The Dark Knight Review

“Some men just want to watch the world burn” 

     The great thing about The Dark Knight, is that you don’t have to be a complete comic book geek to love the movie, and understand what is happening. Sure, a little background knowledge about Bruce Wayne and his life experiences would be good to know, but it is not strictly necessary. The film goes so much further than putting a beloved character on a larger screen. It takes a harsh look at society and people in general. It ponders what people would do in situations that are morally grey. It looks at how easy it is to break one’s sanity, as though it were a toothpick. It helps you realize what is necessary rather than what puts you in a better light. It shows how even the greatest can fall. Director Christopher Nolan did an incredible job of combining the themes that he wanted to push forwards while also keeping true to the characters.

     It would be impossible to talk about this film without mentioning the acting. Heath Ledger put on the performance of his life as the Joker. He embraced the character, which very well may have been his final push off the edge of keeping his life together. To be the Joker is not to just read some lines and practice a creepy laugh. You have to try to understand the impossible, and take a look at why the Joker does certain things, though he himself doesn’t know half the time. This is a person, if you can even call him that, who always managed to keep a few steps ahead of Batman, and was almost always correct in his predictions of what people would do if thrust into certain situation. The clothing, the makeup, the eyes and the laugh all combined to form a character worthy of nightmares, and Ledger definitely did the character justice.

     Ledger’s performance is often the only one spoken about, though Christian Bale as Batman also put on a formidable show. Professing emotions when wearing a mask is not the easiest thing to do, yet Bale did so with skill and ease that made the masked hero easy to connect with. The only complaint about his performance is his Batman voice. Whenever he was under the mask, Bale projected a guttural, harsh sound that got incredibly old very quickly. Though it was understood that he did it to hide his identity, there must have been a better way to do it. The unpleasant sound just did not work, and took away from the performance. 

The special effects during the film were definitely admirable. The explosions were numerous, and gigantic - one could only imagine the amount of Gotham’s money that goes into repairing all of the damages. Banks, hospitals, and other such buildings going up like match sticks were fun to watch, yet also showed how disturbingly easy it is for chaos and mayhem to reign. 

    The setting of the film was of course incredibly important. Batman’s town is Gotham, which is probably the worst place ever. It contains the worst people that could make up society. Gangsters, and questionable businessmen seem to flock there like bugs to a flame, and the police force seems largely undermanned considering the amount of crime there. This of course is Batman’s whole raison d'être, and without Gotham the way it is, he would be unnecessary, and fade away. 

     In terms of the lighting of the film, it was very dark throughout. This was a good representation of the mood of Gotham, which is buried under crimes and horrors, as well as the mood of the people. It is hard to live with much hope when there are so many murders and other horrible things happening. Also, seeing as criminals are known to operate when the sun is down, it seemed appropriate to have most of the film in darkness. 

    All in all, The Dark Night was an incredibly entertaining film. The action, the acting, and the themes all combined to create a great movie. Nolan raised the bar very high for his next film, but it’s likely that he will not disappoint! For these reasons, The Dark Knight deserves a 9/10. 

From Hell, A Review

     The film From Hell, directed by Albert and Allan Hughes, follows the journey of Police Inspector Frederick Abberline (Johnny Depp) as he tries to solve the violent murders of London prostitutes.
     The streets of London in 1888 were not the safest place to be at night, especially in the areas of lower income. The prostitutes were at the mercy of street gangs who demanded the little money that they had, which barely left them enough to eat or find a place to sleep. When cruel, gory murders start occurring, people started panicking, and the police force had little to no clue of what was happening.
     The writers took some liberties though with the true history of Jack the Ripper, the name given to the man who committed these murders over a century ago. The real Ripper was never actually found, though in the film a face is given to the man who committed the brutal crimes. In addition, Mary Kelly (Heather Graham), the prostitute who serves as a love interest for Abberline in the film, was definitely not that romantically involved with him in real life - in fact, she was also murdered in real life. However, since Hollywood needed to add a little more romance to the storyline, to the writers, it was a necessary addition.
However, something that did not take away from the story were the fabulous set design and costumes. The clothing that the prostitutes were wearing definitely looked like something that women in their profession would be wearing in that time period, and the hair style of the men definitely seemed to match what men at that time would have had too. The dark, smoky alleyways where the prostitutes conducted their business made the film seem much more realistic, and enjoyable to watch.
     Also, the lighting of the film played a very important role in the mood and effectiveness at which the scenes were conveyed. Almost every important scene was shrouded in darkness or nighttime, adding a mysteriousness to what was going on as well as an eery air to the whole scene. The fact that someone could jump out of the shadows at any time and grab their next victim was a very thrilling experience.
     The acting of the film was also remarkable. Johnny Depp did a fantastic job in his portrayal of Abberline. At some points, he let the viewer into his character’s harsh opium addiction, showing his character mixing some cocktail of drugs when not on the case. However, as soon as it was time to get to work, he turned into a skilled deducer, and thorough investigator, catching little clues that others wouldn’t have seen.
     The way the film changed perspectives was also interesting. When most films follow one character, or really focus on him or her, From Hell had a little more roaming involved. From following each prostitute as she was murdered, to poor Anne's fate in the asylum, the broad range of characters made it more interesting to connect all of the pieces at the end.
    Though definitely a “Hollywoodized” interpretation of the film, From Hell definitely does not end up with a happy ending, and it does have historical relevance and accuracy. Nearly all of the characters introduced near the beginning of the film are left dead, as they were in history as well. Hollywood did give The Ripper a face though, giving the film a more definite ending, and tied in well with all of the clues given.  

     As an enjoyable, thoughtful film filled with great actors and intriguing plot twists, From Hell is definitely a movie worth watching. For its acting, sets and only slight deviance from history, the film deserves a 9/10. 

Born on the Fourth of July Review

     Born on the Fourth of July is the true, disturbing story of Ron Kovic, a Vietnam veteran. There are aspects of the film that were both interesting, disturbing, and also a little unlikable. Tom Cruise portrayed him the in the film.  

The film begins with Ron’s childhood. He is a Fourth of July baby, and every birthday, his family goes to the parade that the town holds. He watched the shell shocked Veterans from previous wars march through, and just knew he wanted to be a soldier too. Ron lived in a stereotypical small-town America. The town is centered around sports and religion, both of which his family feels very strongly about. Ron is the model child, due to his numerous athletics.

     His mother, portrayed by Caroline Kava, was a zealous woman, who believed in Jesus and war. She pushed Ron to his limits, and was also very ashamed of his behaviour when he returned home. Ron’s father (Raymond J. Barry) was not as intense as his wife, and understood Ron’s plight more, since he served in World War II himself. 

     After Ron is recruited, he goes to Vietnam, which the movie does not spend a lot of time portraying. It only shows what truly damages Ron, both physically and psychologically. He lays siege to a town of innocent people, where only a crying baby is left. He then shoots an American soldier running for safety. After this, Ron is shot in the foot and then the back, effectively paralyzing him from the waist down for the remainder of his life. 

     The most disturbing and unlikable part of the film came next, in which the harsh conditions of the hospital are shown. The men are dehumanized, and conditions are disgusting and horrible. Though accurate, and necessary for people to understand, it was still a disturbing, scarring thing to see. 

     The aftermath of Ron’s experience in Vietnam takes up the rest of the film as he goes from a man who still believes in the mission to an alcoholic with nothing left to lose. It is only towards almost the end of the film where Ron regains mental stability and dedicates his life to fighting against the war that changed his life. 

Though a touching and true story, it is definitely not something that I would watch again. Cruise did a good job in portraying Ron, though he did get slightly annoying, though it may just have been him embracing his character. Caroline Kava did a fantastic job in portraying a mother, an American, and a Christian. Her disturbing looks and feelings showed just how wacky some people were, and still are, in America. Kyra Sedgwick, who played Ron’s love interest Donna also delivered a solid performance as she led Ron to an anti-war path. 

     This film was produced and co-written by Oliver Stone, a Vietnam veteran. Many of the choices he made in the film affected the mood and feeling of the viewers, connecting them to what was happening on screen.

     For example, the veterans’ hospital was dark throughout Ron’s experience there. It was a good reflection of the feeling and mood of the soldiers, as well as the workers there. The workers were not ashamed or afraid to tell the soldiers that no one cared that they were there, and they sacrificed their bodies and minds for nothing. The contrast that he made evident in the Fourth of July parades in Ron’s hometown also made a deep impact on the viewer. The irony of wanting to be the soldier who flinched from the loud noises to becoming one himself, becoming speechless after hearing a baby’s cry that reminded him of the one in Vietnam, crying in its dead mother’s arms. Stone did a great job in getting his anti-war message across through Ron’s story. 

     Physical relations also played a large part, because Ron is seen as a much more confident individual when he has working legs. However, after he is wheelchair bound, he loses a lot of the passion that he had a soldier and a boy. He also puts himself in a worse position by disrespecting his body. He drinks himself into a stupor, and allows no one to try and raise him up. It takes Ron a long time to get better, but paints an accurate picture of what men returning from Vietnam would have been like. 

     While an interesting movie, Born on the Fourth of July is definitely not one I would watch again. The amount of disturbing images, violence and depressing situations does not make it one that I would run back to watch. Yet it is still something that people should see. Post traumatic stress is still stigmatized, and to see how men returning from war were treated in the past is something that people need to understand, so that it does not get repeated. This film is definitely not one that I would run back to watch again in the near future, or even the distant for that matter. However, due to the need to understand the horrors of what occurred in, and after Vietnam, I give this film a 7/10. 

Apocalypse Now: A Review

     Apocalypse Now is not a film for those with a low tolerance for violence and gore. It is filled to the brim with dark motifs that can chill a person to the core. As it deals with the harsh psychological damage that Vietnam can cause, it is no surprise that director Francis Ford Coppola made it such a grim, depressing film. 

     Starring Martin Sheen, this film takes an intense look at the damages that a tour in Vietnam could cause, and what right and wrong really are.

     The movie takes a harsh, though not unjustified look at soldiers in Vietnam and how they acted. In one scene, they open fire on a boat because a woman reached for her puppy. Some of the Commanders even wanted to decimate whole villages to get a good surf. At one point, Sheen’s character encounters an area where the soldiers have no idea who their leader was, and just blindly opened fire where they thought the enemy was.

     The acting in the movie was incredible. Sheen played Captain Benjamin Willard, a man with severe PTSD, who is given a mission to kill a rogue soldier, Colonel Walter Kurtz. Kurtz appears to have gone crazy, but Willard, whose mental state is also not exactly stable, seems to be connecting to Kurtz as he gets closer and closer to finding him. 

     The psychological side of the movie is fascinating, as it questions what is truly right and wrong, and what insanity really is. 

     As was mentioned before, the acting of the film was part of what made it such an interesting film to watch. Martin Sheen put his heart and soul into the film, and very convincingly played a man with nothing left to lose. His body and mind were strained to their limits, and Sheen paid for it with a heart attack during the filming. His smooth voice overs during many of the scenes cast a sombre, chilling mood upon the film that amplified the meaning behind everything that was happening. Sheen had to show a man with a mission that could not be delayed, and there was no man better for the role. 

     Each of the actors who played one of the crew on the boat added to the plot and story in an interesting, and sometimes humourous way. They all represented a different attitude reasoning behind going to Vietnam. For example, two of the men on the boat were African-American, and many of the men in Vietnam were conscripted from low-income areas. This is also seen through Chef, one of the men who claimed that he didn’t even graduate the 8th grade. Such men were very common in Vietnam, and part of the reason why the American soldiers there were not especially happy. There was another man, Lance B. Johnson, who represented a totally different viewpoint of an American soldier in Vietnam. He spent most of his time hopped up on acid, and floated through the battles with minor injuries. When Kilgore realized who he was, he became intent on discussing surfing with him rather than focus on the battle. Lance remained blissfully arrogant throughout the film, and managed to stumble out of it alive. Each man played his role expertly, and was very successful in portraying their character’s position in the film. 

     While Marlon Brando did a good job in portraying his role as Kurtz, his actions and behaviour led them to need to change his character and the script around, though parts of it did work. For example, due to his increase in weight, his face would not be allowed to be visible, since Kurtz was not supposed to share those attributes. Thereby, his face was covered in shadows, which actually added to Kurtz’s enigmatic nature. It is small things such as that which, although Brando messed up on, in fact added to the film. 

     The darkness in Apocalypse Now was very important in the tone of the film. Throughout, there is almost no light whatsoever. It is a great reflection of Willard’s personal darkness and turmoil, as well as the mood of the soldiers in Vietnam. The constant darkness added a depressing mood to the film that was exacerbated by the acting as well.

This film was an excellent depiction of the chaos and confusion that was Vietnam. While some say pro-war, and some say anti-war, really this film is about the good and the bad that people find in war. 

Forrest Gump Review

     Forrest Gump was an interesting movie, to say the least. Tom Hanks as Forrest was almost an impossible character to dislike. There was an endearing quality to him, that any all-American would find hard to hate. However, film critics didn’t like Forrest Gump at all, which was understandable.

     He floated through life, never the smartest or the best at anything, yet he ended up owning a multimillion corporation. Forrest went through many crucial points of American history without ever really understanding the gravity or importance of the situation he was in. 

For example, he helped Elvis Presley with his dance movies, picked up his University’s first African American student’s notebook, and his injury in Vietnam was a harmless shot in his buttocks, while his friend was killed and commanding officer paralyzed. 

     Forrest is either a character that you love immediately, or hate for his simpleness. American audiences found it easy to relate to Forrest because he was just a simple small town American boy who was just living his life. Though he had many more successes than the usual person, he also has had tragedy that many families have also experienced. He loses his mother from old age/sickness, and his best friend in the war. His loved one Jenny dies from AIDS, a very misunderstood sickness at the time. 

     In these ways, Forrest one back the audience by living a life that had both sadness and happiness. 

     Some parts of the movie were simply ridiculous though. Forrest is part of the country’s ping pong team, and met two separate presidents. His boat is the only one that survives a horrible storm, and he invests in the “fruit company” that would give him even more money. Though they could annoy an audience, the other qualities of the film outweighed these few annoyances.

     For example, the way Forrest’s story was told was very interesting. He narrates most of his life while waiting at an unnecessary bus stop. This is a great view into Forrest as a person, because he is just a friendly, albeit simple man, who is telling his life to random people, many of whom don’t seem to care much about what he said, or thought he was simply crazy. It was just near the end, when Forrest met bck up with Jenny, where the film went back to the present. 

     It was an interesting way to tell the story, because Forrest’s narrative of his flashbacks is cut off when he starts living what the film is showing, which I found worked well.

As for other aspects of film, the acting was very good, with Hanks as Gump putting on a great performance with the accent and the way he acted. Robin Wright as Jenny did a fantastic job of showing her reluctance to love Forrest, and always knowing that he was too good for her. Gary Sinise, playing “Lieutenant Dan” was also a notable one to mention in the film. His interactions with Forrest are a great way to see Forrest’s character, and to see the changes that Dan goes through after Vietnam as he copes with his paralysis. His characterization is phenomenal as he changes from the harsh man who wishes he died to a hardworking man who helps Forrest out, and eventually finds love. 

     So, is Forrest Gump a nice movie to watch? Sure. Is it one that you could watch a lot? Not for me. 7.5/10

Shake Hands with the Devil Review

     General Romeo Dallaire had been through hell and back in Rwanda. He had witnessed the unnecessary murder of hundreds of thousands of people, and his superiors were doing nothing to help him stop the murder of innocent citizens. Dallaire wrote a novel, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, which is his powerful tale of the failure of the United Nations to protect a people, covering their ears and shutting their eyes, while knowing of the massacres occurring in a little dot on the map of Africa. This was later made into the film, Shake Hands with the Devil, which portrays Dallaire’s experiences in the country as it fell apart around him. 

     Although it is called a drama, the film definitely puts more emphasis on the genocide itself rather than the drama surrounding specific people in Rwanda. The phenomenal acting though, definitely adds and emotional tone to the film that is not as easy to show in a documentary. However, Dallaire was heavily involved n the script and other aspect of the film, and his support also adds to the credibility of the film.

    As this is a Canadian film, most of the cast and people involved were Canadian. Roy Dupuis does an excellent portrayal of Romeo Dallaire, especially compared to other actors that have tried (cough, cough Nick Nolte). He actually looks very similar to Dallaire - the same mustache and even the same demeanor are apparent. In fact, Dallaire insisted on giving Dupuis the army name tag he wore as well as other decorations from Rwanda. The fact that Dallaire felt so strongly about making the film as real and believable as possible just shows the effort that was put into this film. 

     Another great advantage of the film was the fact that it was filmed in Rwanda. It truly added to the realism of the film, because the places where they went were the actual locations where genocide occurred. It added a powerful tone to the movie, because the irreplaceable scenes where torture and rape occurred were brought into the spotlight through the film. 

     A great aspect of the film is the way it highlights the failure of the Western world to try and help Rwanda. Dupuis as Dallaire is constantly on the phone with New York, asking for assistance of any kind, yet he is constantly denied. The strength and valour of the UN soldiers who were abandoned in Rwanda. The lack of weapons and materials did not seem to be exaggerated, as the soldiers had almost no defense against the angry Interahamwe and the government soldiers. 

Shake Hands was a great, yet saddening film that accurately portrayed the issues that Dallaire and his troops had in such a tumultuous, violent part of Rwandan history. 

Hotel Rwanda Review

     There is a quote by William Shakespeare that goes as follows: "Be not afraid of greatness: some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." This quote perfectly reflects what happened to Paul Rusesabagina, in the true story of Hotel Rwanda.

    It is the tale of a Hutu moderate who was unwillingly thrust into a genocide built from hatred, fear and misinformation. Paul is just a man doing his job at the Hotel des Milles Collines, building up connections with rich men, when suddenly his country dissolves into chaos. Neighbours are being slaughtered in their front yards, and many go to Paul for help. This is where Shakespeare’s quote comes in. Paul is pushed into the situation of either leaving his helpless neighbours to fend for themselves, or risking himself as well and doing something about it. Paul ends up doing the right thing, though it is definitely not the easiest decision. 

    Don Cheadle does a great job of playing this reluctant hero who suddenly has a dozen people under his care. Once they make it to the hotel, this number is raised even more as Tutsi orphans and other refugees are brought to his hotel for safety.

     Although Paul just wants to take care of his family and get them out of the country, he has had “greatness thrust upon” him, and must take care of all the people whose lives depend on him keeping control of the hotel. Paul uses his various connections and tries to keep the people safe for as long as possible. He also has to keep the Interahamwe as well as the other Hutu extremists from entering the hotel and killing as many “cockroaches” as possible. Cheadle does a great job in showing his character’s reluctance to be great, yet still taking the task and doing as well a job as he could. 

     Someone who didn’t portray their real person as well as they should have is Nick Nolte. Playing a Romeo Dallaire-ish character, Nolte spends a lot of time doing ... well, nothing. If he had spent any time at all trying to get to know Dallaire and realized what the situation was in Rwanda, he might have decided to portray the character differently. For example, I’m not sure Dallaire ever actually threw his blue hat on the ground when he was frustrated, nor did he stumble around and drink too much. Nolte definitely disappointed in what could have been a very successful portrayal of a helpless man. 

     Another great performance was from Sophie Okonedo, who portrayed Paul’s Tutsi spouse, Tatiana. She is a woman torn between the safety of her family, but also the welfare of her brother and sister-in-law, who disappeared, and were probably murdered. Her fear is shown in every scene, but her chemistry with Cheadle is also very apparent in every scene together. Every word and every touch just show how much their characters loved each other, and how badly they wanted to get out of Rwanda alive. 

     As for the tone of the film, there is obviously a lot of dark material that is being dealt with, such as Rusesabagina driving over dead bodies on the way to get supplies, or people being knocked down with machetes. In addition, the mood of the people in the film were a very good way to see the tone of the film. Their despair, fear and hopelessness shone through every moment, and was a successful way of revealing how the people of Rwanda must have felt at the time.

     In addition, weather played a big role as well. In a powerful scene where the white people are leaving, it starts raining. Not to sound too corny, but it is almost as if the country itself is crying from the fact that the only people who could possibly deter the Interahamwe are leaving the black Rwandans to their fate. On the other hand, it is also quite disturbing to see so many dark events happening in such a beautiful country, though the filming did not actually take place in Rwanda. 

Although, by being a drama film, there is obviously a lot more attention paid to the emotional part of the genocide rather than the killing, it was still an accurate way to show common film goers about the atrocities that occurred in a small African country. 
     For its good portrayal of a true story and powerful emotions it brings forward, this film is deserving of 7.5/10. However, with the acting of Cheadle and Okenedo, the film can be boosted to an 8/10.