War of the Arrows
★★★★
The impressions on Letterboxd likening this to Apocalypto weren't kidding. Combine the first and third acts of Apocalypto - everyday life, violent pillage, then the breathless chase - and place it in Joseon-era Korea, with a focus on guerrilla warfare and archery battles. That's "War of the Arrows".
It lacks the raw emotional satisfaction of Apocalypto, the distinctive villains, the grand scale, or sense of desperation. But War of the Arrows makes up for that through pure action-adventure momentum. The movie makes the most out of its wilderness setting and budget, wringing surprising variety from a limited focus. Cat-and-mouse pursuits, bow-and-arrow standoffs, intense running archery battles, stealthy guerrilla maneuvers, long-range "sniper" duels. The special draw technique that curves an arrow's trajectory a la Wanted, special arrowheads that can piece multiple bodies and trees, makeshift bows made on the fly. Honestly, War of the Arrows puts any Robin Hood movie from the last two decades to shame in how it makes archery cool, intense, thrilling, and varied.
28 Days Later (Rewatch)
★★★★★
Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, and Shaun of the Dead all released within two years, and just like that, the zombie genre was revitalized. But of all the 2000s zombie movies, 28 Days Later is my favorite by far. There's a haunting sense of realism to the film that a lot of its contemporaries lack. So many zombie movies tend to revolve around small towns or singular locations that even today, the sweeping shots of a completely dead and empty London remain uniquely unnerving. The characters feel human, in their desperation, their quiet moments, their questionable decisions. Even the infected are horrific in ways that typical zombies aren't, and it's not just their speed. It's the blood-red eyes, the painful vomiting, the sickly raspy breathing, the fact that they're very much alive rather than mindless undead.
Instead of over-the-top gore or large hordes, 28 Days Later focuses on suspense and character-driven violence. Whether it's a flat tire at the worst possible time or a frantic sprint through the streets, Boyle's direction makes each sequence tense and atmospheric. Quite telling that the finale isn't defined by escalation but by terrified panic and gloomy chaos.
It's the little details that make 28 Days Later stand out. A swarm of rats fleeing the infected. A mournful suicide note. A massive explosion seeming insignificant against the backdrop of an entire city.
Never considered it before but in hindsight, 28 Days Later is essentially the 21st century's Night of the Living Dead, with a similar legacy, influence on the genre, tone and themes, etc.
28 Weeks Later (Rewatch)
★★★½
28 Weeks Later is essentially 28 Days Later's Terminator 2/Aliens. The first movie was restrained, suspenseful, and focused on character; gore-drenched set-pieces abound in the sequel. A gas station explodes in the original, while London is scorched in the sequel. Dealing with one infected was a struggle; here, a helicopter slices through a field of infected. On one hand, it makes sense not to tread familiar ground. On the other, the shift from suspenseful humanistic horror to action-packed horror spectacle is far from seamless. The relatable drama is gone. The characters are much less defined and barely developed. But most notably, the plot suffers from frustrating decisions and jarring contrivances. By the time everything goes to hell, 28 Weeks Later becomes a string of excellent set-pieces held together by flimsy narrative threads.
It doesn't help that the opening sequence was directed by Boyle and thus the differences in approach are so apparent. That opening feels like a natural evolution of 28 Days Later's strengths, but done on a larger scale. The humanistic character-driven focus, the panic and desperation and relatable but flawed decisions, the suspenseful escalation. It's succinct, efficient, intense.
Batman Begins (Rewatch)
★★★★½
There have been a lot of origin stories told since 2005. But few - if any - have been as effective, as confident, or as influential as Batman Begins. I'd argue that Iron Man's, Captain America's, and Caesar's were all equally well-executed in their own ways, but Nolan's revival of the Dark Knight remains my favorite.
Batman Begins doesn't feature its fully-fledged hero onscreen until an hour into its runtime. We've seen Batman on film and TV before, but Begins is more concerned with exploring the nature of Bruce Wayne, what drives him and why he dedicated himself to his crusade. That journey from traumatized boy to ninja vigilante is never boring, always compelling, expertly paced, using flashbacks to mesh action with characterization. By focusing on the man rather than the hero, Batman Begins makes the unbelievable feel grounded in relatable aspects like legacy, loss, anger and vengeance.
What's notable about Batman Begins today is that while it's gritty, it never shuns away from the comic book silliness of its premise. There's an ancient ninja terrorist cult. Bats are literally summoned as a distraction. The movie is laced with subdued humor and callbacks (ie "nice coat", the Tumbler backing into a Compact spot). It's all played completely straight and somehow it works, thanks to the interweave of a corrupt Gotham's crime-thriller atmosphere with the more comic-book elements like Batman, the League of Shadows, and Scarecrow.
The action is the only real weak point of the film, mainly the fights being choppily edited. It works in the dock scene to capture the terror of the criminals, but every fight is portrayed the same way. However, beyond the hand-to-hand stuff, Batman Begins is still exciting. The Tumbler chase remains a highlight, and framing confrontations through a horror lens - Batman as stealthy predator picking off terrified criminals one-by-one - is both a brilliant choice and smart narrative pay-off for Bruce's training.
Much like The Matrix's final scene, Batman Begin's ending works as a definite thematic conclusion that also lets you envision the many adventures and stories that could unfold next. That kind of confident direction and sharp writing defines the movie. Those moments when the costume looks silly or the editing is poor can't detract from Batman Begins' many strengths.
The Dark Knight (Rewatch)
★★★★★
What's interesting about watching The Dark Knight after Batman Begins is how apparent the differences in atmosphere become. The Dark Knight prunes the comic-book elements down to just Batman and Joker; remove the caped crusader and the film essentially is a crime action-thriller about a psycho terrorizing a city. But by concentrating on the contrast between the very human Bruce and his force-of-nature nemesis, the superhero trappings are brought into sharp relief. Their larger-than-life conflict seems like a corrupting influence upon the familiar criminal elements. The Dark Knight perfectly executes the promise of Batman Begins' final scene.
The other thing that stands out is how improved the action scenes and set-pieces are. The clockwork precision of the opening heist is a propulsive start to the many fights, pursuits, and suspense sequences throughout the film. Every sequence is distinct and masterfully paced, often cross-cutting between multiple plot threads while building towards a crescendo. Longer shots and less frenetic cuts fix one of Batman Begins' notable issues, while the focus on practical effects means the action feels weightier and more grounded than its predecessor.
Ledger's performance is always mesmerizing. Everyone else is great, but his presence as The Joker utterly looms over the film. It's the facial tics and body language, the gleeful menace, the sly sarcasm. The sense of mystery, the monologues, those hints of psychotic rage and of the real person behind the Joker's facade. No name, no history, nothing in his pockets but knives and lint, a manifestation of chaos and mayhem that just exists.
