Batman: Year One - Review

The latest Warner Premiere is an adaptation of the Frank Miller comic book run of the same name, and is one of the most acclaimed Batman comics out there. I’m a big fan of Frank Miller’s take on Batman in a time when he wasn’t pushing out schlock like his All-Star run. After Green Lantern: Emerald Knights, I knew that this was next and was looking forward to it. As soon as I started I felt right at home with the solid inner monologue of Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Bryan Cranston), which coupled with the similar artwork, makes for a satisfying transition to an animated film, at least in the aesthetic and tonal sense.

As the title of both the film and the graphic novel suggest, Batman: Year One chronicles Bruce Wayne’s first year as Batman and Jim Gordon’s first year as a Gotham City Lieutenant, respectively. Bruce Wayne (Benjamin McKenzie) is just starting out in his quest to purge Gotham of crime and corruption, and is inexperienced at this point, and so he fumbles. The first time we see Bruce out in the city at night; he is shot and arrested after taking down a pimp. At the time of this incident, he has not donned the cape and cowl yet, and is still searching for a symbol to run by, which he of course finds in a bat when he escapes the patrol car and manages to get back to Wayne Manor despite his injury.

The scene in which he finds his symbol in the form of said bat was my favorite scene in the film as it evokes the epitome of the Batman mythos. However, taking away my Batman fanaticism and focusing on the film itself, this may very well be the strongest Batman animated feature since Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker.

The script is solid and the voice acting only helps, it’s dramatic and shady enough without being over-the-top. Since the story spans over a single year, and it’s not just a crime-fighting extravaganza, we get to see Gordon’s troubles with his personal life and his doubt, being that he’s our narrator. The point of Batman is that he is a human being without powers, he’s flawed, and so are his accomplices. Gordon is smart, calculating, and his heart is in the right place, but he cheats on his pregnant wife and is constantly under pressure of his racketeering commissioner. Wayne has not perfected his technique and is prone to mistakes, of which he makes many. In fact, he gets shot more than you may expect.

Like the graphic novel, the film includes a subplot about a prostitute named Selina Kyle (Eliza Dushku) and her eventual escapades as Catwoman, which is mildly gratifying but not handled with as much depth as the rest of the plot and so she’s left on the back burner. Then again, the narrative has more important things to attend to so settling on a tiny bit of fanservice is tolerable. Audiences of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight will probably recognize similar characters upon viewing this such as Gordon’s crooked partner Flass, a questionable Commissioner Loeb, mob boss Carmine Falcone, and a pre Two-Face Harvey Dent. The Year One comic run accounted for a large amount of source material in writing both films, particularly the former.

My point is, is that Batman: Year One has the merits, has the feel, and has the dystopia that comes with the territory, but also brings the writing, the acting, and the presentation to back it up without all the bells and whistles. Those factors alone merit its superiority over Red Hood, but then again that comes from Year One being a superior comic to A Death in the Family and Under the Hood. One note though, while I admire the artwork and its homage to David Mazzucchelli's design, I’m getting a little tired of the CG motor vehicles in these premieres, it's unnecessary no matter how much the technology pushes the envelope. 9 out of 10.

X-Men: First Class - Review

Ah… I remember a time when X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine were non-existent. How the times have changed. X-Men was a good film, not great, but pretty good. X2 was great, satisfying sequel and a definite game changer (until Spider-Man 2 the year after). The third film was mediocre, and Wolverine’s prequel left a very sour taste in my mouth. Let’s face it; passing the director’s chair to Brett Ratner was a terrible idea, but it boils down to Bryan Singer’s mistake, but let’s focus our attention on the present.

X-Men: First Class is a prequel film (like Origins) directed by Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass), and returning to the series is Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2: X-Men United), this time as Executive Producer. The film opens with a recreated opening to the first film, in which a young Erik Lensherr is separated from his mother in a concentration camp. In his emotional distress, he awakens his powers over magnetism and bends and distorts a metal gate obstructing him from his mother. However, this time around we actually get to see what happens afterward, Klaus Schmidt (Kevin Bacon), also known as Sebastian Shaw, kills Erik’s mother after he fails to use his powers to move a silver coin at his request. Meanwhile, a young Charles Xavier meets and takes in a young Raven Darkholme, who will later become Mystique.

And so begins X-Men: First Class, the origin of the X-Men in general, at least in sense of the film universe. I won’t bother beating around the bush with this one; this is the best X-Men film thus far. There are some great things in this latest installment that make it exactly that, despite minor issues I have with it.

Of course the biggest question is how James McAvoy portrays a younger Charles Xavier as he forms the X-Men with Erik (Michael Fassbender) at his side. Professor X and Magneto are iconic characters, the two elder titans of the X-Men franchise, and I am happy to say that both McAvoy and Fassbender were well-casted, flawless performances from the both of them. Out of the two performances I would have to favor Fassbender, the best prequel portrayal since Robert DeNiro’s young Vito Corleone, and I will defend that statement.

The plot centers on Xavier and Lensherr forming the X-Men (though they aren’t called that directly) and putting a stop to Sebastian Shaw’s activities, which if succeeded, would mean nuclear war. In the meantime, Erik is out for revenge, as Shaw killed his mother and put Erik through the horrors of The Holocaust. Among the main characters is Raven Darkholme (Jennifer Lawrence), who has stayed with Xavier after he took her in.

The plot is well-executed, and it feels like the Singer films again, though Vaughn brings his own clarity and sense of humor to the table. The characters are surprisingly likeable on the protagonists’ side, though on the antagonists’, villains like Azazel and Riptide are completely underdeveloped, the latter not even having a single line of dialogue. The film also has some continuity issues with the other films, some are welcome, and some irked me. I won’t give out spoilers but I am happy to say that First Class eliminates The Last Stand and Origins from canon, which was a very welcome change for me.

On the whole, this film has more thrills than the previous films, but unlike Origins, it keeps its integrity and doesn’t adhere to action schlock or cliché. Like the first two films, this is a character-driven story, not an acti0n-driven or effects-driven one, between the attention to detail, the solid chemistry between McAvoy and Fassbender, and the believable outcome of this possibly ongoing tale from this point in time. First Class has that passion and humanity that Ratner and Hood muddled in their films and this is as close a redemption as we could want. Apparently, it may be the start of a new trilogy, though the term “prequel trilogy” is synonymous with dread for obvious reasons. They have my support; I just hope they don’t make me regret it. 9 out of 10.

The Godfather: Part III - Review

The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II are two of the most critically acclaimed films in the history of cinema. When I watched The Godfather for the first time, I thought of it as being good but terribly overrated. About a half a year later, I decided to give it a second viewing, and upon this second viewing I enjoyed it much more, and recognize just how fantastic it really is. At the time of this review, I have seen The Godfather: Part II for the first time about a month prior to this. In my personal opinion, The Godfather: Part II is the superior film, an absolute masterpiece and a fantastic sequel at that. I was reluctant to give the third film a try since I’ve heard so much negative backlash toward it.

If you have never seen first two films in the trilogy, then you will scarcely understand the third installment, and therefore this review may not apply to you. Bluntly put, The Godfather: Part III falls into what I like to call “The Curse of the Trilogy”, in which a trilogy contains two solid first installments but the third film doesn’t measure up, and in many cases ends up being a poor film on its own. This curse has plagued sequels for years and it’s hard to find a solid trilogy anymore.

The Godfather: Part III, like the first two films, is directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The film takes place in 1979, twenty years after Part II, in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is older, seasoned, and guilt-ridden about his past. The plot follows Michael’s attempt to finally legitimize the Corleone family, this time via stock exchange and bank percentages involving the Vatican. Joining Michael in his battle against those who obstruct his goal is Vincent Mancini (Andy García), Santino Corleone’s son born from Lucy Mancini, the woman he was having an affair with in the first film. Vincent begins to take matters into his own hands regarding the Corleone family’s actions when Michael is weary and unable to, and begins an incestuous relationship with Michael’s daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola).

This “threequel” is plagued with problems. Most notably is Sofia Coppola’s performance, which is dull, exasperating, and sticks out like a sore thumb when she’s performing next to the brilliant talents of Pacino and Garcia, among others. Another issue is the film’s plot, which makes me feel as if Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo ran out of ideas for this one. The original idea for Part III is another problem I have with it, being that I’m disappointed it wasn’t utilized.

Originally, Part III was to chronicle a split between Michael and Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) from the first two films, and the plot was going to revolve around that. However, Robert Duvall felt insulted by his and Pacino’s intended salaries (being that Pacino had three to four times more) and dropped out of the film, causing a re-write. To me, Part III feels empty without Tom, and I honestly think this original idea would have made for a better follow-up to Part II.

Granted, there are things I liked about it. I actually enjoyed the prerequisite of having to see Part I and II in order to understand most of the third film, I honestly see it as a sort of reward. Pacino’s performance is great as always, and I can sympathize with his torment at this point, but I say García stood out the most, as Coppola said himself, Vincent is very much an amalgamation of the Corleone family males, though with his own respective characteristics.

I wouldn't say that Part III was unnecessary, if the original Godfather was regarded as such a masterpiece, was a sequel to that necessary? I wouldn’t even say Part III is terrible, it’s just disappointing. Unfortunately, it’s something we’ve grown accustomed to when we talk about third movies, save for very few exceptions. 6.5 out of 10.