Bronson

It is quite difficult to review Bronson, for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it is a very weird film. It’s very ‘artsy’ and suffers in many people’s eyes as a result of this. The second reason that it is quite difficult to review is because it is hard to not draw strong comparisons with ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and view it in the light of that.

The film tells the story of Charles Bronson, Britain’s most violent criminal, and stars Tom Hardy as the lead character. The film is basically set with Bronson telling his story to a room full of people, in a series of scenes which are vividly parallel to A Clockwork Orange. It tells how Bronson came to become imprisoned for seven years, and how he has not left prison in the thirty-odd years to follow. It’s an interesting film, but it’s not really the informative piece I was expecting.

Tom Hardy is absolutely fantastic as Charles Bronson though, and conveys every aspect of his personality expertly. Not knowing that much about Charles Bronson to begin with, I think it would be unfair of me to cast aspersions on his character (he is in prison for repeated violence etc so I think the damage as already been done). However, Tom Hardy is slightly terrifying when he changes mood so rapidly. For example, in one scene he goes from the sinister inmate who is threatening an officer to the man having an awkward chat, and then flips out when the officer sits in the wrong place. He is marvellously talented when it comes to playing the sinister characters in cinema (Bane is just one example), and his performance in Bronson should have earned him more critics than it did.

Hardy’s performance is let down slightly by the fact that the film is definitely not for everyone. I decided to watch it because it looked like a gripping film about a violent prisoner, and I thought it would tell me more about Bronson. While it did tell me a little bit about his history, Wikipedia told me much more. The film seems to focus much more on the ‘alternative’ and arty aspects of cinematography. There is no denying that this is impressive, and the scenes in which Hardy is talking directly to the ‘theatre’ are quite strange. The audience gets the feeling that Bronson is talking almost directly to them, rather than speaking to a crowd, and this is quite intimidating. I particularly like the scene where Bronson is explaining his parole hearing. His swapping between the two characters he is re-telling is both brilliant and reflective of the insanity of the character at hand.

Nicholas Winding Refn does a great job of directing Bronson. It is definitely one of the more ‘arty’ films that I have seen, and the focus on Bronson’s artwork towards the end of the film is very thought provoking. He strips naked, ties his instructor up and paints on him, saying that he reflects himself in what he has done. This is followed by a large scale fight with the prison officers. This is a continuous theme of the movie, and Bronson is often seen to be fighting with the authorities. These scenes are wonderfully directed, and Tom Hardy really throws himself into these fights. If nothing else, his facial expressions reflect the disdain and hatred that Bronson has for the authorities.

I thought it would be difficult to write about Bronson before I started, and I’m finding it increasingly difficult now. The problem I have with it though is that I just don’t get a lot of it. It’s a good film, yes, but a lot of the art direction is very subjective, and in my opinion it spoils what could be a magnificent film. This is the main problem that Bronson will face as a movie I think. Maybe it would be a very popular film if it focused on Bronson’s life more, but I think the art nature will not appeal to many. At times it comes across as very pretentious, and while this may reflect something or other, this isn't very apparent to the audience. When I watch a film, I don’t want to finish watching it and need to have an in-depth think about what this aspect meant. Bronson made me do this, and this sort of spoiled the impact the film had on me.

Bronson is definitely not one for everyone. It will not really appeal to those who don’t know who Charles Bronson is, and might not appeal to those who are ‘just curious’. If you are reading this and wondering whether you might like to watch it, I would suggest you give it a go, but be warned because it is quite strange. 

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.