When you have a certain genre of film that's packed with cliches, it's hard for a film in that genre to truely stand out as a classic, in this case, sports films, and in this case; David O Russel's 'The Fighter', does it's best to stand out, not only as a great boxing film, but as one of the premier films of the year. With powerful drama, suspense, acting, characters and well shot sequences, The Fighter is a film worthy of the many award nominations (and deserved wins) it had. So, for the sake of cliche...(sigh) Lets get ready to Rumble!
This true story follows up and commer boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward, a fighter who has potential, but by hook or crook, is held back by his family, including shovanistic (if that's the spelling), crack addict brother Dicky and controling mother Alice. With a dynamic like this, we are far more interested by what goes on outside the ring than what goes on inside. The fact that Micky is living in his brothers spotlight (Dicky was an ex-boxer who knocked down sugar Ray Leanard), that Alice clearly favours Dicky over Micky, how even the mildest act of breaking away by Micky is met with uproar from his family, how Dicky's addiction impairs his ability to help his brother when it counts, all these elements make us invested in the story and characters. Micky is so held back and overcomes so many obstacles, that when he wins in the end, you're feeling his jubilation and you're given the feel-good ending you need after all the turbulance. This is a story that'll have you hooked and rooting for the protagonist as all films should.
Now the matter of this being 'just another boxing film'. True there are the cliches of the hero overcomming all odds to achive his dreams, just liks the Rocky films. And there is complaint that even in the modern era, it doesn't hold the sense of cynicism that the great 'Raging Bull' held. But there's something to counteract the arguements of the nay Sayers. Unlike Rocky, this is a true story, all these so called cliches actually happened, so why take them out? And this isn't just any other feel good sports film, there's a grittyness to it, as is conveyed by the stagnant environment of Lowell, Massachusetts, a bleak setting with dull colouring all around. And the character of Dicky provides plenty of darkness, with his addiction digging him into a pit of hopelessness, having to steal his brothers spotlight to feel great again. Don't think of this as just another sports movie, it's way better (excluding Raging Bull)!
Director O Russell provides good direction (redundant!). The fight scenes are well shot, building suspense, putting the viewer in the midst of the battle, experiencing every punch, knockdown...well that's it. The fight scenes were shot using the same cameras HBO used to film Wards fights, creating a stylish realism of a 1990s boxing match. Scenes such as Dicky reanacting his Knock down of Sugar Ray, in a crackhouse, is filmed perfectly, slow motion used at the right moments to capture either the majesty or the brutality of the moment. This is truely O Russells finest work.
Sure there's drama, realism and direction, but the most praised thing in this movie is the acting. I know it's the obvious but I feel it must be mentioned in a 'Fighter' review, Christian Bale gives the best performance of his career, as Dicky. With a weasely Boston Accent, complete with punch drunk twang, there's also the constant spectacle, which is what the character of dicky is, a walking spectacle, Bale unleashes a blitzkrieg of smarmyness, brovado, sorrow, self pity and final jubilation all in one film, Bale is one of the few Oscar wins that truely deserved it. Mark Wahlberg as Micky is the lead, but is often discarded in the praise, which If any thing is good, it matches his character, while Bale gives the full force performance, soaking up the attention, it's Wahlberg who's restrained, conveying a man who just can't find it in him to stand up to his family. Amy Adams as Charlene, Micky's girlfriend, gives a decent performance, you feel she wants what's best for her man and you'd believe she could anyone the courage to make it to the top. Mellisa Leo as Alice is another great performance, you sense the love she has for her children, yet also her egotism and manipulation. As far as acting goes, you can't go wrong with this film, it's probably the most right acting you'll find.
In conclusion, 'The Fighter' is probably the 2nd greatest boxing movie ever (it ain't no Raging Bull), with everything you could want from a film, story, acting, direction...in the end it's a 5 star classic worthy of any praise it gets. If you'll remember this movie for anything, it'll be Bale's awesome performance, but don't let that be your only reason for watching.
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Sunday, 11 September 2011
The Middle Of The Road
There's a certain protocall for certain superstars in a certain position in the WWE roster, this protocall has been consistant for the past 15 years. Superstars who have proven themselves to have a glimmer of abillity but are seen as not ready for the main event are given the role of being a mid-card champion, I.e intercontinental or united states champion. There's been a question lately on the importance of these titles, what significance they hold to the WWE roster today and what can be done to make them a bigger deal, all of which shall be explored, because I can't think of anything else to write about.
First of all let's look at what the mid-card titles mean in recent times. Back in the raging 80s, the IC title was seen as something prestigious, a title that winning on it's own was seen as a big deal. Legends such as Honkeytonk Man and Rick Rude were happy enough to be considered IC champion, that the title alone was enough to consolidate their greatness. IC title matches were often the main event of the tv shows, lasting up to 20 minutes and if neccessary, were stipulation matches such as steel cage. Fast foreward to the 21st century, the title is viewed (and often conveyed by the announcers) as a stepping stone to greater things. This depricates a mid-card titles worth and the worth of matches for the title. If Dolph Ziggler is just U.S champ to enhance his career, then why does he feel the need to defend it valliantly? He could just forfit the title then try for the WWE title. This makes the title seem second rate (it is but that shouldn't be conveyed). It's as though no superstar would be happy just being the US or IC champ.
There's a somewhat simple way to combat this and bring the titles pristege up. For starters there's the champion himself, he needs to be portrayed as a great wrestler, someone who could push the world champ to the limit, if Cody Rhodes was given the treatment of say The Miz, then the audience would view him as a great wrestler and think that you must be truely great to become IC champion, making the title important. Also, there needs to be the view that the Ic/US title is important enough for a wrestler to just have. Cody Rhodes should state in a promo, that the IC title is such a great accomplishment for him and he could retire the next day knowing his career was great enough due to the title. When Randy Savage or Mr Perfect were IC champions, they always put over how great the title was, ad though they didn't need to be in the WWF title picture. Small details such as those can make people care about the mid-card title scenarios and matches.
In conclusion, it would be important to the new HHH regime to re-establish the prestige of the IC/US championships. This will elivate not only the wrestlers involved, but also the importance of the matches, people will be excited to know the outcome of the next US title match, creating an overall greater interest in the entire product. Granted, main event angles such as Punk/HHH and Cena/Del Rio should be pushed and promoted first, but that doesn't mean the US/IC title scenes can't be given the factors I've presented in this here blog. I doubt these changes will happen any day soon, but it'd be nice if they did.
First of all let's look at what the mid-card titles mean in recent times. Back in the raging 80s, the IC title was seen as something prestigious, a title that winning on it's own was seen as a big deal. Legends such as Honkeytonk Man and Rick Rude were happy enough to be considered IC champion, that the title alone was enough to consolidate their greatness. IC title matches were often the main event of the tv shows, lasting up to 20 minutes and if neccessary, were stipulation matches such as steel cage. Fast foreward to the 21st century, the title is viewed (and often conveyed by the announcers) as a stepping stone to greater things. This depricates a mid-card titles worth and the worth of matches for the title. If Dolph Ziggler is just U.S champ to enhance his career, then why does he feel the need to defend it valliantly? He could just forfit the title then try for the WWE title. This makes the title seem second rate (it is but that shouldn't be conveyed). It's as though no superstar would be happy just being the US or IC champ.
There's a somewhat simple way to combat this and bring the titles pristege up. For starters there's the champion himself, he needs to be portrayed as a great wrestler, someone who could push the world champ to the limit, if Cody Rhodes was given the treatment of say The Miz, then the audience would view him as a great wrestler and think that you must be truely great to become IC champion, making the title important. Also, there needs to be the view that the Ic/US title is important enough for a wrestler to just have. Cody Rhodes should state in a promo, that the IC title is such a great accomplishment for him and he could retire the next day knowing his career was great enough due to the title. When Randy Savage or Mr Perfect were IC champions, they always put over how great the title was, ad though they didn't need to be in the WWF title picture. Small details such as those can make people care about the mid-card title scenarios and matches.
In conclusion, it would be important to the new HHH regime to re-establish the prestige of the IC/US championships. This will elivate not only the wrestlers involved, but also the importance of the matches, people will be excited to know the outcome of the next US title match, creating an overall greater interest in the entire product. Granted, main event angles such as Punk/HHH and Cena/Del Rio should be pushed and promoted first, but that doesn't mean the US/IC title scenes can't be given the factors I've presented in this here blog. I doubt these changes will happen any day soon, but it'd be nice if they did.
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Five Fantastic Films
In this weeks blog, I'm gonna countdown the top 5 films of the year 2010. Granted, it would've been more appropriate if I'd have written this 8 or 9 months ago, but certain aspects such as me starting this blog a few months ago, or that I didn't see these films until they were out on DVD got in the way. 2010 was a fine year for film, with these 5 titles being a must own for any cinephile. So enjoy the list I've compiled and maybe it'll inspire you to check these out for yourself.
5. Kick Ass (Dir: Mathew Vaughn)
This was probably one of the most unique films of that year, the plot alone is cause for question. A teenage boy becomes an Internet celebrity after becoming a superhero, attracting the attention of a father/daughter superhero team and the mafia. This is a clever parody of the superhero genre that mixes ultra violence, black humour and sheer madness to create one of the most entertaining films of all time. Aaron Johnson supplies a great naivity and teen meekishness to the role of Kick Ass. Nic Cage Borders on both loving and insanely creepy as Big Daddy, his second most insane role of the year (read on!). But it's then 12 year old Chloe Moretz who steals the show as Hit Girl, uttering numerous obcenities and violently killing many bad guys, she's a mixture of badass and innocently lost in her fathers shceme for revenge. The many scenes that'll blow your mind include Hit Girl offing an entire room of gangsters with an array of knives, set to upbeat indie rock music is one of the reasons why this is a must see film.
4. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Dir: Edgar Wright)
Another film with a unique concept. This is a sureal comedy that portrays itself as a live action video game with a rom-com plot put into the fray. Slacker Scott Pilgrim has met the girl of his dreams (quite literally) but must defeat her 7 evil ex-boyfriends to be with her. The use of references to games such as Street Fighter, Tony Hawk or just about any arcade game is a delight. The fight scenes are well set up, they're portrayed with a sense of grandness that most action films are missing these days. But this is a comedy, and it's a pretty funny one at that, with great jokes, character traits and surealism to keep you laughing. But the true source of the films greatness is it's heart, you feel Scott, no matter how jerkish or lazy he is, due to the performance given by Michael Cera that adds a charm and vulnerability to the character that makes you feel the love he has for his other half. The humour appeals to the teen generation, along with the films characters and plotting, making it this generations Ferris Buller due to great jokes, likable characters that shouldn't be likable and a main character that you want to see win, no matter what a jerk he is.
3. Bad Lieutenant (Dir: Werner Herzog)
This is a completely different film from Abel Ferrera's 1992 film, and completely better. Nic Cage delivers one of his best performances as Terrence Mcdonagh, a cop in New Orleans, who after an injured back has to deal with numerous drug addictions (he takes more stuff than Amy Winehouse), a murder case with a runaway witness, gambling debts, vengeful gangsters and his alchoholic fathers dog. We see numerous problems pile up on the Lieutenant, most of which he got himself into, the audience is invested to see how he'll fix it all. Set against a decaying New Orleans backround, we see a great character in Mcdonagh, someone who's back injury has led him into drugs and the drugs leading him into other problems, a character truely trapped by his addiction, and one who'll break many rules along the way (note the scene where he searches a couple for drugs). Cage gives a performance that's a mixture of hopelessness and frantic energy. Director Herzog adds his own sense of madness to the film, with point of view shots from reptiles set to New Orleans jazz or a gun battle set to country fiddle music. In the end this Is one of the most engagingly corrupt cop movies you'll see, all down to Cage's character and performance.
2. The Social Network (Dir: David Fincher)
The true definition of modern drama, this film annalyses the rise of the worlds youngest billionare, facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. This is seemingly this generations Citizen Kane, due to it being a character study of a wealthy man, but for other reasons too. Just like Kane, Zuckerberg is portrayed as a man who as he gains more power, alienates his closest friends and at the end of the film, being truely alone. Whether this is an accurate depiction of Zuckerberg or not, it's an interesting character portrayal, the brilliant Harvard nerd who cares little about anything (reprocusions, girls, social life) but his main goal, to get his project off the ground. You'll be entertained and enthralled as Zuckerberg goes through the film and we see the process of his 2 court battles over the right to facebook, we see numerous betrayals by this character for the price of billions, it seems every double cross he does (from his ex to the twins that gave him the idea) has a purpose. For a truely great character study, watch this immediatly, you won't regret it.
1. Inception (Dir: Christopher Nolan)
Now I've covered alot about this film in a previous blog reviewing it. I'll renew some of the points I made by saying that it's the perfect mix of powerful drama, hard hitting action and a complex plot. The director/writer Nolan creates a world in which the concept of being able to go into other peoples dreams is believable and this creates the possibility of a complicated plot involving dreams within dreams, limbo and questioning your reality. It's a film that appeals to both casual action audiences and arthouse cinephiles. The performances by Decaprio and Hardy add to the film, along with incredible special effects (I.e revolving hallway fight scene). In short, it's a total package of a film that deserves to be top of the list.
5. Kick Ass (Dir: Mathew Vaughn)
This was probably one of the most unique films of that year, the plot alone is cause for question. A teenage boy becomes an Internet celebrity after becoming a superhero, attracting the attention of a father/daughter superhero team and the mafia. This is a clever parody of the superhero genre that mixes ultra violence, black humour and sheer madness to create one of the most entertaining films of all time. Aaron Johnson supplies a great naivity and teen meekishness to the role of Kick Ass. Nic Cage Borders on both loving and insanely creepy as Big Daddy, his second most insane role of the year (read on!). But it's then 12 year old Chloe Moretz who steals the show as Hit Girl, uttering numerous obcenities and violently killing many bad guys, she's a mixture of badass and innocently lost in her fathers shceme for revenge. The many scenes that'll blow your mind include Hit Girl offing an entire room of gangsters with an array of knives, set to upbeat indie rock music is one of the reasons why this is a must see film.
4. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Dir: Edgar Wright)
Another film with a unique concept. This is a sureal comedy that portrays itself as a live action video game with a rom-com plot put into the fray. Slacker Scott Pilgrim has met the girl of his dreams (quite literally) but must defeat her 7 evil ex-boyfriends to be with her. The use of references to games such as Street Fighter, Tony Hawk or just about any arcade game is a delight. The fight scenes are well set up, they're portrayed with a sense of grandness that most action films are missing these days. But this is a comedy, and it's a pretty funny one at that, with great jokes, character traits and surealism to keep you laughing. But the true source of the films greatness is it's heart, you feel Scott, no matter how jerkish or lazy he is, due to the performance given by Michael Cera that adds a charm and vulnerability to the character that makes you feel the love he has for his other half. The humour appeals to the teen generation, along with the films characters and plotting, making it this generations Ferris Buller due to great jokes, likable characters that shouldn't be likable and a main character that you want to see win, no matter what a jerk he is.
3. Bad Lieutenant (Dir: Werner Herzog)
This is a completely different film from Abel Ferrera's 1992 film, and completely better. Nic Cage delivers one of his best performances as Terrence Mcdonagh, a cop in New Orleans, who after an injured back has to deal with numerous drug addictions (he takes more stuff than Amy Winehouse), a murder case with a runaway witness, gambling debts, vengeful gangsters and his alchoholic fathers dog. We see numerous problems pile up on the Lieutenant, most of which he got himself into, the audience is invested to see how he'll fix it all. Set against a decaying New Orleans backround, we see a great character in Mcdonagh, someone who's back injury has led him into drugs and the drugs leading him into other problems, a character truely trapped by his addiction, and one who'll break many rules along the way (note the scene where he searches a couple for drugs). Cage gives a performance that's a mixture of hopelessness and frantic energy. Director Herzog adds his own sense of madness to the film, with point of view shots from reptiles set to New Orleans jazz or a gun battle set to country fiddle music. In the end this Is one of the most engagingly corrupt cop movies you'll see, all down to Cage's character and performance.
2. The Social Network (Dir: David Fincher)
The true definition of modern drama, this film annalyses the rise of the worlds youngest billionare, facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. This is seemingly this generations Citizen Kane, due to it being a character study of a wealthy man, but for other reasons too. Just like Kane, Zuckerberg is portrayed as a man who as he gains more power, alienates his closest friends and at the end of the film, being truely alone. Whether this is an accurate depiction of Zuckerberg or not, it's an interesting character portrayal, the brilliant Harvard nerd who cares little about anything (reprocusions, girls, social life) but his main goal, to get his project off the ground. You'll be entertained and enthralled as Zuckerberg goes through the film and we see the process of his 2 court battles over the right to facebook, we see numerous betrayals by this character for the price of billions, it seems every double cross he does (from his ex to the twins that gave him the idea) has a purpose. For a truely great character study, watch this immediatly, you won't regret it.
1. Inception (Dir: Christopher Nolan)
Now I've covered alot about this film in a previous blog reviewing it. I'll renew some of the points I made by saying that it's the perfect mix of powerful drama, hard hitting action and a complex plot. The director/writer Nolan creates a world in which the concept of being able to go into other peoples dreams is believable and this creates the possibility of a complicated plot involving dreams within dreams, limbo and questioning your reality. It's a film that appeals to both casual action audiences and arthouse cinephiles. The performances by Decaprio and Hardy add to the film, along with incredible special effects (I.e revolving hallway fight scene). In short, it's a total package of a film that deserves to be top of the list.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Old Vs New: JBL vs Del Rio
Here is another instalment of Old vs New, where I compare 2 different wrestlers from the past and present and see who comes across as the overall winner based on 5 factors. Here I compare John Bradshaw Layfield and Alberto Del Rio, these are men who share the similarities of having a gimmick of being arrogant millionares who have fancy transport to the ring. So who's better?the Mexican arristocrat or the Texan/New Yorker arristocrat? Let's find out.
IN RING ABILITY:
These 2 have slightly differing styles. Bradshaw displays brute power moves and brawling, but uses technical skills from time to time. Del Rio however, uses mostly technical moves, mixing in occasional high spots. In my view, niether man has had any outstanding, 10/10 matches in their respective careers, sure Del Rio's only been with WWE a year but he's had plenty of matches with big leagers due to his super push. Bradshaw's style in his later years was seen as sluggish and slow, but Del Rio often doesn't use many moves in his matches and can be seen as repetitive. It's a close call, but I'd award it to JBL due to a larger moveset.
Winner: JBL
MIC SKILLS:
Both men are seen as pretty good on the mic, both can portray their snobbish, holier than thou attitudes perfectly, with a hint of smarmyness underneath. Despite both mens verbal qualities, I think it's obvious who's gonna win. It may seem shallow, but Del Rio's accent often clouds his mic skills, whereas Bradshaw has near flawless announciation and can be easily understood. He's given many great promos during his heel run, especially the one where he goes off on the show he was fired from, unpatriotic fans and Sean Penn.
Winner: JBL
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
For these mens gimmicks of arrisocrats, they need to look the part. For Bradshaw it's easy, he just had to show up like it's another day at Wall Street or Fox News, his large White cowboy hat atop a nice suit gives the impression of J.R from Dallas straight away (who his persona was based on). Del Rio however, seems to outdo Bradshaw in the wardrope department, his suits are more colourful, yet the lack of tie gives Del Rio a more stylish feel, as though he's a sort of playboy. His tights are gold/White, which is not only grabs fans attention, but conveys his arristocrat gimmick. In terms of physique, Bradshaw is seen as flabby, with unflattering man boobs, whereas Del Rio has a great physique and his Latino backround adds to his looks. Due to pure swagger and muscles, Del Rio steals it.
Winner: Del Rio
PERSONAS:
Yes both men have similar personas, but with slight differences. Both men have won Wrestling Observers Gimmick of the year award, but let's see who's is better. Bradshaw is the typical millionare type yes, but there are other factors that add to his persona, such as his Wall Street, yuppie elements (which is what he is in real life), which plays on peoples hatred of corporate greed and it'll get good heat during a recession. Also, Bradshaw has the right-wing, conservative element, which can be rather unpopular in certain areas, this makes a great persona that Bradshaw doesn't have to try too hard to portray and can get good heat. Now Del Rio is the the millionare type, but only has the fact that he's Latino and a belief in destiny to add to it. Granted he adds some fun quirks to the persona, such as driving a different expensive car each week and his personal ring announcer; Ricardo Rodriguez (one of the best things WWE has invented), but in the end, JBL's other traits give him the victory.
Winner: JBL
CROWD REACTION:
It's a difficult one to call, but I'll try. JBL did envoke hatred from the many crowds he performed in, but whilst watching WWE recently, I've noticed that Del Rio gets pretty good hear as well. Also, Del Rio can be seen to have a larger fan base (just ask anyone on Twitter) especially amongst Latinos. Due to the opinions of smarks and IWC braggarts (i'm sounding like Bischoff), Del Rio is the more beloved of the 2 as they don't appreciate Bradshaws style of wrestling.
Winner: Del Rio
Overall Winner by 3-2: JBL
IN RING ABILITY:
These 2 have slightly differing styles. Bradshaw displays brute power moves and brawling, but uses technical skills from time to time. Del Rio however, uses mostly technical moves, mixing in occasional high spots. In my view, niether man has had any outstanding, 10/10 matches in their respective careers, sure Del Rio's only been with WWE a year but he's had plenty of matches with big leagers due to his super push. Bradshaw's style in his later years was seen as sluggish and slow, but Del Rio often doesn't use many moves in his matches and can be seen as repetitive. It's a close call, but I'd award it to JBL due to a larger moveset.
Winner: JBL
MIC SKILLS:
Both men are seen as pretty good on the mic, both can portray their snobbish, holier than thou attitudes perfectly, with a hint of smarmyness underneath. Despite both mens verbal qualities, I think it's obvious who's gonna win. It may seem shallow, but Del Rio's accent often clouds his mic skills, whereas Bradshaw has near flawless announciation and can be easily understood. He's given many great promos during his heel run, especially the one where he goes off on the show he was fired from, unpatriotic fans and Sean Penn.
Winner: JBL
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
For these mens gimmicks of arrisocrats, they need to look the part. For Bradshaw it's easy, he just had to show up like it's another day at Wall Street or Fox News, his large White cowboy hat atop a nice suit gives the impression of J.R from Dallas straight away (who his persona was based on). Del Rio however, seems to outdo Bradshaw in the wardrope department, his suits are more colourful, yet the lack of tie gives Del Rio a more stylish feel, as though he's a sort of playboy. His tights are gold/White, which is not only grabs fans attention, but conveys his arristocrat gimmick. In terms of physique, Bradshaw is seen as flabby, with unflattering man boobs, whereas Del Rio has a great physique and his Latino backround adds to his looks. Due to pure swagger and muscles, Del Rio steals it.
Winner: Del Rio
PERSONAS:
Yes both men have similar personas, but with slight differences. Both men have won Wrestling Observers Gimmick of the year award, but let's see who's is better. Bradshaw is the typical millionare type yes, but there are other factors that add to his persona, such as his Wall Street, yuppie elements (which is what he is in real life), which plays on peoples hatred of corporate greed and it'll get good heat during a recession. Also, Bradshaw has the right-wing, conservative element, which can be rather unpopular in certain areas, this makes a great persona that Bradshaw doesn't have to try too hard to portray and can get good heat. Now Del Rio is the the millionare type, but only has the fact that he's Latino and a belief in destiny to add to it. Granted he adds some fun quirks to the persona, such as driving a different expensive car each week and his personal ring announcer; Ricardo Rodriguez (one of the best things WWE has invented), but in the end, JBL's other traits give him the victory.
Winner: JBL
CROWD REACTION:
It's a difficult one to call, but I'll try. JBL did envoke hatred from the many crowds he performed in, but whilst watching WWE recently, I've noticed that Del Rio gets pretty good hear as well. Also, Del Rio can be seen to have a larger fan base (just ask anyone on Twitter) especially amongst Latinos. Due to the opinions of smarks and IWC braggarts (i'm sounding like Bischoff), Del Rio is the more beloved of the 2 as they don't appreciate Bradshaws style of wrestling.
Winner: Del Rio
Overall Winner by 3-2: JBL
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Rising To The Occasion
To detract from usual subject matter here at the PittStop, I'm going to annalyse certain aspects of what we know so far about the new Christopher Nolan Batman film in production; 'Dark Knight Rises' and try and see what we can expect from it when it's released in 2012. With so much hype soon to be surrounding this film, let's see what we can make of it.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Summertime (Diesel) Blues
After a lengthy absence, I'm here to review last nights Summerslam 2011, to be honest I was looking foreward to this event very much, with a double main event consisting of 3 tallented wrestlers (and Cena but can turn it up as seen last month) and 2 captivating storylines. Expectations were high, did the event live up to the hype? In my book it kinda did, the event left many satisfied and asking questions due to 2 big shockers in the main event (read on!). So sit back and read about the biggest party of the summer that wasn't held by Charlie Sheen.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Developing The Laughter
From late 2003 to early 2006 a humble little sitcom known as Arrested Development ran on tv, the show only ran for 3 series due to lacklusture ratings ('why are we appealing to this idiot demographic'). Despite this the show gained a cult following of loyal fans, praise from numerous critics and several Emmy award wins. This was due to the unique presentation and pedantic zannyness of the show, so let me tell you the story of a wealthy family, and the one son who had to keep them all together, it's Arrested Development.
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)