Pearl Harbor

Screening Time: 184 minutes.
Media: Blu-Ray.

Michael Bay has a lot to answer for with regards to this film. Despite earning nearly $450 million in the US Box office, and thereby giving it the title of the sixth-highest earning film in 2001, "Pearl Harbor" has received so much flak in the way of reviews and critiques, it's been deemed as the second worst film of Michael Bay's movie career. Second. Not the first, but second. What was the first? It seems "Pearl Harbor" had some stiff competition against "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" only to lose out for the title.

Okay, here's the low-down. It's a war movie which is wrapped around a somewhat predictable love triangle. The problem here is that the movie is meant to reflect the real life events of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941; but in doing so it is filled with a number of inaccuracies, I won't go through the list as the Wikipedia article of the movie is considerably thorough. Needless to say, being based on a historical event as significant as the trigger that led the Americans to enter World War II against the Japanese, it's no wonder that Pearl Harbor attack survivors dismissed the film as "grossly inaccurate and pure Hollywood."

The concept of artistic license appears to be considerably stretched in terms of what happened, how it happened, where and with whom, et cetera; and I'll come to Bay's defense here, these changes were more than likely done to help improve the plot line of the film. While this'll not have been the perfect solution and despite the plethora of bad press and reviews it received, the film was simply this: a piece of fiction based on a real life event. And yes, it wasn't necessarily the best way to go about it, but the movie did make $450 million dollars, so there must have been something that deserved that kind of return.

Let's take for granted that yes, Michael Bay did push the limits of twisting the events of the attack of Pearl Harbor to suit the story line of the film. Let's look past what we can with respect to the actual war components and look beyond that to the interwoven love story, A difficult task for some, I know.

Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett play lifelong buddies who join the US Air Force. Kate Beckinsale plays Affleck's love interest... And then plays Hartnett's love interest... And then Affleck's again... After he supposedly returns from the dead after nearly getting killed in a mission with the British Royal Air Force fighting the Nazis...

The storyline is fairly predictable, and right now I don't rightly care about giving out the spoilers for this film: Boy meets girl, boy goes to fight Nazis, boy supposedly killed in action, boy's best friend comforts girl, boy's best friend and girl fall in love, boy comes back "from the dead", boy feels betrayed, boy and his best friend go to war against the Japanese after being attacked, boy's best friend dies after discovering girl is pregnant, boy and girl get back together and raise son named after dead best friend.

So let's see, a few clichés scattered in this film; the lifelong friendship, the love triangle, the betrayal and the consequent forgiveness, the naming of the kid after the dead friend... I always found that last one a little creepy... Oh, and let's not forget the somewhat hammy death scene of Hartnett's... I actually found myself asking these very words: "Are you f[CENSORED]king kidding me?" To see that particular scene was as painful as wiping my backside with sandpaper.

I have to confess I am very much divided as to how to rate this movie. Granted, there's the love story and the war, and the attacks and the special effects; but I have to say that I must lean towards a low rating... This movie was meant to reflect the historical account of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and as someone who recently visited the Pearl Harbor memorial site, and learned of the story first hand from footage and personal account from survivors from the attacks, it saddens me that a number of inaccuracies were made in the name of entertainment... It kinda sullies the historic value of what Pearl Harbor represents, kinda craps over it... And it's because of this that I award this film two stars for the effort.

The Dark Knight Rises

Running Time: 165 minutes

Media: Cinematic Release

The Telegraph gave its review of this film the full five stars stating that this was "a superhero film without a superhero", praising Tom Hardy's performance... Can I confess something to you, my dear readers? I winced in pain when I found that out... The only reason I say that is I feel that the film doesn't deserve five stars... It's just way too generous!

I don't like the idea of being too critical of the films, but I have to be realistic here... Granted, Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have done well together to pull out three movies... And the first two in my opinion have been considerable, I'd even go as far to say that the second film excelled over the first. But to then go and say that the third film deserves five stars...? The Movie Madman suspects a little peer pressure based on the premise of the performance of the previous pair of productions... Sorry, a lot of alliteration there, couldn't resist... But my point still stands, the past two films were great, so there's this huge expectation that this last in the series would be just as good, especially given its $1.08 billion box office takings, right?

Unfortunately, the logic of that kind of expectation falls short there and then. Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, seems to resemble a more broken and frail shell of his former self and is now more of a cripple at the start of this movie... His character looks gaunt, weak and at one stage looks like he could do with a hot meal because he looks like a homeless man. There's no explanation as to why he's gotten this way over the eight years since Harvey Dent's death. To many Batman fans such as myself, it boggles the mind as to how Wayne can become more of a recluse than he was before? The other films show him to be a little rebellious and somewhat flamboyant and there's none of that here... One can only assume that taking on the mantle of the person supposedly responsible for the death of Dent was too much for him and he basically caved. I find the idea of this happening to Bruce Wayne shocking; I mean, he's the Goddamn Batman, for crying out loud!

On the other side, you have Commissioner Gordon, played by the immortal Gary Oldman, who has had to share the lie of Dent's actual cause of death with Batman. As a result he has been consumed from within like Bruce has, but from a different angle. Oldman's performance in all three films has been consistent and has shown a strong progression, maturing from his experience as a cop to now running the entire police division of Gotham. He is close to losing hope but ends up seeing some glimmer of hope in a young policeman, John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Gordon-Levitt is a complex character. He's switched on and resourceful. He also believes in justice and the strength of the human spirit as Bruce apparently once did. In a sense, he's upholding the values that Bruce Wayne once upheld, and without giving too much away, seems to be determined to carry on the legacy that Batman had begun long ago. He's changed a lot since his time in Third Rock from the Sun... So props to this Joseph for the maturation of his roles.

Michael Caine reprises his role as Wayne's butler and confidant Alfred Pennyworth, and as much as I admire Caine in almost everything he does, he's become very... emotional in this role in comparison to the other two films, though as much as I know that this was necessary to drive the plot line across, I'm not sure if it was to the benefit of the audience to further advance the plot or whether it was a gratuitous display of emotion to grab us in and make us want to watch the movie.

The use of Tom Hardy as Bane is confusing... In the film he's a bald guy with a mask, that's built like a brick outhouse, and yet he sounds like a old man with a case of acute asthma... He hits like a sledgehammer and yet has the language and vocabulary of an plantation owner below the Mason Dixon line. Put simply, he's contradiction personified... And a damn nuisance to boot... What I couldn't understand was why he couldn't have been shot ages ago and saved us all a lot of trouble? Because of Bruce's "no guns" rule... Why no one else thought to kill Bane within seconds of his making himself known is beyond me.

There is some redemption in Marion Cotillard's portrayal of her character as Miranda Tate, a very noble role, but there is one scene towards the end of the film that kinda flips it on its head. This particular scene kinda destroyed my hopes for the film due to the absolute hammy-ness of Cotillard's character... Okay, I'll be honest, the scene made me wince... It was so bad, that it was laughable and could be classed as the worst scene of its kind given the blockbuster nature of the film. Was director Christopher Nolan not paying attention when filming...? Hard to say, but it seems that a final film should bring it all together, not leave you feeling empty... Shall I explain? I may as well now as most people will have seen "The Dark Knight Rises" by now. Cotillard's death scene raises some serious eyebrows, as it is so hammy that if it were a sandwich would have choked Mama Cass. See it for yourself.

Anne Hathaway's portrayal as cat burglar turned vigilante, Selina Kyle is commendable... She's beautiful, talented and OMG, she looks great in black leather cat-suits... Hathaway underwent intense training to ensure her body was in optimum shape for the role, including dancing sessions to help maintain her figure. Her presence in the film is a well-needed breath of fresh air, inasmuch as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in "The Dark Knight Returns" was magical - and as a result well deserving of his post-humous Oscar.

Sadly, "The Dark Knight Rises" is no "The Dark Knight Returns" and as a result, it suffers accordingly; and not even the ravishing Anne Hathaway nor the dulcet tones of Morgan Freeman can lift this film up to the level of its predecessor, or the one before that for that matter.

So where does that leave us in terms of the film's rating? Disappointingly, it ranks lower than what I would give the two prequels. "The Godfather - Part III" is not the best of films in comparison, but "The Dark Knight Rises" is no better, in fact, it's worse. The plot line is lacking, certain characters play out as hollow or weak and there are too many questions left unanswered... I'm just disappointed, to say the least. I'm actually going to give this film three stars and hope that the next DC Comics film to grace our screens, "The Man of Steel" will fare better.