series.
The movie is generally better when we actually see Batman, as it typically has the most action that actually forwards the plot. Some of the themes of the series are prevalent, like how Batman may be strong in a lot of ways, but he has serious limitations that can create issues, such as how he distracted the police from Bane. As an extension of this, possibly the best part of this effort is that things get extremely bad and desperate for everyone. One reason The Dark Knight is so good is because of the constant terror that goes on around it. Rises arguably gets even worse for its characters, with you wondering how anyone would ever get out of it.
Christian Bale’s performance as Bruce Wayne is a lot stronger here than in Begins. He is surprisingly out of the spotlight, at points leaving you wondering when he will come back into his own movie. There are some often joked about moments of his silly gravel voice or facial expressions, but you can also feel his fatigue, angst, and struggle to find purpose for himself; which he often tries to mask. The first film in this series asks a lot of Bale by comparison. The actor seems to be best at making himself look different to fit a role. Here, he really does look sickly, though not so much acting like it, seeing as he can do so much fighting. It doesn’t make sense how he could get back to being Batman so easily. Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth pulls some decent drama, though him and Bale clearly struggle with the theatrical lines and Alfred’s eventual absence barely makes an impression on our lead. It is very understandable Alfred would be sick of the reckless actions of the Wayne family.
Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle is almost a parody of underwritten female characters. She looks pretty and functions around Bruce. There’s one scene of her criticizing the power structures Bruce has taken advantage of, but this just seems manufactured to make her seem deep. Of course any kind of criticism of Bruce may as well not be here, considering how the character develops. Hathaway isn’t strictly bad, however. It would be difficult to get much out of this role. Her advocacy for stealing from rich people almost seems like a token effort to fight against claims of these movies being pro-Conservative. Tom Hardy as Bane is solid as a physical presence, though the cheesy or straight up comic dialogue makes him hard to take seriously.
There’s a lot of plot conveniences. If it wasn’t for complete chance, things would go very differently. While some revelations and surprises come, they don’t serve the greater narrative. The movie easily could’ve simply continued where the last movie left off. We’re introduced to the “Dent Act”, which has arguably gotten people unfairly thrown in prison, at least according to Bane. This law, as well as how this affects the prisoners, could be really fascinating. Maybe we really get inside the head of a prisoner? Maybe we see some awkward confrontation between what the public has been told about Dent and Batman vs what is true? At least we get a look at a cop, John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. His arc is one of the better handled here, though he and the returning James Gordon spend a lot of time running around and getting into action set pieces. Speaking of which, the action is noticeably worse than before. The hits are weightless, with a lack of emotions behind them. The shoddiness of the production is so bad that some of the punches by characters obviously don’t hit the other actor. One benefit over the first outfit of the series is that the pacing has improved, with cuts not being nearly as jarring.
SPOILERS
A theme of this movie is people figuring out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. You’d think it would be foolish for Bruce to tell anyone when he does or concerning when someone figures it out on their own. However, that never proves to be any conflict, it only provides a few shocks. Apparently Blake figures out that Bruce is both Batman and didn’t unjustly kill Harvey Dent. What if this gave him some idea as to how corrupt the police system was earlier than it did? If he was supposed to figure that out at the end, why include this big revelation of him figuring everything out so early on? Shouldn’t he be mad at Batman for hiding the truth?
One of the big sins of the movie is after Bruce confronts one of his greatest challenges, he acts basically the same. Sure, it’s entertaining seeing him get in those dire stakes, and the movie also does decent in getting him out in a fair way, but it should still affect his mindset and condition more than they do. The exception to this is him learning to fear again, but that is surrounded by a lot of fighting, as if he’s not getting into serious injuries or facing the same emotional stressors. A lot of this movie feels like retreading, like how the Joker and now Bane let themselves get captured, as that was part of their plan. Imagine if we had something a lot bolder, with the prisoners now-free causing more havoc than they do?
Moments like the football field collapsing, with one person with the ball in hand inadvertently outrunning the explosions is shot as something to be laughed at. Think of a bit in a comedy show where everyone surrounding the main character realizes something or is afflicted with something, while the lead is clueless. The police leaving the dirty place they were trapped in for three months in basically clean clothes and later when a crowd opens fires on them, with only about one casualty, also make the movie laughable. One of the more famous ridiculous scenes is when Batman has very little time to get a bomb away from the city, but he spends precious seconds saying goodbye to everyone.
Bane went out so easily. Why didn’t someone just shoot him in all that time if it was that simple? What was the point of building him up so much if his demise wouldn’t reflect that? Part of what made Bane interesting was that he was unstoppably strong where even Batman would lose a fight to him. Admittedly after training more, Batman simply fights him again and wins. Apparently Bane’s often exposed mask makes him vulnerable, which is unbelievably dumb. Instead of Bruce having to overcome some greater struggle to beat Bane, it was essentially just a matter of him in the first fight not happening to hit his mask or not bringing a gun. When Selina Kyle kills him, we repeat the theme from last film of killing sometimes being necessary.
One of the stronger elements of the story is the theme of the relevance of Batman. It seems it was best for Batman to go away, which in turn leaves Bruce feeling rejected and unable to move on from his problems. As such, he is not afraid to die when the time comes, as that would free him. This is overcome by having to embrace fear in order to escape prison. He arguably hopes to be needed again. The perceived death of Batman at the end represents him finally being able to move on, especially because he now has another female interest, even if they lack chemistry. Some issues with this are that nothing is stopping him from going back to his depressed state afterwards, as the situation apparently reverts to normal, only Bruce is now physically stronger and has an added ally in Selina. Bruce pretending to be killed and presumably starting a new identity implies that Bruce is inseparable from Batman. By contrast, this movie was about Bruce moving on and continuing life without him. Both entities having faked their deaths at the same time would lead people to think Bruce was Batman.
There are many more noted issues with this film. Not to get too deep in them, but some more include us having little reason to trust Miranda. Why not have her be dating Bruce from frame one? John just being an orphan is seemingly how he figured out Batman’s identity. The “Death or Exile” trials are just filler, wasting potential. What if Bruce needs something from someone, such as Gordon, but he is either killed or busy being exiled? Gordon’s exile may as well be cut out due to adding nothing. The hopelessness of the story would be emphasized if a beloved character died, especially if they had some important information they didn’t get to share. Bane’s death doesn’t have anything to do with him or tie into his character. Bruce really should’ve told at least his friends he’s still alive. Why even fake his death? Is there any reason to suggest Bruce and Selina will work together as a couple? They barely got any positive time together.
More notably, the setup of a new hero and Bruce retiring is supposed to be a feel good message, but Bruce should have plenty of reason to worry. Why would Bruce think John Blake will do good with the power he’s been given? Bruce has trusted Ra’s al Ghul, Harvey Dent, and now Miranda in the past, and they’ve all tried to cause chaos. Also, based on the established conflict of whether Bruce should accept he can’t be Batman anymore, the movie doesn’t decide if he should be or not. Him essentially totally saving the day unharmed would suggest he can still be, but him retiring implies he shouldn’t. As such, his arguing with Alfred amounts to less, especially because Bruce already wanted to retire last film.
OVERVIEW
Due to the use of killing enemies, if not by Batman than by his allies, the movies interestingly seem critical of Batman. The daringness to criticize its hero makes for a unique-feeling series, despite other issues. Based on the darker tone of the trilogy and the theme of no black and white characters, ending with some sort of condemnation of Batman would make a lot of sense, so it’s sad this ending doesn’t provide. Mainly because of some decent catharsis for Bruce, with Bale giving a decent performance, this is still better than Batman Begins. The hopelessness is another prime factor. While it is true that a lot of movies have plot holes, and thus it is something that can be forgiven to a degree, The Dark Knight Rises is so littered with them that you cannot even get into the story. I would say “See for Cillian Murphy’s amusing cameo”, but really just skip this, as well as Begins, and watch The Dark Knight!
Satan Is Real is mostly known for its iconic, but also ridiculous album cover, depicting our noble and Godly singers in hell. It’s one of the most eye catching covers, while also making the inside music more intriguing. In contrast with the nature of the image, the music inside both asks to be taken seriously and is. Put on any song and you’ll be consumed by the warmth and power of the Louvin Brothers’ voices. They sing and play with an earnestness and passion of someone that really believes in what they’re preaching. As such, the material threatens to be uninviting to non-Christians, as the lyrics are mostly about the virtues of the religion. Thus, the album may be better if looked at as metaphoric for challenging evil ideas of the world and finding something that makes you feel fulfilled.
To take the opener “Satan Is Real” as an example, the person in the track discussing how Satan ruined his life is mildly silly. You get the impression this guy torched his own life and is now blaming Satan. If you are like most Christians (at least in the modern day) and believe in free will, then this person instead could’ve chosen to not do whatever he did. Still, the desire to be selfish or to harm others, especially if they hurt you, is a common desire and thus the message is far more powerful when thought to really be about those human desires. Even when taken literally, the forewarning and meaty singing that bookends the spoken word and organ are just beautiful. When the person talks about the dangers of Satan, you can hear all the pain he went through, even down to how he hates to be interrupting a good time by giving said warning.
“There’s a Higher Power”, “The Christian Life”, and “The River of Jordan” are the next three cuts on the record and are all comparatively upbeat compared to everything else, approaching rock territory. They’re definitely the most listenable to an average person, especially Jordon’s less overtly religious words. They focus on celebrating the value of Christianity and things related to it, barely touching negative subject matter. “The Kneeling Drunkard’s Plea” and “Are You Afraid to Die?” are much darker, discussing the inherent suffering and cruelness that comes with life, mainly that we all experience the death of others. Afraid is the only example on the record of essentially pushing non-believers to believe. In Life, the singer seems to accept that their friends are sinners, while this track more so tries to inflict fear. Thus, it might come off as propagandistic, but there at least is the sense that the brothers, who wrote the song, really are concerned about non-Christians.
“Dying from Home, And Lost” and “The Drunkard’s Doom” are the most poetically written songs, which makes for a strikingly detailed and emotional experience. While “He Can Be Found” and “The Angels Rejoiced Last Night” have the positives of the album as a whole, they cover some of the already established subjects, only lacking the more enlightened playing of a track like Higher Power or the cutting lyrics of a track like Doom. “Satan’s Jeweled Crown” and “I’m Ready to Go Home” unintentionally make Christianity feel cultish. The former is creepy in how the singer once again doesn’t take personal responsibility, but instead says Satan did it to him. Home celebrates the idea of the singer dying, as they can then go to heaven. These “darker” tracks inadvertently create a fuller picture of the religion. While yes, the sense of community and love feels good, there are frightening implications.
OVERVIEW
Human beings in this album don’t ever get blamed for their actions. While that is not the best of messages, the Louvin Brothers do at least often feel humbled and like they are making this album to spread the love and joy of community, as opposed to something like attributing themselves as proud people. They are extraordinarily unpretentious in how they communicate this. Satan Is Real is a razor sharp statement that generally is about human beings and their constant battle to do the right thing, even when our emotions tell us to do otherwise. The strength of the musicianship and the direct and thought-provoking lyrics would make this great no matter what the songs are about. The first track I heard from the record, which is also my favorite, is the bouncing “The River of Jordan”, followed by “Satan Is Real”.
The Adventures of Hal 5 does play as an AI generated result of what a 50s children’s film would be like, at least from a pool of those with a bit more knowledge of what these movies were actually like. Still, you can’t deny how comically wholesome this adventure is. Everyone is extremely moral, with constant smiles, other than one overly villainous person and one scene of a group of kids being mean. You got to love just how chipper the characters are, as if not really having much of a care in the world. No one here appears an exceptional amount, with us seeing different characters and essentially little segments of their days, which typically at some point relate to “Hal 5”. There are scenes dedicated to children exercising, which could be seen as some degree of encouragement for the viewers to do the same.
Despite not being billed highly, William Russell as “The Vicar” is the closest thing to a main character. He brings good spirits and charm that is guiltily infectious. The scene of him jumping a fence to confront some kids that caused trouble, only for them to only care about the fact his jump was so impressive is very funny, though not in the right way. It seems this was supposed to be serious. There’s cute lines like, “That was a very silly thing to do.” For part of the conversation, both parties are talking about different matters without acknowledging the other’s side. “Now, what’s so interesting about this gate?” The child actors are better in this scene than you’d expect.
The other actors are amusing, as well. David Morrell as Mr. Dicey seems like this extremely lovable person with a passion for machinery. John Glyn-Jones as Mr. Goorlie is blatantly ill intentioned and buffoonish, with his plans only ever to nickel-dime people out of relatively small amounts of money, which could be seen as a critique of such an economic structure being so necessary and also manipulable. The two main children, despite often being with the Vicar, functionally do nothing and would probably annoy if they weren’t so easy to ignore. Speaking of recurrent, but underused characters, Hal 5 is apparently a living car, with a creepy face that periodically appears and disappears from the radiator. Hal never speaks and seldom acts, though once in a blue moon will take someone to a place they don’t want to go. Mr. Dicey calling Hal 5 his friend implies he knows the car is alive, but many others treat it as if it’s not.
There is a severe lack of intrigue to the narrative. One way to better this is to have it kept a secret that Mr. Goorlie is a baddie until later, or at least to have something the audience doesn’t know. Alternatively, when we see people negatively impacted by this behavior, they should behave in a way other than what would be most obvious. At the very least, include more scenes that are funny or have something stimulating going on, like the gate one. The most intense scene here is just of someone asking for their money back.
SPOILERS
To add to the insane wholesomeness, the villain even admits to his acts for no reason, only to have more likable characters that always do the right thing instated in his job. This idealist view of the world is demonstrated to mostly only function if most people are good natured and those that aren’t easily identifiable. The child leads then pick Mr. Goorlie’s replacement and this doesn’t seem to cause any upsetment of what anyone else is doing with their life or wants. The chosen Mr. Dicey admittedly was already shown to love this sort of garage work. In the garage he’s having the time of his life. He is happy for the Vicar and company to finally have a car that is working properly. Though seeing as Hal 5 originally belonged to Mr. Dicey, who never wanted to get rid of it, why not have him get the car back at the end?
OVERVIEW
While the main plot of the Vicar with the car and the b-plot of a race are essentially unrelated, the race does create a warmer feeling for the story. The Vicar’s life isn’t just this darn car that won’t work, he’s a busy man! Despite how much I like William Russell, it might’ve been better to give some more screen time to others, so this “world” felt more inclusive to other people? The Adventures of Hal 5 isn’t much of anything, not having much drama or even comedy. It seems designed to be forgotten, leaving only the impression of the final image of smiling faces and clean morals always winning out in the end against those that want to hurt others, who always make that obvious. If it asks to not be remembered, we shall grant its wish.
Gravity is a novelty. Its story and visual look are very unconventional, so on its own it’s interesting due to its advancements in digital effects and unique plot. The film focuses on Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, who is often thrown around and consistently disoriented. She is decent enough as an audience surrogate, though has almost no personality or character traits, which makes the story really fail as a typical movie. If the special effects were really stunning or the drama really thrilling, maybe that would be enough? The lack of development of Stone makes her feel like a video game character, which makes sense when matched with the CGI and fake-looking graphics around her. This makes for a really awkward viewing experience.
Stone doesn’t learn anything or change at all. Not to excuse that, but the movie doesn’t even commit to that, as we get a few moments of vulnerability or backstory for her. These matters, like her daughter having died, don’t functionally contribute anything. That information could be removed or replaced easily. There’s little meaningful stakes, with it often apparent Stone will get in some trouble before moving on. George Clooney as Matt Kowalski is an odd choice for someone to play an astronaut. He does some of his normal quipping and acting like an asshole, sometimes being comic relief. This does lead to one of the main issues with the story, especially when trying to get into it.
Bullock and Clooney are Hollywood actors. They look like Hollywood actors. There’s little sense of “we are seasoned scientists or astronauts getting down to business”. Their lack of emotional depth and understanding of their scientific dialogue makes it feel like two people playing characters. Lesser known actors would’ve been ideal. Perhaps if you showed this movie to someone who didn’t know who Bullock or Clooney were then this would not be an issue?
Some of the directing is solid, with it succeeding in making us feel distress or claustrophobia, which adds to this film working more as an experience to slip into, rather than a proper movie or story. Shots of Ryan trying to relax or something sudden happening draw you in with the use of wide shots or changing the speed of the camera. The opening of the film is also effective. You might expect a movie like this to open on a normal environment that gets tense, like if we saw everyone go to space and then things start going wrong. We get added intensity from starting unfamiliarly. 3D effects however almost always date movies and this is no exception, especially when watching a 2D version of it. Little things can come into focus, as they’re supposed to be 3D.
SPOILERS
The opening just feels like a series of events with little pacing or fluidity. Building tension and establishing relationships would work to make this feel more like a narrative. Everything is just fine before it isn’t. Events occurring seemingly randomly is a frequent issue, such as when Kowalski and Stone are making their way shortly before a jam, wherein Kowalski quickly sacrifices himself. Ryan is afraid of losing him, but we don’t see her traumatized or lonely or anything. She just keeps on her way. You’d think Ryan would be more distressed by everyone having died. Her later imagining Matt is a nice moment that implies she’s holding it in, though we should’ve gotten more. There also isn’t any reason to “hold it in”. The few emotional scenes, such as of Ryan accepting that she will die, aren’t used to let us into her, they are intended to mine easy sympathy for her.
OVERVIEW
People analyze themes in the movie, though they play more as window dressing than as something that feeds into the story. They’re incidental. Still, Gravity is quite short. Some of these sorts of stories want to feel excused to be absurdly lengthy, so it’s appreciated that this one decided to be short enough to keep its charm running throughout, though some just won’t be able to meet the film on its terms and will just be constantly bored.
While Batman Begins feels edited by a blender, The Dark Knight virtually corrects that and all its other issues. It still contains some segmented story elements, as if we’re covering multiple issues of a comic that tell one overall story. As such, certain characters are much more prominent in specific segments, though this plays into the general themes of the story and the overall “plan” of the main antagonist, that chaos can come in different ways and come to haunt us in perhaps the one way we are vulnerable.
Heath Ledger as the Joker is wonderfully chaotic and less controllable than it may seem. This even comes through in little moments. He at one point asks for half of the mobs’ money, but he doesn’t even want it just to use it, he wants to cause trouble by making a claim on it. The Joker barely appears in the movie and he’s all the more intimidating for it. This is mirrored early on when he was essentially hiding in plain sight. He often is getting other people to do his bidding. He has many quotable phrases about how fickle people are, which admittedly are trying a bit too hard to be smart. Less would be more with those. We should only be suggested about how the Joker thinks. This also follows on from the problem of exposition, which is still here, but much better managed.
Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne gives a much stronger performance than last film, also going for a less is more approach. He is focused on less, being much more about watching the situation and getting down to business. Thus, this does somewhat suggest that Bale lacked the range to be more complicated, though he really doesn’t need to be here. Him trying to remain stoic while having a slight sense of fear and uncertainty on his face speaks wonders. A big theme of this movie is letting you essentially come to your own conclusion on its events. This is even represented in admittedly one of the weaker scenes of a group of people debating if Batman should turn himself in or not, where the dialogue and actors are a bit too over the top.
Part of what’s so great about the Joker is how he really is a genius. He thinks several steps ahead, with no one else able to keep up. As I’ll discuss in spoilers, this movie is better if you erase Begins, but one positive is that characters like Gary Oldman as James Gordon drop much confidence or assuredness, coming to terms with just how little control they have. This even plays into Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, wherein the film subverts how last installment and many other movies include a hero getting the girl at the end. The situations in this movie are often hopeless, with it hard to imagine how anyone would escape and it thrilling to see what people do. This is complimented by a darker visual look that’s not overpowering. The scene of Batman at the top of a building is particularly stylish, as well as the famous one of the truck.
The different focuses of the movie subtly play into each other and make for escalating tension. The story as a whole is more about showing the full area, focusing less on a specific character. As such, a big character piece on someone like Batman would distract. A lot of this movie feels like a police crime drama that happens to have superhuman elements and more action, being about the situation than anyone. As an example, Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is focused on more as a symbol than a character. As a character, he is surprisingly uncomplicated.
SPOILERS
The most convoluted part of the movie is Harvey going bad. While there is an attempted explanation of him going crazy and blaming people like Gordon, it’s all just a bit too out of bounds of what we know of him. Maybe there could’ve been some way where Harvey felt the only chance to save the day was to do something that would get innocent people killed, but take fewer risks? What if he advocated for the evacuation ferry with the prisoners to be blown up?
In mostly believable situations, everyone breaks their own rules. There’s often the debate of whether or not to make any given decision, typically because there’s lives at risk. This challenges the idea of a moral code. Batman and the Joker are positioned as polar opposites, as Batman seems to be the least corruptible and most moral, while the Joker is the least moral and only incorruptible as there is nothing to corrupt. The Joker even often puts himself in a position where he could be killed, probably because he doesn’t really care if he is. While the Joker is apprehended eventually, he does “win” on multiple levels.
He achieves his main goal of breaking Harvey Dent, but he also breaks Bruce Wayne in a more subtle way. For starters, it seems Bruce would be malleable when it comes to trying to save Rachel. He clearly cares more about her than Harvey. Beyond the more obvious example of Batman beating the Joker more brutally than was likely necessary, he directly kills Harvey at the end, which is something he was opposed to ever doing and never did before. He’s also symbolically killing his hope of correctly finding a morally upstanding person that can “take his place”, which suggests he won’t ever be able to retire, at least with assuredness the city is in good hands. This effect is a bit dampened by Bruce being responsible for deaths in Batman Begins, even where in the one at the end, he could’ve just as easily had the victim get arrested, though he instead chose not to save them.
Say what you will about Batman, if he wasn’t here everyone would be screwed. The notable example is it seems the Joker was really going to blow up the ferries, with Batman stopping that from happening. Part of how he gets his information is through shady means. The most realistic is his technology that spies on people with their phones, which reflects real life a little too closely. I doubt the movie wants to make a judgment call on this sort of thing being used in the real world, especially because real people are a lot more breakable than someone like the Joker and don’t have the means to cause this much destruction. Batman beating the Joker earlier also shares similarities with police brutality, mirroring people justifying torture for the purpose of getting information.
If Batman had not done lawless things, like breach the privacy of innocent people, things would be worse for the characters. Whether or not such a thing is needed in real life has of course been a big debate. On the other hand, if Batman had not allied himself with the government, namely Harvey, then the criminals and the Joker may not have seen the need to fight back, mainly by killing Rachel. Even when Harvey early on lawlessly interrogates a minion of the Joker, Batman criticizes how this would affect his image more so than it being unethical. Our hero is more than willing to project something fake and be dishonest for the apparent good of society.
Some would argue the real solution was to not put so much faith in Harvey to begin with. Imagine if Bruce retired, then Harvey went nutty? Even if that is correct, doing so did serve a positive purpose. This mirrors how the audience trusting Batman is foolish when he is sometimes blatantly dishonest or self-minded. The Joker simply being an unknown and intimidating threat ruins the idea that anyone here, from Batman to Harvey to Gordon, are as noble as they say. No matter what, it is scary that Gordon and Batman were left with a dramatic amount of power at the end, which they used to deceive, even if they have good intentions or that it may very well be the right answer.
OVERVIEW
Ironically, one reason this movie works so well is that the strongest actor of the previous film, Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth, does almost nothing here, suggesting that we’ve moved beyond the lighthearted and relaxed nature of Batman Begins. Everyone is constantly so busy that there’s no time for fluff. You can imagine that Batman might collapse under stress. With us not seeing that, we reinforce this image of Batman not having fun and instead always working. Some might say it’d be better to give him emotions for the audience to grasp onto, which admittedly may improve the story if done right.
It seems the answer to the question of whether or not it’s good to have a vigilante like Batman is that it is, but only to have a few that know what they’re doing, have the resources, and can be trusted. However, realistically we don’t know who those trustworthy people would even be. Even a genuinely well meaning person might have significant issues that draw them back from being untempted by power. This movie throws its hands and does not claim or show that Batman is this perfect force, just that he is the best of the bunch. That is frankly terrifying seeing as he is so trusted, which only goes to show how often in society sketchy people are trusted. A positive interpretation of Batman is that he is the best a rich and educated person that wants to do this whole thing could be. Someone that wants to fight criminals like this would likely have some sort of issues going on that causes them to justify their behavior. The Dark Knight sews in this inherent issue with Batman in a more believable and narratively fulfilling way than most superhero movies that have attempted such a task.
Batman Begins spares no time to be a mess. Almost immediately we’re put in a first act that seems edited by a woodchipper. Throughout the whole movie the editing is extremely choppy and quick, never letting anything breathe, though this issue is much worse in the beginning. The movie initially tells the origins of Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne up to the point where he decides to become a superhero. It dramatically jumps from him as a child to him as an adult, with scenes basically never going on very long and being more about throwing out a blatant piece of plot information to remember. There isn’t much rhyme or reasoning to what is shown and when. There’s also little sense of stakes due to us not getting a chance to take in how Bruce feels or how long anything lasts. When Bruce first meets Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Henri suggests they should meet up again, and in a difficult way, then in almost no time they are together again. Why even have them separate?
Bale has essentially one mode of being brooding and distant. His performance here has no soul behind the eyes. When it comes to scenes like the one with his parents’ killer, there’s no emotion to him, just a blank expression. Thus, when Bruce is at his weakest or his best, it all feels the same. We don’t know and can’t feel what drives him. Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is one of the more criticized performances in the film and while she is light on much depth, we at least are not called upon to particularly sympathize or connect with her, so her being bad doesn’t matter much. The villains all try to project a bit of weirdness to them, but it comes off as the actors treating this like a dumb comic book that they don’t understand.
Once Bruce Wayne decides to become a superhero, the movie mildly improves due to being more focused and not feeling a need to set up an obscene amount of plot points. You learn more about Bruce by just watching him trial and error through the situation, though this is light on much substance, like forward momentum or character development. This is essentially some decent fluff. As we get to the third act, the story gets very convoluted. It seems someone might know this as various characters constantly come in to dump exposition about what is happening and why. This problem is at its worst in the end, but is persistent throughout.
SPOILERS
Batman is a lot more morally dubious than you’d expect. Whether this is clever or stupid is up to you. He almost kills the man that shot his parents. While this is later looked down upon by him, Bruce is responsible for many lives being lost. The most notable example is when he refuses to kill a man, which angers Ducard, so to escape Bruce starts a fire that blows up the whole building. Some have argued that many of the people in the building would have had the chance to escape and were not stopped from doing so or it was self defense in order to get out of the situation, but this still leaves us thinking of Bruce as a person whose actions result in lives loss. He doesn’t have to be squeaky clean and moral, but this shows that he isn’t and is never going to be, which goes against any chance to be multilayered. At the end of the movie, he leaves Ducard in a situation where he will die. He uses the logic that he isn’t personally killing him, but he is still partially responsible for the death. Bruce is also responsible for lots of destroyed buildings and infrastructure. You’d think that odds are those buildings fell on some random and innocent people.
There’s a lot of bizarre comic relief moments which can come at the cost of the tone and characters. Scarecrow talking like he’s a big threat, only to be taken out with such ease, is extremely funny. This basically tells us we weren’t ever supposed to take him seriously, especially considering how insignificant he is at the end of the day.
One of the better parts of the story is its development of the inherent issue of someone like Batman, mainly that he is a vigilante that could go corrupt. As much can be said about Ducard. Both bend their rules as needed, supposedly to do the right thing. While Ducard becomes absurd, initially he seems more respectable, not wanting criminals to roam free. Batman himself is a bit challenged with the prospect of something like killing a villain, so they will not hurt people again. The movie has little to meaningfully say about all this. When Batman lets Ducard die, that doesn’t appear to lead to an internal struggle in Bruce or cause complications with anyone. Batman destroying property isn’t wrestled with, which it definitely should have. These ideas show promise, but only go to show how sloppy the film is in paying them off.
OVERVIEW
One way to fix this pacing issue is to make this one story two movies. The first would cover Bruce’s childhood and training, while the second would cover him going back to Gotham and getting into drama there. Apparently he was away for seven years, but there’s very little sense of it, with the audience simply told. Let’s see our hero suffer and fight. While we are told that Bruce was initially very broken, only to use his father as an example and improve himself, what we see is a character that seems impervious to any kind of growth, someone consistently sure of himself and that assertion not being challenged or noted by the film. The journey he goes on is so manufactured in feeling and lacking in real drive that the best you can look at Batman Begins as is as a bit of light spectacle, which is a huge step down for the guy that made Memento. There is decent action and Michael Caine gets some cute and funny bits, so take that from the picture.
The Filme Diary 