Change Your Image
alexclaire1001
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Best Film out of The Dark Knight Trilogy
Wow! This film was fantastic. Christopher Nolan is now the first director to finally make a Batman Trilogy, to which he has done in a epic fashion. Nolan has finally given the right, the Batman franchise deserves.
So what do I think about the Dark Knight Rises? The plot to the film is very strong and partially links in with Batman Begins. It is set 8 years after The Dark Knight's conclusion. It depicts a time period where Batman is no longer needed, Bruce Wayne is now hostile to the outside world and the city is relatively crime free. This all changes when Gotham City is invaded by Bane and The League of Shadows as they have returned to complete Ra's Al Ghul's plan from Batman Begins. This leads to Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement to try and fight Bane.
The story may sound simple but the film adds some twists along the way, which adds good depth into the plot. All the actors in the film perform to a superb standard and fit perfectly to the part. Examples of this is Tom Hardy's portrayal of Bane was brilliant his dark but sophisticated character stands out and leaves a good impression. Christian Bale as Batman is good and the same as the films previous to this. The portrayal of Catwoman in this film by Anne Hathaway does not follow the same characteristics as Michelle Pfiffer and is less catty and more serious. Gary Oldman's performance is impressive as Commissioner Gordon and the introduction of Joseph Gordon- Levitt as Blake is a welcomed addition.
Action sequences are intense and strong, especially the fight between Batman and Bane, which was raw and well choreographed. The effects and sets look fantastic and don't destroy the immersion.
Negatives about the film include minor plot holes such as how Bruce Wayne managed to get back to America even though he is stranded in a prison in the middle of nowhere. Other negatives would be that there was not a lot of scenes with Batman but when there are there is a good payoff. A major one would be the unanswered question of how Batman survived the nuclear explosion. This part was supposed to leave you asking questions however personally I would've liked it answered.
Overall the film was superb and I enjoyed the whole revolution plot from Bane and the fact that they didn't try to make this The Dark Knight 2. It ended the trilogy on a high note and is a shame that there is no chance of any prequels with Christian Bale as Batman. Just go out and watch this film. You would not be disappointed.
The Avengers (2012)
Let's be Honest Here...
This picture was the highest grossing film of 2012 and was raved about and spoke highly of. however in my opinion this movie was heavily overrated and didn't really offer anything groundbreaking or worth while.
The films story is weak to say the least and is presented in the form of "Here you go, here it is". The main plot for this film is Loki has somehow come back from the dead and has joined forces with an alien race called the Chitauri to take over the Earth with the stolen Tesseract. So with Hawkeye and Selvig brainwashed and kidnapped, S.H.I.E.L.D's base destroyed there is no other option but to begin the Avengers initiative. That's it.
This story might not sound to bad, which in reality it doesn't even though being a bit simple. The reason I think the story is weak is because there are so many plot holes, which are never explained or expanded on. Examples of these plot holes are:
-How did Loki can come back from the dead? -How did Thor return from Asgard to Earth? -The inconsistency of how the Hulk can control his anger -Why was it when Iron Man throws the nuclear missile into the rift where the Chitauri mother ship is, it kills every Chitauri warrior on Earth? -(Picky one) How are the Avengers actually talking to each other when none of them are actually wearing earpieces?
The film's start is very under looked because of the good climax. To be honest the start is actually boring and not compelling at all. This is why I think this film is heavily overrated as people only remember the very well done battle scene.
So they're the major issues with the films however there are some positives. All of the actors perform very well, especially Tom Hiddleston as Loki but with the exception of Jeremy Renner's portrayal of Hawleye, which was very dull and boring. Action sequences are handled well but sometimes cam across repetitive and didn't offer anything new or exciting. The Special effects and CGI was very good and didn't look bad or too unrealistic. The film's pay off is also very satisfying.
I can only hope that in the upcoming Avengers 2: Age of Ultron they can add something new or compelling.
Man of Steel (2013)
New take on superman... And it paid off ! (Not really huge spoilers, very minor)
I do not see why everybody has scored this such a low score. This is a new take on Superman. It is the total opposite of Christopher Reeve's portrayal, which I personally disliked, as it made Clark Kent out to be dorky and nerdy. Henry Cavill's portrayal is much more dark and mysterious. His portrayal is of a lonely Clark Kent, who struggles to fit in, so keeps a low profile whilst also concealing his super powers.
This film is an origins story of Superman. This is covered via flashbacks, scattered throughout the film. This depicts him discovering what he is and his personal journey from being a child to an adult. This adds a good amount of back story of Clark Kent's life where he has had to overcome many tough obstacles and events in his life, leading to his current situation.
The film's story includes the same Superman origins story with a few differences here and there, with a mix of General Zod's story from Superman II. The film's story is strong in my opinion. It may not be the most original script as it shares similarities with Superman II but it has a few changes to make it its own, leaves you satisfied.
New things added in this version is that it shows Krypton more and the history of the Kryptonians race. This is a really interesting addition and gives a purpose for why Cal- El (Clark Kent) is special. Jor- El played by Russel Crowe plays a much bigger and better part in the film compared to Marlon Brando's version of him. It makes his character more important as he appears in certain places throughout the film to help Clark.
The actor's performances are strong through the film, apart from a few scenes with Henry Cavill as his delivery sometimes wasn't great as Clark Kent. However Cavill's performance of Superman was very strong and heroic. Amy Adam's does a stunning job as Lois Lane, she plays an intelligent, brave and intellectual character. Michael Shannon's General Zod was better than Superman II's version but sometimes lacked in development. However he made the most of what he could with such a limited character. Russel Crowe does a fantastic job at being Jor- El surpassing Marlon Brando's portrayal. Other performances in the movie from Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane are all up to very high standards and everyone acted to their best ability.
Negatives such as in the film would be, during the middle of the film it does drift a bit and becomes dull in places. Thankfully the standard is picked up and the film finishes with a very satisfying resolution with impressive battles and fight sequences.
Zack Snyder has done the Superman franchise justice with this brand new and fresh take on the license. I would only hope that Snyder continues this success into even better sequels, as this film was very close to being perfect.
Django Unchained (2012)
Tarantino's done it again!
Quentin you've done yourself proud, you've made another masterpiece.
This film is Tarantino at his best. He incorporated everything you'd expect in his movies, violence, bad language, good dialogue and gritty drama.
The film shows a harsh and bloody view of the slave trade along with fantastic story telling throughout. The characters are well developed, especially Christoph Waltz's character, Dr King Schultz. Leonardo Di DiCaprio's performance shows a charming and charismatic but evil villain.
Negative points about the film would be that Jamie Foxx's portrayal of Django was not the strongest performance in the film and sometimes came across dull and uninteresting. however this does not affect the overall enjoyment of the film.
It is true that the film isn't completely historically accurate but it doesn't really matter as the film does such a good job at telling a story and make you feel totally immersed in it.
Tarantino's take on a spaghetti western is utterly brilliant and goes into one of his greats.