See, I kinda think his eruption at the DOP was justified (yeah, the DOP, a head of department no less) when the guy's fiddling about while Bale's trying to concentrate on the scene. Imagine weeks of putting up with that, on a film that you're probably starting to regret doing. Bale's always, apparently, 'deep in character' when he's working.

Definitely, me and a mate watched Rescue Dawn and it was exhausting to watch. In a good way, it was all so believable. One of my favourite actors.

That's why I asked. He was the primary reason I was gonna see it

I thought he was very good in The Machinist and Empire of the Sun, but please, can someone refresh me as to what other films he's shone in? (he's an abysmal Bruce Wayne and acted like Data's twin as Patrick Bateman IMO)

I thought his Wayne was better than his Batman*

His Wayne is quite close to the current 'one' in the comics IMO, maybe with more humour...

* It doesn't really matter who puts the suit on, but I could do without the growly voice

I thought his Batman's pretty decent.
He lost so much weight and muscle mass for The Machinist, he couldn't run.

You, and everyone else, absolutely MUST see The Prestige. Not only is it a superb slice of pure cinema. But Bale is genuinely captivating. Jackman's also great, as is Caine and a few other people besides, but Bale really is something else.

I happen to love his Batman. His gives the psychological and philosophical elements of the character a real presence.

I agree the Prestige is a fascinating film and one you need to watch twice to pick up on all the clues that become obvious once you have seen it. <phew I think I avoided putting any spoilers there)

+1

I heard the gravely voice was made even more gravely my computer wizardry.

It seems that CGI is making it too cheap or easy to produce FX laden films. Terminator, made on a budget with what appear to be pretty primitive stop motion animation and prosthetics that make Arnie’s face fatter as he loses more of it, did not get in the way of a story which worked. Much can be said of the sequel too, where most of the FX were produced using models, puppets and prosthetics glued to the actors. Yes, there was CGI, but it was not the driving force. In those days, it was hard (read: very expensive, software did not exist etc.) to make CGI stuff look real. So there had to be meticulous planning, and the FX shots had to work in the context of the story. Not that bad films were not made, but in the hands of a story telling master, much could be done with a model, string and latex.

Today, CGI films are too easy to make. It’s easy to correct mistakes, and it’s also very a seductive medium. From the comments I have been reading here, Salvation sounds more like a CGI romp than a genuine story telling exercise. No wonder Cameron is not involved, and has been stand-offish about the project.

I’ll draw parallels with Aliens, another Cameron film. He had to convince the studios that he could make the film, give the impression that there were hundreds of the creatures using only six models. Today, with CGI, he could have shown vistas with the things running around, but in the 1980’s he stuck to dark corridors, clever camera angles and perspective. The result: you really did believe that Hadley’s Hope was crawling. And even today, that illusion is not diminished.

At times, I really enjoy a film which uses CGI well. Star Trek did it well - it was there in spade loads, sure, but it was as a prop - something to help move the story along, or provide a setting. It was not over bearing, or in your face. Unlike Indiana Jones and the Skull of Pixels (or whatever it’s name was), where it was over cooked. Or Transformers, where the CGI was so overly complex, you lost your bearings and could not readily resolve details. Or the last three Star Wars films, where the CGI seemed to be there not for any real reason other than to prove it could be done.

CGI requires skill to use effectively. I am not sure that Hollywood has this nailed down yet. There are some masters of the art, but I would hazard that there are more who are fumbling along, trying to find an excuse to add a few extra pixels to the frame.

I would beg to differ on your choice of examples. I agree that CGI is oft misused. However, the prequels and Indy are both hampered by earlier instalments which we all know and love. This makes the CGI seem unnecessary, when in fact, the directors and producers would've used it in the 70s and 80s had it been available.

Transformers, despite being much maligned on this forum is a superb triumph as a movie. Why? Because the CGI is a landmark achievement and we weren't expecting a plot heavy movie. It is to CGI what Crank is to FX and stunt work. Just like the Matrix moved the whole industry on, ILM made history with the Transformers. We wanted huge awesome robots and Megan Fox and we got it. Transformers is wish fulfilment and escapism on a massive scale. That used to be enough for most movie-goers. It seems now that people moan about decent plots but then when somebody delivers a film you need to think about, that's too much and it doesn't do the numbers.

Transformers did have impressive effects but as a film it was a shambles. With a budget of $151 million dollars they should have spent more than $1 on the script. There's no point having amazing scenes of robots brawling in the streets if you can't tell what's going on and there's no emotional interest in the story at all.

Just wanted to add another recommendation for The Prestige too, and agree that a second viewing brings a lot of things to light. Even David Bowie turns in a good performance!

Well, I think Transformers is a reflection on society as we see it today - the challenges of new comers to a society which doesn't, or can't, accept their existence. Shadowy governmental forces seeking to control and limit their exposure to the public. The challenges of family life, and the impact that can have on the development of your average teenager. It's an exploration of what our relationship to machines, and cars most of all, means to us and, in fact, whether this love affair with machinery will ultimately be our downfall.


Or... it's just really cool robots and hot chicks.

Exactly. The script means nothing! Stop trying to judge it by the script!

It's just very, very cool. The day people don't make movies like that any more will be a very sad one for me.

Err.... so why would anyone want to see Transformers 1 or 2?



Now that's what I call a latte!