[This was originally going to be entered in a competition, hence the word count of 300. Sadly I missed the deadline by a day, due to stupidity.]
Hellboy was a bad film. It was loud, obnoxious, and stupid – basically it possessed all the characteristics of a summer blockbuster. This being said I went into Hellboy 2 with mixed expectations. The effects look very good, and the world looks fully crafted this time around. Sadly, this is where my praise comes to a halt.
The script is the centre of my concerns, it simply isn't consistent enough. A pun laden superhero film script, or a script with potent subtext and relevance in the real world would have been fine. Both of these have a place within the superhero genre (See The Dark Knight if you disagree with the latter point), however when they are combined; bad things happen.
The script genuinely tries to introduce deadly serious concepts like genocide, and the loss of innocence at various points in the film, however the film simply isn't brave enough to push these ideas to their full potential, and often reverts to obsessing over the intricacies of puns. Puns about genocide just aren't funny.
The acting in Hellboy 2 is as good as it possibly can be. Each of the actors show incredible talent when given the chance. Unfortunately the script is so laden with puns and spontaneous character development (the worst character for this is Krauss, who switches his viewpoint on Hellboy at the end of the film for no reason at all) that no amount of talent can fix it.
Ultimately Hellboy 2 is disappointing because it shows a wealth of acting and directorial talent, hampered only by the script, which shows potential but becomes loud, obnoxious, and stupid. I would say that Hellboy 2 is a good summer blockbuster, however there are far better films on offer at this point in time.
6/10
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Sunday, 24 August 2008
World of Warcraft Review
This review is going to be difficult for me. I always liked Blizzard and the Warcraft games; DotA is my favourite mod, and I listen to Basshunter (a little too much), and now I have to tear down one of the most acclaimed games to ever come from Blizzard. That's right; WoW is going down.
Now you may wonder if I can possibly bring anything new to the table. Well my answer is short and sweet: no, I can't, but your still going to read this. You see those of you who enjoy WoW will read this because you want someone to confirm that it is “TEH BEST GAME EVAR!!1!” and those of you who don't enjoy WoW just want to know that there are critics out there who agree with you. Basically you're looking for validation.
So basically I'm going to lay my phat reviewer beats (far, far too much Basshunter) down on this game and you're going to pay absolutely no attention and think whatever you want to. This is an exercise in futility. Understood?
WoW is an MMORPG and because of this its gameplay boils down to: go to a certain place, kill some stuff until your powerful enough to go to the next place, so you can kill some more stuff to get to the next place... you get the picture. I personally find this a mind-numbingly dull experience, especially when the fact that the player isn't rewarded with anything more than becoming a generic action hero at the end of the process is taken into consideration. I mean at least with Final Fantasy there is a plot (of sorts).
I suppose I could take all of this in stride if the other aspects of the game were any good, but they aren't. The graphics are awful, and believe me when I say that this is still a valid point because Blizzard are still updating the game frequently (more on this later). Everything looks like some form of cartoon mush – to the extent that I have difficulty telling what the difference between an Orc and a Dwarf is. I know this may seem like a minor thing when the game highlights enemies in giant red circles for all the world to see, but it's just shoddy art design – something which the Warcraft universe has never suffered from before-hand.
Sound is used in the game to appalling effect, with most battle sounds coming from the “generic sword strike” school of gaming, and all music sounding like Beethoven having a stroke. I suppose my main problem with this is that none of the sound effects help to draw me into the game, they pull me out of it and hit me in the ears for ever even thinking of being immersed in the game.
However the presentation isn't all awful, most of it is, but not all. There is admittedly a varied amount of scenery, most of which is distinctive and unique, which it has to be because of the game world's sheer size. Players do need to know where they are (looking at you Morrowind).
Speaking of players, has anyone but me noticed how annoying everyone in WoW is? For example, a simple walk through Goldshire (the human starting area) can result in about 5 duel requests from level 70s with nothing to do, followed by hours of flaming if you choose to decline. I mean come on, if you've got nothing to do but pick on lower level players for fun – turn off the game! Assuming you still know that WoW is a game.
I know that every MMO game has to have a certain number of creepy people who do nothing else playing it, but the amount of level 70's simply standing around in WoW is phenomenal! I suppose this is why I'm really getting at WoW, it is far too popular, and Blizzard will just not let it die. Patches are released every month or so (they often do nothing other than make the game more unbalanced), which leads me to believe that WoW isn't actually a finished project, or Blizzard are really good at milking the cash cow.
I know that WoW being popular shouldn't affect its score, but it does. The gameplay itself is only average at best, the graphics quite clearly aren't good enough, and the sound is truly awful at times – but WoW would still be passable if it wasn't for it's fan base. In truth the game should have died a couple of years ago. There are far better MMO's out there, to name one: EVE Online, which has more depth and strategy in its first 20 minutes than WoW does in all of the game.
Ultimately this review matters to no-one but me. Those of you who support the game will pick up on any of the positive things I've mentioned (or alternatively flame me to death), and those of you who hate WoW will pick up on the negative. Think whatever you want, one lousy critic doesn't matter right?
5/10 – WoW is average, yet horribly overated.
P.S. - To any annoyed WoW fans out there, please spam the following email address (bytesmedia@live.co.uk) and leave it at that.
Now you may wonder if I can possibly bring anything new to the table. Well my answer is short and sweet: no, I can't, but your still going to read this. You see those of you who enjoy WoW will read this because you want someone to confirm that it is “TEH BEST GAME EVAR!!1!” and those of you who don't enjoy WoW just want to know that there are critics out there who agree with you. Basically you're looking for validation.
So basically I'm going to lay my phat reviewer beats (far, far too much Basshunter) down on this game and you're going to pay absolutely no attention and think whatever you want to. This is an exercise in futility. Understood?
WoW is an MMORPG and because of this its gameplay boils down to: go to a certain place, kill some stuff until your powerful enough to go to the next place, so you can kill some more stuff to get to the next place... you get the picture. I personally find this a mind-numbingly dull experience, especially when the fact that the player isn't rewarded with anything more than becoming a generic action hero at the end of the process is taken into consideration. I mean at least with Final Fantasy there is a plot (of sorts).
I suppose I could take all of this in stride if the other aspects of the game were any good, but they aren't. The graphics are awful, and believe me when I say that this is still a valid point because Blizzard are still updating the game frequently (more on this later). Everything looks like some form of cartoon mush – to the extent that I have difficulty telling what the difference between an Orc and a Dwarf is. I know this may seem like a minor thing when the game highlights enemies in giant red circles for all the world to see, but it's just shoddy art design – something which the Warcraft universe has never suffered from before-hand.
Sound is used in the game to appalling effect, with most battle sounds coming from the “generic sword strike” school of gaming, and all music sounding like Beethoven having a stroke. I suppose my main problem with this is that none of the sound effects help to draw me into the game, they pull me out of it and hit me in the ears for ever even thinking of being immersed in the game.
However the presentation isn't all awful, most of it is, but not all. There is admittedly a varied amount of scenery, most of which is distinctive and unique, which it has to be because of the game world's sheer size. Players do need to know where they are (looking at you Morrowind).
Speaking of players, has anyone but me noticed how annoying everyone in WoW is? For example, a simple walk through Goldshire (the human starting area) can result in about 5 duel requests from level 70s with nothing to do, followed by hours of flaming if you choose to decline. I mean come on, if you've got nothing to do but pick on lower level players for fun – turn off the game! Assuming you still know that WoW is a game.
I know that every MMO game has to have a certain number of creepy people who do nothing else playing it, but the amount of level 70's simply standing around in WoW is phenomenal! I suppose this is why I'm really getting at WoW, it is far too popular, and Blizzard will just not let it die. Patches are released every month or so (they often do nothing other than make the game more unbalanced), which leads me to believe that WoW isn't actually a finished project, or Blizzard are really good at milking the cash cow.
I know that WoW being popular shouldn't affect its score, but it does. The gameplay itself is only average at best, the graphics quite clearly aren't good enough, and the sound is truly awful at times – but WoW would still be passable if it wasn't for it's fan base. In truth the game should have died a couple of years ago. There are far better MMO's out there, to name one: EVE Online, which has more depth and strategy in its first 20 minutes than WoW does in all of the game.
Ultimately this review matters to no-one but me. Those of you who support the game will pick up on any of the positive things I've mentioned (or alternatively flame me to death), and those of you who hate WoW will pick up on the negative. Think whatever you want, one lousy critic doesn't matter right?
5/10 – WoW is average, yet horribly overated.
P.S. - To any annoyed WoW fans out there, please spam the following email address (bytesmedia@live.co.uk) and leave it at that.
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Alone in the Dark review
The Alone in the Dark series has often been referred to as the very pinnacle of puzzle-based survival-horror gaming, which admittedly sounds a bit stupid because the genre has two hyphenated words used to accurately describe it; but the point still stands that the Alone in the Dark games used to be brilliant.
This game has received an unprecedented, and somewhat unfathomable amount of bad press, which seems a little unfair, well at least if you base your judgement on the preview videos. The game begins with Edward Carnby (minus bitching moustache) waking up in a hotel room full of men (Oh come on, how couldn't he be gay?), apparently situated in New York. Why he was there, or why these men have the most fake accents I have ever heard is left to the player's imagination. I think Carnby probably hired some [Insert ANY Nationality here, I haven't got a clue] prostitutes, who just happened to enjoy bondage and guns a little to much. Oh and the bad accents are a result of the developers spending the budget on McDonalds food.
What immediately struck me about this sequence was that the game instructed me to click the right thumb stick in order to make Carnby blink. Am I going to be doing this often? Is it necessary? I usually put the controller down during opening cinematics (because you never have any idea how Metal Gear-ish games are going to be these days) so this feature does absolutely nothing but annoy me. Why the right thumb stick anyway? Isn't that usually used for aiming? This doesn't bode well for the rest of the game, does it?
The plot of the game is mind-numbingly stupid anyway. Basically it results to using every single cliché that has ever been made in regards to Gothic plots involving the devil (It isn't a spoiler, if you can't figure out that Lucifer was going to rear his ugly head then you might need to go back to school), except the most important one. There is no final confrontation in this game, it just finishes. Admittedly there are two “endings” but neither of them actually provide a conclusion to the game. I can't decide whether they wanted to leave it open for a sequel and missed the mark a bit, or they simply ran out of money before the game was finished. Either way they messed it up horribly.
Everything about the game play in this game is completely broken. The controls are terrible upto the point of the game being unplayable. In first person view you don't turn any where near quickly enough (even on the highest sensitivity), and in third person you can't turn without steering Carnby into a ditch. The melee combat is awful due to the fact that hits takes far too long to line up, and even longer to perform. The driving controls aren't even worth mentioning.
In regards to the combat within the game, unless you have a source of fire with you or near you, you can't win! It's IMPOSSIBLE! Will someone please explain to me why tapping an enemy with anything will set their entire body on fire instantaneously but hitting them in the head with a battle axe with as much force as humanly possible does nothing? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not only is it stupid, it also proves that the fire physics, the crowning glory of this game, are completely broken. I mean think about it, if a fire will not spread in a museum no matter what you do, but an entire person can light on fire instantaneously from the tap of any flaming object, then surely the entire idea of fire spreading realistically is complete bullshit!
Even if I did believe that the fire physics actually work, then I would still be annoyed, because to accomplish anything; you NEED fire! It's the equivalent of Valve using the puzzle with the see-saw and the breeze blocks, FOR THE ENTIRE GAME!
The driving sections of Alone in the Dark are the most appalling thing ever created by man, the nuke pails in comparison. You spend at least half of these sequences either dead or dying, even if you do nothing wrong! For example: I was driving along a road with absolutely no obstacles, when for no reason I can think of my car catapulted itself into the stratosphere! What's worse than this happening once, is the fact that it happens CONSTANTLY!
Even the inventory system is horrible. First off it's done in real time, which means that every time you want to get an item out you have risk being mauled to death, by every single creature within a five mile radius, because some how they always seem to attack you when your lamenting about the fact that the items you need to combine are always in slots on opposite sides of the jacket. Secondly it looks stupid, and Carnby ends up looking like a flasher. Finally, if Carnby is holding open the jacket with BOTH hands how the hell does he get items, telekinesis?
This game is a crime against human-kind, there is nothing you can say to defend without looking like an idiot. Nothing works as it's intended to, the plot is the equivalent of George Lucas pitching a horror film (minus the magnetic aliens) and worst of all it doesn't even finish. I mean even the tag line sucks. “They told us that Central Park was for us, they lied” what the hell are you talking about? Who told us? Why did they need to? Why would they lie? All questions you'd expect the game to answer right? Wrong! The game does nothing but confuse you more. The reality of this game is that I still have about four pages worth of ranting to go through, I haven't even touched upon the puzzles or the script, but I don't need to, all I need to say is that even masochists will hate this game.
0/10
This game has received an unprecedented, and somewhat unfathomable amount of bad press, which seems a little unfair, well at least if you base your judgement on the preview videos. The game begins with Edward Carnby (minus bitching moustache) waking up in a hotel room full of men (Oh come on, how couldn't he be gay?), apparently situated in New York. Why he was there, or why these men have the most fake accents I have ever heard is left to the player's imagination. I think Carnby probably hired some [Insert ANY Nationality here, I haven't got a clue] prostitutes, who just happened to enjoy bondage and guns a little to much. Oh and the bad accents are a result of the developers spending the budget on McDonalds food.
What immediately struck me about this sequence was that the game instructed me to click the right thumb stick in order to make Carnby blink. Am I going to be doing this often? Is it necessary? I usually put the controller down during opening cinematics (because you never have any idea how Metal Gear-ish games are going to be these days) so this feature does absolutely nothing but annoy me. Why the right thumb stick anyway? Isn't that usually used for aiming? This doesn't bode well for the rest of the game, does it?
The plot of the game is mind-numbingly stupid anyway. Basically it results to using every single cliché that has ever been made in regards to Gothic plots involving the devil (It isn't a spoiler, if you can't figure out that Lucifer was going to rear his ugly head then you might need to go back to school), except the most important one. There is no final confrontation in this game, it just finishes. Admittedly there are two “endings” but neither of them actually provide a conclusion to the game. I can't decide whether they wanted to leave it open for a sequel and missed the mark a bit, or they simply ran out of money before the game was finished. Either way they messed it up horribly.
Everything about the game play in this game is completely broken. The controls are terrible upto the point of the game being unplayable. In first person view you don't turn any where near quickly enough (even on the highest sensitivity), and in third person you can't turn without steering Carnby into a ditch. The melee combat is awful due to the fact that hits takes far too long to line up, and even longer to perform. The driving controls aren't even worth mentioning.
In regards to the combat within the game, unless you have a source of fire with you or near you, you can't win! It's IMPOSSIBLE! Will someone please explain to me why tapping an enemy with anything will set their entire body on fire instantaneously but hitting them in the head with a battle axe with as much force as humanly possible does nothing? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not only is it stupid, it also proves that the fire physics, the crowning glory of this game, are completely broken. I mean think about it, if a fire will not spread in a museum no matter what you do, but an entire person can light on fire instantaneously from the tap of any flaming object, then surely the entire idea of fire spreading realistically is complete bullshit!
Even if I did believe that the fire physics actually work, then I would still be annoyed, because to accomplish anything; you NEED fire! It's the equivalent of Valve using the puzzle with the see-saw and the breeze blocks, FOR THE ENTIRE GAME!
The driving sections of Alone in the Dark are the most appalling thing ever created by man, the nuke pails in comparison. You spend at least half of these sequences either dead or dying, even if you do nothing wrong! For example: I was driving along a road with absolutely no obstacles, when for no reason I can think of my car catapulted itself into the stratosphere! What's worse than this happening once, is the fact that it happens CONSTANTLY!
Even the inventory system is horrible. First off it's done in real time, which means that every time you want to get an item out you have risk being mauled to death, by every single creature within a five mile radius, because some how they always seem to attack you when your lamenting about the fact that the items you need to combine are always in slots on opposite sides of the jacket. Secondly it looks stupid, and Carnby ends up looking like a flasher. Finally, if Carnby is holding open the jacket with BOTH hands how the hell does he get items, telekinesis?
This game is a crime against human-kind, there is nothing you can say to defend without looking like an idiot. Nothing works as it's intended to, the plot is the equivalent of George Lucas pitching a horror film (minus the magnetic aliens) and worst of all it doesn't even finish. I mean even the tag line sucks. “They told us that Central Park was for us, they lied” what the hell are you talking about? Who told us? Why did they need to? Why would they lie? All questions you'd expect the game to answer right? Wrong! The game does nothing but confuse you more. The reality of this game is that I still have about four pages worth of ranting to go through, I haven't even touched upon the puzzles or the script, but I don't need to, all I need to say is that even masochists will hate this game.
0/10
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Kung Fu Panda Review
The title says everything doesn't it? I mean how much can I possibly write about a film entitled “Kung Fu Panda”? There can't really be any subtext in this film, there's no chance of this bringing you enlightenment and changing your life, and as far I can see no real reason to laugh after you've gotten over the initial concept. However I suppose that I'd better give this a fair review, otherwise all the Jack Black fans (a joke in itself) out there will come tear me to pieces.
The plot of the film follows the panda Bo (Jack Black), as he trains to become the Dragon Warrior, a Kung Fu master capable of killing the evil snow leopard Tai Lung (also a master of Kung Fu), all of which makes perfect sense when put in the context of this film. Now I assume that any reasonable adult will, upon hearing the plot of this film transcribed in the manner that I just have, assume that Kung Fu Panda is both non-educational and morally bankrupt. Let me assure them that neither statement is true, and that Kung Fu Panda offers both the wholesome morals that any children's film should, and a beginner's guide to the teachings of the philosophys behind the martial art of Kung Fu. All in all the plot manages to hold up against my scrutiny. It's quite well scripted, features some amusing scenes, and has a genuine moral undertone.
The animation in Kung Fu Panda is nothing less than what you would expect from a film by Dreamworks (a jaw dropping symphony of colour and technical accuracy, a dream work (excuse the horrible, horrible pun) if you will), and neither is the voice acting. I was actually astounded at how good Jack Black (Be Kind Rewind, School of Rock, and Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny) was in this film; mainly because he was so unlike himself. Not to discount the other voice actors in the film, who all give good performances.
Ultimately I'm fairly uninformed about the genre that this film slides into, being slightly to old to care about it anymore. I suppose I'd recommend it as it will certainly keep children happy, and it isn't to difficult for older audiences to sit through. However if you are of an age older than ten, and have no reason to go and see this film other than mild curiosity, I'd recommend that you go and see The Dark Knight instead, even if you've already seen it.
7/10
The plot of the film follows the panda Bo (Jack Black), as he trains to become the Dragon Warrior, a Kung Fu master capable of killing the evil snow leopard Tai Lung (also a master of Kung Fu), all of which makes perfect sense when put in the context of this film. Now I assume that any reasonable adult will, upon hearing the plot of this film transcribed in the manner that I just have, assume that Kung Fu Panda is both non-educational and morally bankrupt. Let me assure them that neither statement is true, and that Kung Fu Panda offers both the wholesome morals that any children's film should, and a beginner's guide to the teachings of the philosophys behind the martial art of Kung Fu. All in all the plot manages to hold up against my scrutiny. It's quite well scripted, features some amusing scenes, and has a genuine moral undertone.
The animation in Kung Fu Panda is nothing less than what you would expect from a film by Dreamworks (a jaw dropping symphony of colour and technical accuracy, a dream work (excuse the horrible, horrible pun) if you will), and neither is the voice acting. I was actually astounded at how good Jack Black (Be Kind Rewind, School of Rock, and Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny) was in this film; mainly because he was so unlike himself. Not to discount the other voice actors in the film, who all give good performances.
Ultimately I'm fairly uninformed about the genre that this film slides into, being slightly to old to care about it anymore. I suppose I'd recommend it as it will certainly keep children happy, and it isn't to difficult for older audiences to sit through. However if you are of an age older than ten, and have no reason to go and see this film other than mild curiosity, I'd recommend that you go and see The Dark Knight instead, even if you've already seen it.
7/10
Friday, 1 August 2008
The Dark Knight Review
Batman Begins was one of the most successful superhero based films of recent years. It was dark, edgy, and yet still retained the light-hearted nature often associated with the superhero film genre. I wasn't that fond of it. I've always been a fan of Gothic Batman, there's something that appeals to me about insane mortals fighting in an entirely psychotic manner, so it may say more about me than about Batman Begins when I say that the film wasn't dark or complex enough for me. That being said lets move onto my review of The Dark Knight.
The plot of The Dark Knight is set almost directly after Batman Begins and centres on the conflict between The Joker (portrayed by Heath Ledger – I'll get to it don't worry) and Batman (Christian Bale). The script for the film, written by the film's director, Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige and Batman Begins) and his brother Jonathan Nolan (The Prestige, Memento) is immaculate. Although the film becomes incredibly complex, throwing various twists and turns which often shock the audience to it's core, and the subtext of the film is incredibly detailed and meaningful, not a single line ever feels out of place or obscure; unless of course it's meant to be.
The plot itself is an adrenaline fuelled masterpiece which sweeps the audience up within a tidal wave of complex character development, meaningful subtext and speeches, and breath-taking action sequences (greatly improved since Batman Begins); and doesn't let go until days after you've seen the film.
The acting throughout the film is superb. Top spot goes to the unforgettable portrayal of The Joker by Heath Ledger (I'm Not There, Candy, The Brother's Grimm), which has quickly become my favourite representation of The Joker, my favourite villain. It's a marvel to watch this performance, whether watching Joker tell one of several stories about how he got his scars, or simply watching how the man moves. Ledger's portrayal is complete, faultless, dark, disturbing, funny, and perfect all at the same time, Ledger effectively becomes The Joker. It truly is a tragedy that Ledger died prematurely earlier this year.
In regards to the other performances within The Dark Knight, they're mostly almost as good as Ledger's. Bale (The Prestige, Batman Begins, 3:10 to Yuma) is my favourite Batman out of any other in popular culture, not only is his performance deep, dark, and profoundly disturbed, but he also allows himself to be pushed out of the lime light by fellow actors, something a good Batman should always aspire to. Aaron Eckhart (The Black Dahlia, Thank You For Smoking) also gives a truly deep, and dark portrayal of Harvey Dent, again never breaking character or becoming unbelievable.
Gary Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Batman Begins, Bram Stoker's Dracula) gives yet another brilliant performance as Commissioner Gordon, a character who was side-lined in Batman Begins and has now been fully and brilliantly realised. Michael Caine (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Actors), and Morgan Freeman (Batman Begins, The Shawshank Redemption) both give exceptional performances as supporting cast members. Now we come to the one and only criticism that I have of this film, Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Sherrybaby), or the Rachel Dawes character if you will.
It's not that Gyllenhaal gives an awful performance (although she is intensely annoying when she speaks for some reason), or indeed that a love interest is a bad idea for a Batman storyline, I just think that she doesn't really fit into the cast or the film, until she is expressly needed for advancing the Batman, and Harvey Dent characters. Luckily Gyllenhaal does the best that anyone could with the role, and her screen time is mercifully kept to a minimum.
The cinematography and general feel of the film is outstanding. The entire film has a sort of dark, gritty tinge to every frame, which not only looks beautiful, but also helps to set the scene and raise tension hugely. The costume design is also immaculate, again most of the attention will be focused on Ledger; but he does play The Joker so it is fair. Music, and sound are used fantastically throughout the film; often helping to bring tension to an absolute boil, until a grim and satisfyingly violent moment often allows a brief moment of relaxation (which I found very odd), before The Joker speaks again.
Ultimately this film is a Masterpiece, it isn't perfect, but nothing is or ever will be. Everything about the film is smooth and brilliantly realised, and although there are a few issues with casting and realism; this film reminds me of why I go to the cinema. I go for the message; and this film's message is both true and necessary. The Dark Knight has earned it's score, and shall go down with Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather as one of the greatest films of all time.
10/10
The plot of The Dark Knight is set almost directly after Batman Begins and centres on the conflict between The Joker (portrayed by Heath Ledger – I'll get to it don't worry) and Batman (Christian Bale). The script for the film, written by the film's director, Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige and Batman Begins) and his brother Jonathan Nolan (The Prestige, Memento) is immaculate. Although the film becomes incredibly complex, throwing various twists and turns which often shock the audience to it's core, and the subtext of the film is incredibly detailed and meaningful, not a single line ever feels out of place or obscure; unless of course it's meant to be.
The plot itself is an adrenaline fuelled masterpiece which sweeps the audience up within a tidal wave of complex character development, meaningful subtext and speeches, and breath-taking action sequences (greatly improved since Batman Begins); and doesn't let go until days after you've seen the film.
The acting throughout the film is superb. Top spot goes to the unforgettable portrayal of The Joker by Heath Ledger (I'm Not There, Candy, The Brother's Grimm), which has quickly become my favourite representation of The Joker, my favourite villain. It's a marvel to watch this performance, whether watching Joker tell one of several stories about how he got his scars, or simply watching how the man moves. Ledger's portrayal is complete, faultless, dark, disturbing, funny, and perfect all at the same time, Ledger effectively becomes The Joker. It truly is a tragedy that Ledger died prematurely earlier this year.
In regards to the other performances within The Dark Knight, they're mostly almost as good as Ledger's. Bale (The Prestige, Batman Begins, 3:10 to Yuma) is my favourite Batman out of any other in popular culture, not only is his performance deep, dark, and profoundly disturbed, but he also allows himself to be pushed out of the lime light by fellow actors, something a good Batman should always aspire to. Aaron Eckhart (The Black Dahlia, Thank You For Smoking) also gives a truly deep, and dark portrayal of Harvey Dent, again never breaking character or becoming unbelievable.
Gary Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Batman Begins, Bram Stoker's Dracula) gives yet another brilliant performance as Commissioner Gordon, a character who was side-lined in Batman Begins and has now been fully and brilliantly realised. Michael Caine (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Actors), and Morgan Freeman (Batman Begins, The Shawshank Redemption) both give exceptional performances as supporting cast members. Now we come to the one and only criticism that I have of this film, Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Sherrybaby), or the Rachel Dawes character if you will.
It's not that Gyllenhaal gives an awful performance (although she is intensely annoying when she speaks for some reason), or indeed that a love interest is a bad idea for a Batman storyline, I just think that she doesn't really fit into the cast or the film, until she is expressly needed for advancing the Batman, and Harvey Dent characters. Luckily Gyllenhaal does the best that anyone could with the role, and her screen time is mercifully kept to a minimum.
The cinematography and general feel of the film is outstanding. The entire film has a sort of dark, gritty tinge to every frame, which not only looks beautiful, but also helps to set the scene and raise tension hugely. The costume design is also immaculate, again most of the attention will be focused on Ledger; but he does play The Joker so it is fair. Music, and sound are used fantastically throughout the film; often helping to bring tension to an absolute boil, until a grim and satisfyingly violent moment often allows a brief moment of relaxation (which I found very odd), before The Joker speaks again.
Ultimately this film is a Masterpiece, it isn't perfect, but nothing is or ever will be. Everything about the film is smooth and brilliantly realised, and although there are a few issues with casting and realism; this film reminds me of why I go to the cinema. I go for the message; and this film's message is both true and necessary. The Dark Knight has earned it's score, and shall go down with Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather as one of the greatest films of all time.
10/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
