Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

This is another one of those films which I was looking forward to watching. This was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2000, losing out to Gladiator, and was, for all accounts, fantastic. It’s completely in Chinese, and as a result it is not a light watch. The plot revolves around Li Mu Bai trying to recover his stolen sword from Jade Fox. He has the help of Yu Shu Lien (who is in love with him), who has to try and persuade Jen Yu to turn away from Jade Fox’s path of ‘bad’ and follow the ‘light’ of Li Mu Bai.

As Crouching Tiger was subtitled it made it a lot easier to follow, but you cannot turn your head away from the screen at all really, otherwise you miss a lot of the dialogue. Unless you speak Mandarin (which I studied in my first year of University, and now cannot remember), it is quite a tough film to follow. The plot is really good though, and it provides some intricate twists which keep you watching. There are several stories running throughout the film, and these are all very enjoyable. For example, forbidden love is a massive part of Crouching Tiger. Jen Yu has to wrestle with her arranged marriage despite being in love with another man, and Li Mu Bai and Yu Shen Lien have been in love for a long time, but were unable to express this for a variety of reasons.

The best part about Crouching Tiger though is, without a doubt, the fight scenes. As with many films, there is a massive build up to the ‘final showdown’ between the two good guys and the two bad guys. This sees Li Mu Bai blocking a large number of poisoned needles with his sword, which is just epic. However, more impressive is the scene where Jen Yu takes on near enough a whole building of fighters who all believe they can defeat her. This scene reminded me massively of the last scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 (or more accurately, the scene in Kill Bill reminded me of this one). Also, the initial scene where Yu Shen Lien fights ‘the thief’ in order to gain back the sword is magnificent. The only thing that spoils most of the fight scenes for me is the graphics. Granted it was 2000 when the film was released, but the special effects of the characters jumping across rooftops and stuff is awful. In some cases I don’t think they even touch the roof before they jump. Now I know that the laws of physics are ever so slightly suspended in Crouching Tiger, but it would have been nice if the effects looked more realistic.

I thought that Jade Fox was an interesting character. To me she seemed to be portrayed as the archetypal ‘wicked witch’ as she looked a little bit older, a little bit more unkempt and a little bit more devious than any of the other characters. Naturally she is underhand, and displays none of the honour that Li Mu Bai possesses. Her use of poison is also very sneaky. Obviously this is the most shameful way to kill someone as they can’t face you or fight back, and Jade Fox is known to have repeatedly used this technique. Ironically enough it is poison eventually is her undoing. I thought though that her poisoning of Jen Yu was more interesting though. Jen lives a life where she is presented as the sweet innocent little girl, but has really been twisted by Jade Fox for most of her life. This is why she finds it so hard to commit to a life of learning under Li Mu Bai.

Having done some research for this blog (believe it or not, I do research these posts a bit) it seems that many people, particularly Chinese-speaking individuals, were annoyed about certain castings in this film. The fact that the four main actors speak with four different accents throughout the film, and are all from four different backgrounds, none of which include the Mandarin in which the film is spoken, is a bit of a problem. This is justified by Michelle Yeoh, who argues that her character comes from outside of the region and so didn't have to speak with the accent (Interview with Cinescape, 28/12/2000). However, if a film involving four Londoners was released in which the characters spoke with a Liverpudlian, Yorkshire, Birmingham and Newcastle accent then questions would be asked. After I researched this I thought that this was the main failing of the film, but seeing as I didn't pick up on it while watching it, it’s not that big a deal for me.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was the first Chinese film to really ‘make it’. It has led to the rise of Chinese cinema, and as a result, other films have gained population, such as House of Flying Daggers. Any film that wins four, yes four, Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score and Best Cinematography) cannot be ignored, and if you are going to watch any film from the Asian Cinema scene, this would have to be it I think.

The 85th Academy Awards Special

Well it was the Academy Awards last night, and while I wasn't able to watch the ceremony, I was following avidly on twitter. There were a few surprises, a few obvious winners, and a few questionable decisions, but that was to be expected. Life of Pi turned out to be the big winner, bagging 4 awards having been nominated for 11. I’m going to attempt to give you a few of my thoughts on the winners and losers, and I’m going to skip over a few of the awards that it would be wrong for me to talk about.

So, not having seen any of the films in the category, I don’t feel suitably qualified to talk about Best Live Action Short Film, Best Animated Short Film, Best Feature Documentary, Best Short Subject Documentary, or Best Animated Feature. What I will say though is that it didn't surprise me that Brave won this award.

In terms of the award for Best Visual Effects there was only going to be one winner for me. While the visual effects in The Hobbit, The Avengers and Prometheus were incredible (and I haven’t seen Snow White and the Huntsman so I can’t comment on that), Life of Pi absolutely eclipses anything that these films could do. This was perhaps the most obvious winner of the night for me, and it completely deserves its success. Life of Pi also won the award for Best Cinematography which I thought was interesting. This was perhaps one of the closest awards of the night, because any of the five nominees (Life of Pi, Anna Karenina, Django Unchained, Lincoln and Skyfall) could feasibly have won. After I saw Anna Karenina, and after slating the film because I thought it to be very weak, the best thing I could say about it was that the cinematography was brilliant. However, that doesn't mean that the cinematography of Life of Pi wasn't  and so this is another deserved award. In terms of Best Original Score, I thought Life of Pi was, again, a deserving winner. The other films in this category just didn't quite match up for me, and Mychael Danna deserves the credit (and the award) for creating the soundtrack for Life of Pi. Finally, Ang Lee won the Best Director award for Life of Pi, and I have to say I was a bit surprised at this. I was sure Steven Spielberg would be nailed on for this award for Lincoln. However, having seen Life of Pi, I’m sure there are very few that would begrudge Ang Lee his second award for Best Director.

Lincoln bagged two awards last night, after having been nominated for 12. For many people, Lincoln was the favourite to sweep the board and win more than it did. Now I haven’t seen Lincoln, so I’m going to have to keep this relatively brief. In terms of Best Production Design I’m sure the production of Lincoln was fantastic, but Life of Pi, Les Miserables and The Hobbit are all films which are fantastically produced. I’m sure that this decision is justified, but I need to see it to make a judgement. Believe me, Lincoln is high up the ‘films I want to see’ list. I didn't think the decision to hand Daniel Day-Lewis the Best Actor award was particularly surprising. At the end of the day, Bradley Cooper was never going to win for a rom-com, and Hugh Jackman for me, didn't do enough to be considered a deserving winner. From the bits I have seen of Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis is marvellous and is definitely deserving of this award.

Ben Afleck’s film Argo won three awards, including the big one, Best Picture. Again, I haven’t seen Argo, but I mean to, and so my comments will have to be speculative. Best Film Editing is probably deserved, and I didn't think that Zero Dark Thirty or Life of Pi should have won it (as these two were the second favourites for me). I have no major objections to Argo winning Best Adapted Screenplay, but I thought Life of Pi was unlucky to miss out. The adaptation of Argo from the sources that it is based on is fantastic, and likewise, Life of Pi is fantastically adapted from the book. Now Argo was widely tipped to win the Best Picture award, and of the front runners (I thought that Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty were all in with a shout) any of them would be deserving winners. It is a fantastic achievement for Ben Afleck, and settles much of the debate around the Zero Dark Thirty versus Argo arguments. This year though there were a couple of surprises on the nominations list. Silver Linings Playbook raised a lot of eyebrows for its inclusion, as did Amour, and I don’t think either of these were in with a chance. Django Unchained deserved its nomination but it was a bit too controversial to ever really win, and in the end, Argo is probably a very good winner.

Now there are a lot of awards that I don’t really have anything to say about at all. Anna Karenina won Best Costume Design, and yes, the costumes were good in it. Les Miserables won Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and yes, the makeup and hairstyling is very good. Les Miserables also won Best Sound Mixing, which was good. Best Sound Editing caused a bit of a stir as it was the sixth time in the history of the Academy Awards (85 different ceremonies) that two films have been tied for an award. Skyfall (the first Bond film to win an OSCAR) and Zero Dark Thirty won this award, and of the other nominations (Argo, Django Unchained and Life of Pi) I think any of them could have won, because the sound editing was very good in all of them. Skyfall also won the award for Best Original Song, adding another award to Adele’s growing list. This can’t have been a surprise as it was in the charts for such a long time that it was bound to win. Amour won Best Foreign Language Film which isn't surprising considering it was the most widely known on the list. Anne Hathaway won Best Supporting Actress for Les Miserables and this was so unsurprising that I’m fairly sure that if I were a bookie I would have paid out on this before the ceremony began.

On a more positive note, Christoph Waltz won Best Supporting Actor for his role in Django Unchained, and I feel this is definitely deserved. He is simply glittering in the roles that Tarantino writes for him. His mix of humour and incredible acting means that he stands out from the other nominees as the best supporting actor from 2012. This represents a much more light-hearted victor from the Academy, with Tommy Lee Jones many people’s (including mine) favourite choice for the award. Another tip of the hat goes to Quentin Tarantino and Django Unchained for winning Best Original Screenplay. This was up against a number of excellent films like Amour, Flight and Zero Dark Thirty, and winning this award is a move towards a greater appreciation for the comedic yet controversial bloody movie that Tarantino specialises in. I think Zero Dark Thirty was unlucky not to win this award, but Django Unchained is definitely the one to lose out to.

Finally, I thought the decision to give Jennifer Lawrence the award for Best Actress for her role in Silver Linings Playbook was very strange. While it will guarantee her a successful career more than her role in The Hunger Game could ever do I thought that Jessica Chastain was fantastic in Zero Dark Thirty. Now I’m not saying that she did not deserve the award, and I haven’t seen Silver Linings Playbook, so I can’t possibly comment, but I guess when you have nominations for the film in the Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actor categories the film is doing something right.

As I mentioned, the big winner was Life of Pi with four awards. However I feel that everyone associated with Zero Dark Thirty can be disappointed not to have won more. There is no doubt that this year’s Academy Awards was incredibly close and many films appeared in several different categories, meaning that one would always come off worse. Before I finish writing I would just like to mention the In Memoriam part of the ceremony. Jack Klugman (appeared in 12 Angry Men and Quincy ME), Ernest Borgnine (the original voice of SpongeBob), Eiko Ishioka (winner of Best Costume Design for Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1992), Richard Zanuck (Driving Miss Daisy) and Larry Hagman (Dallas) all passed away this year, and all will be remembered for their contributions to cinema. Finally, and if nothing else, spare a thought for Michael Clarke Duncan whose most notable film is The Green Mile. He passed away in September at the age of 54 from a heart attack, and he will be sorely missed.

Heat

‘Heat’ is one of those films that promises so much. With Al Pacino and Robert de Niro in leading roles, the standard of acting was always going to be ridiculously high. The film focuses around a policeman and a group of criminals, and sees Robert de Niro as the ‘bad guy’ planning a bank job with a group of friends. There are (as I remember) two scenes where de Niro and Pacino actually talk, but they are the best scenes of the film for me.

As far as the plot goes, it’s not a great film. In my opinion, the storyline is distinctly average, and it is the two leading actors who complete the film. However, I do like that Heat is not just about the crime, as the two leading characters both have a family life of sorts. For Pacino this revolves around his wife and her daughter (a young Natalie Portman no less), and for de Niro, there is a young woman who he feels strongly about. While the criminal activities of the group bring an element of enjoyment to the film, and both the opening crime and the bank heist are fantastic, I got the feeling that the whole film was geared towards the final scene where Pacino and de Niro face off.

However, nothing can take away from the performances of either actor in this film. Pacino once again displays the tendency that he has to be ever so slightly psychotic in the role that he plays. His policeman character is seen to be ‘close to the line’ on more than one occasion. The scene where he walks in on his wife alone with another man just displays this perfectly. He is fine with the cheating, but takes issue with the man using his television. Nevertheless he also has the tender side that often comes across in his films. His care for Natalie Portman’s character is exceptional, and the emotion he displays when he finds her in his bathtub is magnificent. He is portrayed as the antithesis of de Niro’s character, and is the policeman who is leading the investigation into their criminal activities.

While Pacino is a joy to watch, he is in my opinion, over-shadowed in this film by de Niro. Regular readers will know that I love Robert de Niro. For new readers, I consider him to be the greatest actor I have ever seen. Heat is by no means his best performance, but he is electrifying, once again embodying every aspect of his character. His attention to detail is perfect and the subtleties of his character are beautifully exposed. The line that stands out from Heat is “Don’t get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner”. This quote has grave consequences for de Niro’s character at the end of the film, and this was my favourite aspect of his character. Despite all of his criminal activities he still cares for this woman, and leaving her is obviously a big struggle.

Having just talked about Pacino and de Niro I’m probably going to be quite unfair on Val Kilmer. He is very enjoyable in this film, but he is massively overshadowed by the other two. He is an instrumental part of the crime gang, and is almost as enjoyable as de Niro when it comes to watching him rob the bank and hold up the armoured truck. He too suffers from the quote above, and the scene where his girlfriend betrays him to the police has emotion which Kilmer does immensely well to pull off. It’s quite difficult to talk about a supporting character in a film with leading actors such as those in, but Kilmer is an integral part of the film. Alongside de Niro and Pacino he is the only other character whose name I can remember, and whose face I can picture. Although that probably has more to do with his hairdo than anything else, he is no doubt one of the positive things about this film.

It does seem to me, that Heat isn't a great film with two great actors. For me it comes across more as a good film in which two great actors star. The two characters are definitely the stars of whichever scene they are in, but this could have more to do with the actors playing them than their importance in the film. I feel that if you removed de Niro and Pacino then Heat would be distinctly average, with very little going for it. If you like Pacino, de Niro or general gangster films then you should give it a watch, but if not then I should probably avoid it.

Zero Dark Thirty - or 'The Bin Laden Film'

Zero Dark Thirty, or ‘the Bin Laden film’ as I seem to be describing it to people lately, tells of the American pursuit of Osama Bin Laden, specifically focusing on the actions of one woman, Maya. It is one of the most widely anticipated and more controversial films of 2012 (released 19^th December) and it is obvious why. Naturally, the theme of hunting down Bin Laden will stir controversy amongst many, but Zero Dark Thirty does an excellent job of keeping this to a minimum.

The first thing to mention about this film is that it is not necessarily a two-and-a-half hour adrenaline filled chase for the most dangerous man in the world. People expecting this (such as my younger brother) will be both disappointed and bored. It is probably better to expect more of a fictional documentary, and that is the best way I can describe it. The climax of the film – storming the house where Bin Laden was shot – is quite thrilling, but the rest of the film reflects the long and arduous struggle for information about Al-Qaeda perfectly. The cinematography of Zero Dark Thirty is very impressive (credit to Greig Fraser), and the director (Kathryn Bigelow, also known for The Hurt Locker) does an excellent job of reflecting a number of aspects of the hunt to the audience. As I mentioned, the struggle for information is one of them, but the best piece of direction for me comes right at the end. After the killing of Bin Laden you’d expect some massive celebration scene, such as at the end of Star Wars, but this isn't the case. Instead, Maya is sitting in a plane and starts to cry, realising perhaps that without this case she has nothing to do and nowhere to go.

This leads me on to the next thing that I immediately considered after watching the film – the lack of more general celebration. There is always a danger with these types of films that they will become less of an informative piece about the hunt for Bin Laden and more of a pro-American propaganda. Zero Dark Thirty does immensely well to avoid this. I can’t recall a single moment when there was any nationalistic undertones to the movie, which is quite a considerable achievement as it would be so easy to turn Zero Dark Thirty into a celebration of the death of Bin Laden. Obviously the creators aren't stupid enough to impose a Salman Rushdie-type backlash against them, and their treatment of this subject is very respectful. There are no vitriolic scenes of joy at the end, and the film remains polite and considered throughout.

The character (because I think she is a character) of Maya is very interesting. On some level it is a surprise that the central figure in this movie is a woman, and I think the decision to write the character as a woman was brilliant. There is a danger with a male lead that there would be vitriolic pro-American propaganda, and by casting a woman the film immediately makes you consider the whole thing a bit more. Jessica Chastain does a very good job as Maya, perfectly showing the range of emotions required. She instantly comes across as a very driven, goal-directed and dedicated woman, but she also expresses discontent at scenes of waterboarding and signs of great burden at the loss of several friends. Paralleling her character perhaps, this marks Chastain’s first major film, and I would advise you to remember the name. I have very little doubt that she will win Best Actress at the Academy Awards in a couple of days.

Zero Dark Thirty has been nominated for five Academy Awards, with Best Actress obviously being one of them. I’m fairly sure no-one reading this will be doing so to see what I think about its chances for Best Film Editing and Bets Sound Editing so I’ll skip over them. It is not surprise that it has been nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. The Academy was always going to nominate Zero Dark Thirty for the first two, just because it’s ‘the Bin Laden film’. To my mind it will win Best Original Screenplay, simply because it was the best original screenplay, but it will face stiff competition from Django Unchained. Best Picture is always a bit of a mystery though. In previous years there have been surprises (The Artist in 2012) and there have been obvious winners (The Return of the King, 2003), and this year has the potential to be both. I’m not going to attempt to call it, nor to tell you what I think about it, but there is no doubt that Zero Dark Thirty is one of the favourites to win.

Zero Dark Thirty is not for everyone though, and I’d only watch it if you are interested in the hunt for Bin Laden. I don’t think it’s the kind of film that you can watch on the basis of general curiosity. You need to engage with it, and there is quite a lot to follow. However, once you get into it, it is very enjoyable and it deserves all the plaudits going its way.

Life of Pi

Having been highly recommended to me by everyone who had seen it, I felt I probably should watch Life of Pi. I was rather hoping to read the book before I watched the movie, but it wasn't to be. The movie is an absolutely spectacular show of visual effects though, and tells the story of Pi Patel who is shipwrecked and spends an incredible amount of time afloat at sea with a tiger, a zebra, a hyena and an orang-utan for company.

There are various twists and turns with the plot throughout the film (unsurprisingly), but there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that the film is centred around the special effects. I didn't realise until after I’d seen it exactly how much of the film was special effects, but when I did discover (and it’s pretty much everything) I was amazed. For example, the tiger is entirely CGI, which is absolutely incredible when you consider how detailed it is throughout the movie. The other animals are CGI as well I think, and the combination of CGI and the actor who plays Pi creates an absolute special effects masterpiece.

The plot itself is a bit lacking though in my opinion. It might be the case that the audience is so distracted by the magnificence of what they are seeing on the screen, but for me, the plot was quite average. I’d imagine that the book would be incredible, so I bought it this morning and cannot wait to start reading it. I’d imagine that in the book, the ending would be a lot more thought-provoking, and I thought the film could have made a lot more of this. Personally, I love the kind of film that leaves the ending totally ambiguous, and for this reason Inception and Shutter Island are two of my favourites (although Leonardo di Caprio may have something to do with that). Instead, it is up to the audience to decide how the story ends and whether they accept the incredible tale of survival and beauty or the horrific tale of a struggle against nature. But the film points you in one direction, and this is a bit of a disappointment for me.

For me, Suraj Sharma, who plays Pi Patel for the majority of the movie, is wonderful in the role. I think for the majority of the film he is acting opposite a green screen, and as a result he does an amazing job of convincing the audience of the realism of his situation. His ability to convey emotion is wonderful, and I found myself experiencing the loss of his family, the fear of the tiger, and the grief at the death of the other animals. Life of Pi is his first listed motion picture, and I think that he will be popping up in quite a few other films from now on.

Most of the plaudits for Life of Pi will rightly go to the Special Effects team. So many people worked on this film in the special and visual effects department that mentioning them all would take ridiculously long. But I think that more credit needs to go to the producers, the director and the author of the screenplay. I think I heard at the BAFTAs that Life of Pi was a decade in the making, which is an incredible level of devotion to a film that is only really seen by the masterpiece films such as Avatar. The producers have done a wonderful job to create such a fantastic film, and while normally I despise seeing films in 3D, to not see Life of Pi in 3D would be a crime. As it goes I think it was filmed exclusively for 3D release, but nevertheless it adds to the experience of the film. Ang Lee directs Life of Pi, and this has to be one of his best works. It is no surprise that he is nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards this year given the direction of this film. However, a better reflection of the film is that it has received 11 nominations overall.

I don’t think it will win Best Picture, and I think Ang Lee will be pipped to Best Director by Spielberg, but for Best Adapted Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effect I consider it the favourite. Only Lincoln has received more nominations this year, and so Life of Pi is almost certainly going to win one. But don’t quote me on that.

Life of Pi is a cinematic spectacle. The visual effects will leave you astounded, and you will thoroughly enjoy it, but I think the end is a bit anticlimactic. Certainly there should be no triumphant scene of survival etc, but I didn't like the forced ambiguity of the end. However, others might, and this is just my own opinion. I would definitely suggest that you see Life of Pi, purely because of the visual effects. 

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises is the climax of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and in the run up to its release people were eagerly waiting to see if it would live up to the ridiculously high standards set by The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises is incredible, and is the perfect conclusion to this particular run of Batman films.

The start of the film sees Gotham largely crime free since Harvey Dent’s death has provided the police with greater powers. Batman has been outlawed and Bruce Wayne hasn't been seen for eight years. However, out of sight, the mercenary Bane has been gathering support and has built up an underground empire with which to complete the work of the League of Shadows. He holds Gotham to ransom with a nuclear bomb and imprisons Batman in a seemingly inescapable pit. When Batman frees himself he returns to save Gotham. He is tasked with defeating Bane, stopping the bomb and winning over the people.

As with The Dark Knight, I watch this film for the moments that Bane is on screen. While Tom Hardy’s performance has nothing on Heath Ledger’s Joker, and he is nowhere near as scary, Bane is a truly sinister villain, and his adaptation from the comic book character is brilliant. Tom Hardy does an excellent job with Bane, and his dedication to the role cannot be faulted. I especially liked the moment in which Bane breaks Batman’s back, which is lifted directly from a famous Batman comic. Bane’s voice is well worked as well, and definitely fits the character, however there are times when it’s very difficult to understand what is said because of the mask. Also, I often had the feeling that the speech was in fact ‘voiced over’ as it didn't seem like the character was speaking. The difficulty here is that Hardy doesn't really use his eyes to speak a lot of the time. However, I suppose these are problems that inevitably arise with such a character.

I would have liked to see more of Batman in this film to be honest. I understand why he did not feature initially, but compared to the previous two films there was a distinct paucity of Batman scenes. I can only think of two major Batman scenes, and this was disappointing. Nevertheless, I absolutely loved the way that the trilogy was closed. The ending is incredible and I suggest that if you haven’t seen the film now is the point to skip to the next paragraph. Have you? Good. I genuinely thought that Batman had died in this film. It wasn't one of those moments where the character ‘disappears’ and you are meant to think he’s dead, but then he climbs back or whatever. There was genuine disbelief in my mind the first time I saw this, and as the end is slowly revealed to the audience piece-by-piece I get the feelings that come with a huge twist. I thought that killing off Batman was the perfect way to end this trilogy, but when the final scenes came up I was delighted with the end. This was a refreshing change from the superhero films which always plan for a sequel, and was good closure for the film set.

The supporting characters in this film were also excellent. Morgan Freeman is always a welcome appearance on my screen, and Lucius Fox did not disappoint me in this film either. Similarly, Michael Caine is again marvelous as Alfred, and I loved the fact that he and Bruce Wayne had an argument. Instead of being the subservient butler, Alfred is given a chance to show that he’s more than a little annoyed with his master. The character of Miranda Tate was quite good in this film as well. I loved the storyline revolving around her and Bane, and did not see the potential for that at all and was astounded when the pieces slotted into place.

I haven’t forgotten Catwomen, who I thought was fantastic. This Catwoman is a drastic improvement on the Batman Returns Catwoman. She was strong, independent, and a villain/hero in her own right. Anne Hathaway was a wonderful casting choice for this role, and manages to be strong, imposing and immensely attractive all at the same time. The Dark Knight Rises has an edge on many other films because it manages to incorporate more than the one villain and the one hero perfectly. It is an example to films like Spider-man 3, or even Batman & Robin which try to have more villains than can be coped with and as a result the film suffers. Finally, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a welcome addition to the already glittering cast. His character is very interesting, because there’s a twist around him too. This twist was another one which I did not see coming, but one which I could appreciate. Basically, the thing to take away from the (brief) character analysis is that there are a lot of twists with a lot of characters.

The Dark Knight Rises is a phenomenal film, but I think it suffers a little bit by inevitable comparisons to The Dark Knight. It can’t compare to it, but it shouldn't be judged by it. On its own, and as part of the trilogy, it is a fantastic film. If you’re a Batman fan and you haven’t seen it then there is something wrong with you. Obviously if you have no interest in comic book films then don’t watch it, but if you’re thinking about it, or wanting to watch it, you must see it. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Memento

Memento is one of Christopher Nolan’s earlier films, and it is without a doubt one of his best. It follows a man who is trying to find the man who raped and murdered his wife, but he has amnesia. This in itself doesn't sound like much of a plot, but the whole film is presented in reverse. Scene-by-scene happens in reverse order and it is up to the audience to piece together what is going on. When the climax of the film comes, it is phenomenal if you've managed to keep up with the movie.

By presenting each scene in reverse, Nolan makes sure that he keeps your attention throughout the film. Memento keeps you thinking after you've finished watching, and once you put everything together your perception of nearly every main character changes. For example, Natalie starts the film as trying to help Leonard but becomes more and more frustrated with him, and develops into a spiteful person. However, chronologically, she starts off very hostile towards him but develops more sympathy and understanding. Also, in film terms, Leonard is a man getting closer and closer to the main who killed his wife, but is shown to be more and more damaged chronologically speaking.

Guy Pearce stars as Leonard Shelby, the man with amnesia who is trying to find his wife’s killer. For me, he is fantastic in this film, and his character has a sort of speech which he delivers every time he sees a new person. Because he can’t remember if he’s met them before he has to deliver this speech explaining what’s wrong with him. Guy Pearce manages perfectly to make the audience believe in his character, and his intonation when he is giving the speech to every person doesn't change one bit. Also, his character is as believable at the beginning of the film as it is at the end, which is a testament to Pearce’s ability to develop his performances.

Carrie-Anne Moss appears as Natalie, and it’s quite difficult to describe her character. She starts (or ends) the film as Leonard’s friend, but ends (or starts) as the girlfriend of the man that Leonard killed. Obviously this makes her very hostile, but as she experiences him more, Moss does a very good job of showing how sympathetic she has become to him. When she agrees to help him find the man who killed his wife the audience doesn't think anything of it, but when you piece together the different scenes this comes across as an act of kindness towards the man who killed her boyfriend. Her ability to develop from friend to hostility, and to play hostility with such intense cruelty is marvellous.

Joe Pantoliano is Leonard’s friend Teddy. His character is perhaps the most complex in the movie, as he seems to be a friend, but as the movie goes on the audience discovers that he is a (dodgy) cop who is trying to get Leonard out of town before he hurts more people, or gets himself killed. Sadly Leonard’s twisted behaviour coupled with his amnesia result in Teddy being killed at the beginning of the film. I think Pantoliano does very well in Memento, but the real plaudits have to go to Christopher Nolan. Throughout the film, the audience isn't sure whether or not to trust or believe in Teddy, and I went through a progression of dislike to sympathy with his character. Nolan’s ability to make the audience do this is incredible, and should have won an Academy Award for his direction in this film.

As it goes, Memento was (wrongly) not nominated for a single Academy Award. It was beaten to the nominations by a number of (in my opinion) lesser films. Another plaudit going Memento’s way is the response from scientists to its release. Usually when there’s a film dealing with a psychological issue, many people are quick to point out exactly where the film has gone wrong in portraying the disorder. However, Memento has only received positive responses from many psychologists, and this too is a testament to Christopher Nolan’s fantastic commitment to the accuracy of his films.

Memento is an absolute classic in my opinion. It is the kind of film that can appeal to everyone. If you like films about medical conditions, or if you like mystery, or if you like thrillers then Memento should be on your watchlist. It’s frequent listing as one of the ‘films to see before you die’ underlines this. However, if nothing else, watch it for the end. When everything pieces together and the jigsaw is complete, you mind will be blown. And if that doesn't get you watching it, nothing will. 

Raging Bull

Raging Bull is widely lauded as Martin Scorsese’s masterpiece, but it’s also the kind of film that people disagree on. It’s about the boxer Jake La Motto, who has a dazzling career ahead of him, but his personal issues, such as his anger and his love of food, ruin his family life and then his career. He ends up washed up and overweight performing jokes to a crowd who are not laughing, estranged from his wife, children and brother.

I thought it was a very good film, and enjoyed it greatly, but equally I could see how people would find it boring and dull. There’s not much that actually happens, and the film moves at a very slow pace. The fight scenes have been criticised as being unrealistic, but I think they are meant to be more artistic, and should be interpreted as Jake La Motto looking back on his fights. Nevertheless, love it or hate it, you have to sit back and admire Martin Scorsese’s direction once again. For me, he is the greatest director of his time. His choice to produce Raging Bull as a black and white film increases the artistic feel to the film, and I felt much more connected with the memory of the protagonist for it. But this may just be me.

Robert de Niro, working with Scorsese for the fourth time in his career, is absolutely masterful in this film. Not only does he manage to play a lead character who is totally and utterly dislikable, but he does it perfectly. He has played bad guys before, and he has played guys who should be dislikable, such as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, but in Raging Bull his character doesn't even has a drive or a motive to make the audience empathise with him. Personally, I didn't even pity his character at the end of the film when his wife leaves him and he becomes a washed up failed sportsman. Raging Bull is also a dedication to how much de Niro likes to throw himself into every role he plays. There are some impressive stories of him doing this, but for Raging Bull he gained 60 pounds of weight to play Jake in his older days. 60 pounds! That’s just over four stone. He captures every single aspect of his character, from the ambitious boxer to the man who hits his wife, begs her back and then does it again. In my opinion, Robert de Niro is the greatest actor, not just of his time, but of all time.

Joe Pesci stars in Raging Bull, making his first appearance on a Scorsese movie, and performing admirably as Jake’s brother and manager. His patience with his brother is admirable, and the audience really begins to sympathise with him when Jake starts to throw his life away. However, there is a sense of ‘something coming’ throughout the movie, and when Jake begins to get paranoid about his wife, he attacks his brother, believing him to have slept with her. This leads to a period where they don’t talk, and the scene where they are eventually reunited is one of my favourites. Jake tries to make amends with his brother, and Joe Pesci delightfully portrays a character who is so sick of his brother’s ways that he just doesn't care. On the basis of this film it is not hard to see why Scorsese wanted to work with Pesci again: he is simply excellent.

Cathy Moriarty plays Jake’s wife Vikki. She starts the film as being beautiful and desirable. However, mainly due to Scorsese’s direction, she becomes more and more ruined by having Jake in her life. When he hits her for the first time, Moriarty’s response is perfect. Instead of leaving him like the perfect wife would in Hollywood, she does what is most common in cases of domestic abuse, and believes it is a one-off event. Now I don’t want to get onto domestic violence because it is too sensitive an issue for my humble blog, but when she eventually does leave him, and takes her children with her, I found myself delighted, and feeling that Jake deserves everything he gets.

People have lauded Raging Bull as the best sports movie ever made. Now this is a claim I disagree with. I think that the movie is not a sports film. Undeniably it focuses on the life and career of a boxer, but for me the movie is more about his life and his character than it is about the sports. For an out-and-out sports movie, Rocky would be my first choice, just because it focuses more on the sport and less on his character.

At the start of the film, Jake is surrounded by people who all adore this future boxing star. However throughout the film, one by one these people leave him and by the end of the film, he is standing alone in his dressing room reciting lines for his show that few turn up to. Raging Bull is an absolute classic. Many people disagree on whether it is brilliant or boring, but I think that you should see it for yourself and making your own mind up. Personally, I loved it, and I consider it to be one of those films that you just have to see.

The Departed

Once again I find myself writing about a film I've been dying to see for ages and finally have. With an all star cast, a fantastic director and great reviews from nearly everyone I know who has seen it, Academy Award winning film The Departed promised to be a very well spent two and a half hours. And it didn't disappoint.

While it was quite hard to follow at times, the plot was fantastic. It was full of little twists and turns that made for a brilliant anticipation of the climax at the end. With Leonardo di Caprio working his way closer to finding out who the mole in the police was, and Matt Damon working his way closer to finding out who the mole in Frank Costello's crew was, the realisation of the identity of the two traitors was brilliant. The way they solved it was equally exciting, and just when you thought that everything was going to work out, something happened to throw that into doubt.

The cast of this film is incredible. Jack Nicholson is always fantastic, and I don't think I've ever not enjoyed watching him act. As the leader of the gang in this film he came across as an extremely powerful and dangerous man (which I guess was the point), but there were hints of his performance as The Joker as well. He came across as slightly unhinged at one point, but generally exuded the power of a man who will smash another man's cast and broken hand repeatedly just to make sure he's not a policeman.

Leonardo di Caprio is very strong once again. Although he was a policeman of sorts for the whole film, his integration into Costello's gang meant that he came across as a bad guy, and this was refreshing because I don't think I've ever seen him as a bad guy. Nevertheless he was very good and was perfectly cast in this role in my opinion. His ability to flick between 'member of the gang' and 'convincing undercover cop' was good to see and the whole resulting scenes from his discovery of the police mole were thrilling.

These scenes would not have been complete without Matt Damon. One reason that the film is so thrilling is because right from the start the audience knows that Matt Damon and Leonardo di Caprio are the two traitors, and so you find yourself willing them both to discover the other, and urging them to pick up on clues, and admiring the irony of the police putting Matt Damon in charge of the hunt for the police mole. Generally I can't make up my mind on what I think about Matt Damon as an actor, but with The Departed I think I may have found a starting point for my appreciation of him. His role in the conclusion is thrilling, as I mentioned before, and he plays his part to perfection.

Now those three names: Nicholson, di Caprio and Damon, aren't bad names to have as the first billed actors on any film. The amazing thing about The Departed though is that they're not the only stars. Mark Wahlberg is brilliant as the wronged police officer who seeks his vengeance on the man who replaced him. Martin Sheen is the initial chief of the police who gets a bit too close to one of his moles. The appearances of Alec Baldwin, Ray Winstone and Vera Farmiga were delightful, and the roles that each of them played helped make this film that little bit more memorable. Obviously Ray Winstone was a non nonsense enforcer with a bit of an accent and taste for violence as ever, but in The Departed this works so well with the rest of the storyline that it fits perfectly.

Martin Scorsese is a genius. He has directed far too many of my favourite films for me not to absolutely love him, and with The Departed he does not disappoint. One thing I noticed was that several characters who die in the film is warned of this with a little 'X' in the shot before they die. This little tip of the cap to the 1932 'Scarface' is fantastically applied in The Departed, and with so many people dying, this helps the audience keep up, but only if they notice it. This is widely considered by film critics to be Scorsese's finest work since Goodfellas. While I cannot argue that it is a fantastic film, there are others that I prefer more. However, anyone who likes a Scorsese film has to see The Departed.

The Departed is a action-packed thrill ride of guns, blood, twists, turns and terrific actors. Yes it's difficult to follow at times. Yes it's quite heavy to watch. Yes you should see it though. It won 'Best Picture' for a reason, and what that reason is does not take much working out. It's simply fantastic and I would strongly recommend giving it a watch.

Inglorious Basterds

Inglorious Basterds is another film from the imagination of Quentin Tarantino. The combination of humour, blood and storyline (all trademark Tarantino) combine to produce what I consider to be a classic Tarantino film which is unmissable for any film fan.

The film follows a group of Jewish soldiers who kill Nazis, who meet up with a German film star in a plot to kill a number of high ranking Nazis at the premier of a German propaganda film. The owner of the cinema has the same idea, and driven by the murder of her family by the Nazis, plots to burn down her cinema. What none of them know though is that Hitler himself will be at the premier.

The Basterds, as the group of Jewish soldiers are known, often ambush Nazi soldiers, and deliver their scalps to their leader in ‘payment’. This provides the majority of the signature blood in the film, and by Tarantino’s standards it’s quite a tame film. Compared to the recent Django Unchained, or the Kill Bill films, there is a lot less blood. The story is told masterfully, and as usual, it all comes together to produce a fantastic finale. With some hilarious characters, some serious and some sinister ones, Inglorious Basterds is very enjoyable.

Brad Pitt stars as the leader of the Basterds, and his trademark of cutting a swastika into the heads of the Nazis that survive his ambushes provides the last laugh at the end of the film. His acting is fantastic, and the accent that he puts on throughout the movie absolutely completes the character he plays. The scene where he is masquerading as an Italian had me in stitches.

Throughout the film Brad Pitt is a source of humour, but he does have a serious side to his character, and this is refreshing to see. Also, the characters of Donny Donowitz (the Bear Jew) and Hugo Stiglitz add a level of violence to the group which perfectly reflects their ferocity, as well as producing that little bit of humour that Tarantino seems to revel in.

The most sinister character in the film is undoubtedly Colonel Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz magnificently pulls off the changeable nature of the character he is portraying. I found myself a little bit apprehensive about what Landa’s reaction was going to be in many different situations, and this is a reflection on how good Waltz is. Landa is the kind of man who just looks out for himself, and is also a source of amusement at times. However, he is at his most sinister in the beginning. When the young Jewish girl escapes the mass murder and runs across the field, Landa draws and aims his gun. I found myself thinking he was genuinely going to shoot her from such range, and this is both brilliant acting and fantastic direction. Having since seen Django Unchained, I began to realise how incredible Waltz is as an actor, and upon a tip from a friend, I’m going to endeavour to see more of his films.

There are a number of other big names in Inglorious Basterds, such as Michael Fassbender, who plays the British lieutenant initially charged with meeting the German film star for the attack on the premier. For me he does very well in this role, and the scene where he is conversing with the German soldier in the bar is very tense. His stereotypical British character is also quite amusing and I was disappointed that his character was killed off when he did because I was enjoying seeing him in the film. Similarly, Diane Kruger was a joy to watch as the German film star Bridget von Hammersmark, and in my opinion she was flawless in this role. Another surprise appearance was Mike Myers, who popped up as the British General and added a little more classic Tarantino humour to the movie.

As a quick note to previous Tarantino viewers looking out for the roles of Samuel L. Jackson and Tarantino himself in this film, they both make an appearance of sorts. Samuel L Jackson provides the voice narrating the film, and although there is very little narration, it is unmistakably him. We see Tarantino's hands in Inglorious Basterds, around the throat of Diane Kruger, because apparently, he wanted to make the strangulation as realistic as possible. A little bit weird if you ask me...

If you like the movies of Quentin Tarantino then Inglorious Basterds is definitely a film that you should be watching. If you’re interested in the Second World War then you should watch it, but don’t be expecting a ‘true story’ film. It’s a funny, bloody and brilliant film which isn't as complex as his other movies, but is every little bit as enjoyable.