28 Days Later… (2002)

Directed by: Danny Boyle (director of Trainspotting, Sunshine, 127 Hours and Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire, all quality films)

Written by: Alex Garland (who would later write Sunshine and the screenplay for Dredd 3D)

Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, Megan Burns and Christopher Eccleston

What it’s about: pretty much a zombie flick, though the zombies aren’t really “zombies”, just infected with the “Rage virus”.

B-Movie Alternate Title: Zombieland UK (hey, sometimes these don’t really work)

Movie Mash Up: (Zombieland – all humour) + oh I dunno, just about any George A. Romero zombie flick

What I liked: for the most part I liked the style of the film, really capturing the deserted world that Jim (Murphy) wakes up into.  There are some of the typical emotional “someone we knew got infected and now has to die” zombie tropes, which were handled well.  Most of the ending sequence in the rain is gorgeously shot.  Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson and Christopher Eccleston give good performances.

What I disliked: how absolutely terrible the film looks aside from the previously mentioned sequence.  I think my DVD version is the first printing, and I know that the film was mostly shot digitally, but there was apparently no effort to clean it up for home release, or it looked that bad to begin with.  I’d have to see a Blu-Ray version to fully make that determination, but it doesn’t look good.  And it doesn’t age well.  It’s a decent enough zombie flick, but since so many other films have popped up in the genre and done it SO MUCH better, it loses a lot of lustre.

Would I recommend it to everyone?: Nah.  As I said, it’s decent enough, but the greatness is few and far between.  If you’re a zombie film fan, then yes, by all means, go for it.

Rating: 3 / 5

TRON: Legacy (2010)

When I heard that they were making a sequel to TRON, I had mixed feelings about it.  At that time I still held TRON in high regard (as yesterday’s review stated, it doesn’t age as well as I wish it did), and it was nearly three decades after it was released, and blah blah blah Hollywood doesn’t have original ideas anymore, etc.  Yes, there was a potentially huge cult fanbase that would blindly embrace anything TRON-related, but could it be great or even as good as the first one?

In my opinion, yes.  A 2010 TRON movie would easily be on par with the 1982 version’s technical achievements, and with an elderly Jeff Bridges comfortable with his real life Zen persona being shown onscreen, well certainly the acting would be much better.  The set pieces would be guaranteed to be far more epic and action-packed, and with the nostalgia factor, for me the only way it would have been disappointing is if it had no heart or story.

Thankfully, it’s a decent enough tale, though not nearly as action-packed as I’m sure modern audiences would have wanted.  Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) ends up following in his father, Kevin Flynn’s (Jeff Bridges) digital footprints by being transported onto The Grid in much the same manner, with Sam being forced to compete in The Games for the entertainment of the masses.  Turns out that Kevin’s creation, CLU (a digital Bridges), took over The Grid in order to create a perfect world, and Kevin had been living in hiding for 20 years or so.  With the help of Kevin’s apprentice, Quorra (Olivia Wilde), Sam attempts to get back to the real world with his father.

If you go in expecting some sort of Matrix-style movie, you don’t know much about the original TRON.  It’s far more Zen than that.  Legacy doesn’t really speed along at points, being much more comfortable in methodically going about its business.  My biggest issue with the film is related to some of the technical effects, with the younger Kevin Flynn/CLU portrayed in such an unsettling, Uncanny Valley manner.  CGI artists just haven’t gotten the human mouth down to perfection yet.  I really enjoyed Legacy, to the point where I would put it above the original TRON simply because it is a more entertaining and enjoyable movie experience.  The first one was a trailblazer, sure, but not nearly as fun as this one.

3.5 / 5

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I don’t even know how to go about starting this review.  Having just watched it, I feel both emotionally and mentally exhausted while at the same time thrilled and ecstatic over what I’ve just borne witness to.  The Christopher Nolan Batman Trilogy is one of the greatest accomplishments in cinema history, not just for a comic book movie, because as I stated in my Avengers review, the Nolan Batman movies are above just being classified as comic book movies.  Despite attempting to avoid any and all spoilers for The Dark Knight Rises, I had read a Cracked article last year that had mentally prepared me for anything Nolan might have in store for us.  At least I thought it had.

When we last left Batman (Christian Bale) at the end of The Dark Knight, he had told Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) to lay the blame for Harvey Dent’s death at the hands of Batman, thus giving Dent a martyr-like status in the eyes of the citizens of Gotham City.  Between Dark Knight and this film, eight years have passed and Gordon has used The Dent Act to clean up Gotham with his police forces, as Batman retired to his secret identity of Bruce Wayne rather than be hunted.  Wayne has become a recluse, appearing to only communicate with his butler Alfred (Michael Caine) in regards to affairs of the outside world.  When an attractive cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) makes off with a Wayne family heirloom, something is awakened in Bruce and he begins to come alive again.  All the while, a cerebral and brutal villain by the name of Bane (Tom Hardy) concocts a plan to bring the city of Gotham to its knees.  Then there’s also Officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a hotheaded young man who comes to the attention of both Wayne and Gordon.

That’s as vague as I can get without giving away any surprises in the plot, but also identifying the major players.  As with many Nolan films, he brings back a lot of familiar faces in his casting, and just take a look at all the tags if you want to see identifiable names jump out at you.  A couple of them are minor spoilers, but not really surprises at all.  While I’m writing this review, I’m taking time to read the Wiki entry for Dark Knight Rises and it says numerous times that Nolan was unsure about coming back for a third film.  Nolan might just be a great actor himself, because there are certain aspects of the story that would suggest just the opposite: that Nolan had been planning the entire Trilogy from the very first film.

There are few movie trilogies that I have given perfect marks to all of the installments.  The Toy Story Trilogy is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and now even that is going to fall by the wayside since apparently Toy Story 4 has been announced to be in production.  The Batman Trilogy is exactly that.  Nolan won’t come back to make a fourth film, neither will Bale, neither will any of the principles.  Even the way Rises ends should not fill people with hope for that to happen.

Everything in Rises is excellent in my eyes.  From the casting, the acting, the set pieces, the direction, the writing (minus a couple little things that I won’t go into here, and may just be inconsequential in future re-watchings), the action, all breathtakingly great.  During the opening sequence I was legitimately catching my breath, wondering if my nerves could handle the end of this storied franchise.  The sheer menace that Bane brings with him is astonishingly well-executed, and Hardy doesn’t let the mask control his acting.  Hathaway is probably the best Catwoman/Selina Kyle ever, because she’s not used as just a vehicle for puns.  Bale and his familiar cast mates deliver exactly what they did in the first two films, sheer awesomeness.

Better film critics than me will write more detailed reviews than I did, because mine just seems to be what ultimately can only be construed as nothing more than a Thank You note to Christopher Nolan and the team he put together for these three films.

5 / 5

The Dark Knight (2008)

With The Dark Knight Rises releasing in less than two months, I figured the best way to get more hits would be to actually have a Dark Knight review up, and my old one went into far greater detail than a new one of mine would, so here it is:

The Dark Knight begins around six months after the events in Batman Begins, with Batman (Christian Bale) finally taking care of most of the criminal trash from Begins.  There’s a new District Attorney in town by the name of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and he’s being proclaimed as Gotham City’s white knight, bound and determined to clean up the police force and the streets.  The newest terror enveloping the city comes in the form of a killer clown, a rampaging murderous criminal that pisses off the established mafia as much as he terrifies the citizenry.  The Joker (Heath Ledger) has been waging a humanistic war on the morality of Batman’s vigilantism, while further plunging the city into a desperate state of decay.  Or I could just describe it as “Batman.  The Joker.  Two-Face.  It’s not Batman Forever.” and that should be enough to give even the most jaded fanboy a shiver of anticipation.

What director Christopher Nolan crafts in two and a half hours is, in a word, breathtaking.  He gives us amazing action sequences and thoughtful meditations on what makes a hero a hero.  Some of those meditations might actually be too thoughtful for the megaplex crowd, since most comic book blockbusters aren’t really known for being too cerebral.  As well, it’s not the most colourful of movies, and while I appreciate the dark look and tones of the film, it makes for some confusing and occasionally muddled fight scenes (thankfully viewing it on Blu-Ray cleans it all up).

Christian Bale continues to be able to deliver two separate and believable performances as both Batman and his secret identity, millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne.  Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over the part of Rachel Dawes that Katie Holmes previously portrayed, and well, it’s essentially a damsel-in-distress role, what with Rachel becoming the girlfriend of Harvey Dent and the transformation of Dent into Two-Face looming over the whole relationship.  I really hope no one is spoiled by the fact that Harvey Dent actually turns into Two-Face, and oh by the way, Aaron Eckhart deserves some high praise as well for the grey areas he put into his portrayal of Dent / Two-Face.  He’s transformed but he doesn’t suddenly become insane, just righteously pissed off.

Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox are two supporting players you never have to worry about and they performed admirably well, hitting all the right notes for their father figure character types.  Speaking of father figures, Gary Oldman is even more perfect as Jim Gordon than he was in Begins, and I don’t think enough things are being said about his performance since most of the audience only wants to see the freak show.

If you’re wondering whether or not the advance billing for Heath Ledger’s performance lives up to the product on the screen, well no matter how amazing you thought it may be, it will most likely surpass those levels.  Ledger’s fearless portrayal of the Clown Prince of Crime is one of the most nerve-twitching, eye-catching, depraved and darkly hilarious acting displays in recent memory.  The previous year had Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, and even Chigurh would be a little off-put by Ledger’s Joker.  There is little doubt in my mind that come next March, Heath Ledger will be awarded a posthumous Oscar for his part in The Dark Knight (and of course he was).

I’ve tried not to get myself all excited for movies these days, as too many disappointments have dampened many of my old fanboy tendencies.  The Dark Knight was the one exception, and I have to say that it lived up to the hype.  As an old school comic book fan and as a movie czar, I can appreciate it on both levels.  Christopher Nolan could spend the rest of his career making Batman movies and I doubt that I’d ever be disappointed by them.

5 / 5

In Time (2011)

I’m just going through a bizarre premise thing lately, what with The Big Year yesterday and today’s In Time watching.  Imagine a world where the only currency was time, and every time someone mentioned time could be misconstrued in different ways.  It’s like a nightmare re-visitation of the ice cold puns from Batman & Robin (still one of my most favourite reviews that I’ve written).  In this dystopian future, genetic alteration means you stop aging at 25 years old, but unless you’re “from time”, you’ve got to earn your “living” after that, literally.

Will Salas (pronounced “solace” and played by Justin Timberlake) is a street smart dude living day to day in the ghetto with his mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde).  When time comes to an end for Rachel, Will vows to take down the system, and thankfully some rich in years guy (Matt Bomer) decided he wanted to “time out” and gave Will all his hours and just typing this is exhausting for me.  It’s super high concept and supremely silly as well.

There’s a definite Robin Hood, or Bonnie and Clyde or even a Mickey and Mallory vibe to the movie, as Will kidnaps a different rich guy’s (Vincent Kartheiser) daughter named Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).  There’s a lot of manufactured suspense due to the countdown to your time running out clock on your arm conceit, but it’s mostly just silly.  There was one scene I truly enjoyed, and I did get lost in the movie for a bit, but I was also trying to figure out exactly how it would work.  I mean, I had more of a problem with this concept than I did with the currency in the “Fallout” games being bottle caps.  It wasn’t terrible in my books, at least not as terrible as Kurt Sutter thought it was and I thought Cillian Murphy was quite badass in it.

3 / 5