Let me begin this by saying that I think Christopher Nolan is the closest thing humanity has to a God. The man's directoral record speaks for its self. Very few directors ever manage to craft a masterpiece in their career. Christopher Nolan is 41 years old, has yet to make a bad film, and already has two masterpieces two his name. One was the best film of 2010 and one of the greatest films ever made, perhaps the greatest, Inception. And the other was The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises is the sequel to The Dark Knight, and the first full trailer for it was released quite recently. Here are my thoughts on it.
Short Version: MUST. SEE. NOW.
Long version
The trailer starts off on a decent enough note, young boy singing the american national anthem, setting the scene, kinda chilling, good so far, we get a nice shot of Bane, Michael Caine gives his customary monologue, more heartfelt than his previous ones, as he laments on his inability to protect Bruce Wayne. From what, we may ask? From The Joker? From the backlash of Gotham? From Bane? From himself? Questions abound. We also find out that Commissioner Gordan has fallen out of favour with the powers that be, and will be given the boot, as Gotham enjoys a period of peacetime. Anne Hathaway looks good as we get our first look at her portrayal of Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman. For me, the trailer has two real highlights, both coming one after the other. The first is a majestic set piece, showing the destruction of a football field, in what is one of the greatest shots I think I've ever seen, that I really can't do justice to with words, it needs to be seen. The other is the moment that I knew that Bane was going to be a great villain, which comes directly after. It features Bane, standing over Batman, who is unmasked by the way, looking down at him, and delivering his only line of dialogue from the trailer: "When Gotham is ashes... you have my permission to die". That was the moment when I felt that Bane was at least as intimidating as The Joker, if not more so. This is the hero of the story, seemingly beaten down by Bane, who then says "Only after I destroy everything you hold dear, after I obliterate everything you stand to protect, then, I will allow you to die". It's immensely powerful, and downright terrifying, as Bane asserts his dominance over the knight. And that I think is the most key difference between Bane and The Joker, Bane is dominant over Batman. The last clip at the end of the teaser trailer added to this as well, as we see Batman really on the backfoot, not afraid, but completely at a loss, his posture almost screaming out "I can't win here". That's what makes Bane more intimidating than The Joker in my view, while The Dark Knight centered around Batman trying to figure out how to stop The Joker, the two trailers seem to be hinting at Batman coming to grips with the fact that maybe he can't stop Bane.
The Dark Knight Rises is due for worldwide release in July 2012. Do. Not. Miss. It
20 December, 2011
16 December, 2011
"The Only Conversation Worth Having"
Today, the 15th of December, 2011, the world has lost the greatest writer and speaker of our time: Christopher Hitchens. In my opinion, Christopher Hitchens embodied everything that was good about humanity. He valued reason above all else, he fought against immorality and irrationallity, and was intellectually untouchable. He changed my life, and many others. I could never write anything that could do justice to Christopher Hitchens, so allow me to just quote what I believe are his most beautiful words. Goodbye Christopher. Your body and consciousness may be gone. But the lessons that I learned from you shall never be forgotten. Thank you.
I’ll close on the implied question that Bill asked me earlier: Why don’t you accept this wonderful offer? Why wouldn’t you like to meet Shakespeare, for example?
I don’t know if you really think that when you die you can be corporeally reassembled, and have conversations with authors from previous epochs. It’s not necessary that you believe that in Christian theology, and I have to say that it sounds like a complete fairy tale to me. The only reason I’d want to meet Shakespeare, or might even want to, is because I can meet him, any time, because he is immortal in the works he’s left behind. If you’ve read those, meeting the author would almost certainly be a disappointment.
But when Socrates was sentenced to death for his philosophical investigations, and for blasphemy for challenging the gods of the city — and he accepted his death — he did say, well, if we are lucky, perhaps I’ll be able to hold conversation with other great thinkers and philosophers and doubters too. In other words the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on.
Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that’s the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don’t know. But I do know that that’s the conversation I want to have while I’m still alive. Which means that to me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet; that I haven’t understood enough; that I can’t know enough; that I’m always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
And I’d urge you to look at… those people who tell you, at your age, that you’re dead till you believe as they do — what a terrible thing to be telling to children! And that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority — don’t think of that as a gift. Think of it as a poisoned chalice. Push it aside however tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.
14 December, 2011
Hugo Review
Hugo Review
This review will contain spoilers, including a film changing plot twist. You have been warned
Hugo, formerly The Invention of Hugo Cabret, is Martin Scorsese’s latest film and probably his most unique. A film that couldn’t be perched further away on the spectrum from his previous efforts such as Goodfellas and The Departed, it tells the story of an orphan boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives inside the clock framework of a train station.
There he meets Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), who runs a small shop specialising in clockwork and his daughter Isabelle, (Chloe Moretz) all while fending off the closest thing the film has to antagonist, the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen).The first half of the film follows Hugo as he attempts to fix an “automaton”, it and his notebook being the only things of his late father's that he still possesses.
The film does a great job of developing the character of Hugo. It’s done at just the right pace, and doesn’t create a forced, but genuine feeling of sympathy for him. Eventually Hugo does manage to fix the automaton, but, blinded by naïve hope of a posthumous message from his father, falls into despair when the automaton stops it’s drawing, having only created a few unremarkable marks on the page. Asa Butterfield does a fine job as Hugo, for the most part, and this is one of his better scenes, making us feel every ounce of his despair, at his thoughts of a companion, his thoughts that maybe he might hear his father’s guidance once more, are shattered by the coldness of reality.
The automaton springs back into life however, and continues it’s scribbling, creating a picture with the name Georges Melies. Who Georges Melies is at this point is unknown. Hugo and Isabelle come across a picture in a book, describing the early history of film, of Isabelle’s adopted father, who is referred to in the book as Melies himself, and is said to have died during the first world war.
When confronted by the books author Rene Tabard, they inform him that Melies really is alive and well. Tabard is an aficionado of Melies, and possesses what is believed to be the only surviving copy of one of his films. Upon showing the film to him, Melies tells his story. A heartbreaking story at that, as he describes the euphoric heights of reaching one’s dream, before it is torn asunder by nothing more than the ever changing landscape of human taste.
Fortunately, we are treated to a happy ending, as Melies regains his fame and recognition, Hugo is taken in by Melies and his family, and all ends on a high note, uplifting, satisfying, and above all else, genuine.
Hugo is an excellent film, it’s visually beautiful to look at, the characters are well acted and engaging, and the film accomplishes comedy, tragedy and intensity with Panache. The film’s central theme of human purpose is well executed, thought provoking, emotionally engaging, and ties in well with the film's story.
All that said however, the dialogue does have one or two shaky moments, and Asa struggles with his emoting once or twice, but what really stops Hugo from being a great film is it’s second story. The first story arc of Hugo attempting to fix his fathers automaton is a simple story, well told. The second story arc is good as well, it has some of the films best moments, the theme of the human need for purpose is engaging on every level, and is expounded upon with an innocence that really makes it shine.
The trouble comes from the fact that it’s hard to stay invested in Hugo when the film really stops being about him. It becomes more of a story about Melies, told from Hugo’s perspective, and the film shifts from being an innocent mystery story to a celebration, for the love of cinema and for one of it’s founding fathers. It’s not that either story arc is inherently bad, it’s just that they really don’t belong in the same film.
Much more could have been done with both had they each had their own stage to shine on. Maybe a full on biopic of Melies wouldn’t really have worked, and maybe the innocent mystery of Hugo’s automaton wouldn’t have been quite strong enough to hold up by its self, but I feel that telling both stories in the same film, while executed about as well as it could have been, simply doesn’t work, which is a shame, because it really is the films only major flaw.
The films strongest scenes centre around Hugo’s emotions. For the most part, Hugo is softly spoken, and inward about his feelings, but occasionally, he breaks down, as all his anguish for the death of his father, his oppressive loneliness, and his desperate need for purpose in life, can be pent up no longer, and smash through the barriers holding it all back, in some truly heartfelt and emotionally gripping moments.
Hugo is a very good film, just falling short of greatness, but what it does well, it does extremely well. I can honestly say that it’s one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and I can't recommend it highly enough.
This review will contain spoilers, including a film changing plot twist. You have been warned
Hugo, formerly The Invention of Hugo Cabret, is Martin Scorsese’s latest film and probably his most unique. A film that couldn’t be perched further away on the spectrum from his previous efforts such as Goodfellas and The Departed, it tells the story of an orphan boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives inside the clock framework of a train station.
There he meets Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), who runs a small shop specialising in clockwork and his daughter Isabelle, (Chloe Moretz) all while fending off the closest thing the film has to antagonist, the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen).The first half of the film follows Hugo as he attempts to fix an “automaton”, it and his notebook being the only things of his late father's that he still possesses.
The film does a great job of developing the character of Hugo. It’s done at just the right pace, and doesn’t create a forced, but genuine feeling of sympathy for him. Eventually Hugo does manage to fix the automaton, but, blinded by naïve hope of a posthumous message from his father, falls into despair when the automaton stops it’s drawing, having only created a few unremarkable marks on the page. Asa Butterfield does a fine job as Hugo, for the most part, and this is one of his better scenes, making us feel every ounce of his despair, at his thoughts of a companion, his thoughts that maybe he might hear his father’s guidance once more, are shattered by the coldness of reality.
The automaton springs back into life however, and continues it’s scribbling, creating a picture with the name Georges Melies. Who Georges Melies is at this point is unknown. Hugo and Isabelle come across a picture in a book, describing the early history of film, of Isabelle’s adopted father, who is referred to in the book as Melies himself, and is said to have died during the first world war.
When confronted by the books author Rene Tabard, they inform him that Melies really is alive and well. Tabard is an aficionado of Melies, and possesses what is believed to be the only surviving copy of one of his films. Upon showing the film to him, Melies tells his story. A heartbreaking story at that, as he describes the euphoric heights of reaching one’s dream, before it is torn asunder by nothing more than the ever changing landscape of human taste.
Fortunately, we are treated to a happy ending, as Melies regains his fame and recognition, Hugo is taken in by Melies and his family, and all ends on a high note, uplifting, satisfying, and above all else, genuine.
Hugo is an excellent film, it’s visually beautiful to look at, the characters are well acted and engaging, and the film accomplishes comedy, tragedy and intensity with Panache. The film’s central theme of human purpose is well executed, thought provoking, emotionally engaging, and ties in well with the film's story.
All that said however, the dialogue does have one or two shaky moments, and Asa struggles with his emoting once or twice, but what really stops Hugo from being a great film is it’s second story. The first story arc of Hugo attempting to fix his fathers automaton is a simple story, well told. The second story arc is good as well, it has some of the films best moments, the theme of the human need for purpose is engaging on every level, and is expounded upon with an innocence that really makes it shine.
The trouble comes from the fact that it’s hard to stay invested in Hugo when the film really stops being about him. It becomes more of a story about Melies, told from Hugo’s perspective, and the film shifts from being an innocent mystery story to a celebration, for the love of cinema and for one of it’s founding fathers. It’s not that either story arc is inherently bad, it’s just that they really don’t belong in the same film.
Much more could have been done with both had they each had their own stage to shine on. Maybe a full on biopic of Melies wouldn’t really have worked, and maybe the innocent mystery of Hugo’s automaton wouldn’t have been quite strong enough to hold up by its self, but I feel that telling both stories in the same film, while executed about as well as it could have been, simply doesn’t work, which is a shame, because it really is the films only major flaw.
The films strongest scenes centre around Hugo’s emotions. For the most part, Hugo is softly spoken, and inward about his feelings, but occasionally, he breaks down, as all his anguish for the death of his father, his oppressive loneliness, and his desperate need for purpose in life, can be pent up no longer, and smash through the barriers holding it all back, in some truly heartfelt and emotionally gripping moments.
Hugo is a very good film, just falling short of greatness, but what it does well, it does extremely well. I can honestly say that it’s one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and I can't recommend it highly enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)