movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

Remember when Tim Burton reinvented Batman for the big screen? Remember how incredibly faithful, dark and extravagantly awesome that film was? Burton then made Batman Returns and that film was a stellar effort. Unfortunately, the reigns were then handed to director Joel Schumacher to carry the franchise. Batman Forever at least had some of the Batman charm, which is understandable because Burton stayed on as a producer. But when the time came for a fourth instalment in the Batman series, Burton had moved on to bigger and better projects. So when Batman & Robin entered production, already several more things were amiss. For starters, the studio were demanding something more cartoonish...a film that would justify tonnes of toys, meaning more money to feed their greedy souls.

And then of course, we have renowned bad actor Arnold Schwarzenegger receiving top billing as the villain of the film. It's understandable if someone like Jack Nicholson is billed first due to his reputation as an amazing actor...but come on! Why would you seriously want to enthusiastically flaunt someone like Schwarzenegger as your film's primary acting talent? WHY?! And then there's the factor regarding the actors. George Clooney had been selected as the new Batman. Seriously? Okay...already the film sounds disastrous and it's truly a reflection of the disaster that was to follow. Batman & Robin reduces the franchise to the level of camp exhibited in the 60s TV series with Adam West. Except even that is an insult to Adam West! As a 6-year-old I remember giving this film a thumbs up. Kids may find something of value here. On the other hand, if you're pushing 9-10 and beyond...be afraid! Be very afraid. Before I get started with everything wrong with this movie, beware that this review will be tiresomely lengthy. I guess one must give kudos to the production team for a film potentially bad enough to warrant the longest review ever written.

I defy you to find a single positive review for this movie. They don't exist! Audiences have voted this as the worst comic book film of all time! And that's even with Howard the Duck in consideration! Batman & Robin is loud, dumb, and an embarrassment to the entire franchise. It even shames the medium of film just because it's preserved on it! Here's the thing: the film has absolutely no plot to it. Instead it's a string of incoherent, glamorous action scenes that usually don't make any sense at all.

The opening sequence is enough to set this up. First we're shown the Warner Bros. logo...all frozen in ice. Already, we know that trouble is to follow. Then we move to the opening titles that are loud and colourful. That's a simple sign that the movie to follow will be nothing superior to those standards. Then after the credits, we're shown a montage of Batman (Clooney) and Robin (O'Donnell) suiting up. We get pointless extreme close-ups of different body parts being covered in armour. The first thing that will stick out is the nipples on the Batsuit! NIPPLES?! Are you serious?! But the worse has yet to follow: a completely out-of-place, futile few shots depicting both of their rear ends being covered in armour! Oh, but wait, then following scene gets better. The first few line deliveries are enough to make you puke! As the Batmobile enters the frame, Robin eagerly remarks "I want a car!" before saying "Chicks dig the car". Do I really need to point out everything that's wrong with those few lines of dialogue? Then things get even better...Batman ever so embarrassingly remarks "This is why Superman works alone". Oh my God! And we're not even 5 minutes into the movie!!

Already we've established that the film's internal logic has been defied, that the screenwriter can't handle any interesting dialogue, and that we've submerged below the corniness of the Adam West TV show! (At least they knew they were just making comedy genius and nothing serious) Soon enough, we're introduced to the personal situation that the protagonists must overcome. Alfred (Gough) has a spell of a fictitious Movie Illness that causes his lips to quiver, his eyelids to flutter, and forces him to lean against a wall to keep from collapsing. Either that, or the filmmakers were filming a reaction shot of the actor during the movie's premiere. Here we are, not 5 minutes into the film and already I've pointed out countless instances of why the film is bad.

Now I'll attempt the impossible: outlining the plot... It seems Mr. Freeze (Schwarzenegger) is forced by fate to walk around in a clunky aluminium suit. He then develops a poorly conceived plan to avenge his wife's illness by scheming to freeze the city. Great...now how will that accomplish anything? Sounds to me like Mr. Freeze got rather pissed off and ergo is throwing a tantrum. It's the same effect as kicking and screaming, except on a wider scale. Couldn't he just settle with a bit of sobbing and maybe killing a few nearby bunnies with his father's shotgun? If only that were so, because then the world would never have to witness this flick. Anyway, continuing the "two villains per flick" rule, we are introduced to Poison Ivy (Thurman) who wants to kill Batman of course. In addition to the crime fighting duo of Batman and Robin (as if that pair weren't painful enough), cue Batgirl (Silverstone) to reel in a mainstream female audience. What do you have as a result? There's practically no story to the film: it's merely a succession of flashy set pieces (most of them irrelevant to anything coming before or after them) that generate about as much intensity as a circus sideshow.

George Clooney is appalling as the title character. Maybe he makes a semi-charming Bruce Wayne...but he's an appalling Batman. There's no dark voice and no effort to hide his true identity. By the time this is clear, we're already burying our face in our hands...and completely embarrassed to be watching the film. Arnold Schwarzenegger has never been an actor. He's grabbed guns, shot people, seen blood spurt in fascinating ways and made his pay-checks in the 80s from doing just this while delivering trite dialogue. The screenwriter (who can't do anything comedic...but would you believe he wrote A Beautiful Mind?!) for this film gives Arnie one-liners that could make a rhinoceros tremble with embarrassment. Sometimes his costume looks mildly cool (pun intended), but it's clearly exaggerated for toy purposes. Chris O'Donnell is young and too enthusiastic. His character is dreadfully written. Uma Thurman can't do much for the material. This is simply a consequence of bad screenwriting. Alicia Silverstone looks perplexed in amidst the cast. Michael Gough frequently looks embarrassed to be participating in this garbage. The poor guy used to be such a good version of Alfred...now he's an old man saying stupid dialogue.

Overall, words have yet to be invented to describe how dreadful Batman & Robin truly is. To be fair, the warning signs were present: a screenwriter who can't write comedy, a director who can't create comedy and a cast who can never achieve their desired emotions. Every sequence of this film is dreadful...corny dialogue, obvious wirework, no intensity, special effects that even look atrocious, and the camera can't be held still. The final insult and the final nail in the coffin was the film's final moments...when Batgirl, Batman and Robin run towards the camera with their capes flying before the credits begin to roll. Not to mention one of the final lines (delivered by Michael Gough) that further solidify this film as pure crap. Gough says "We're going to need a bigger Batcave". Actually, I think they need a better creative team. I remember watching this as a 6-year-old, and I was concerned with I saw a dog being frozen. If a dog getting frozen is the only thing I cared about, then surely the filmmakers have done something mortally incorrect.

0.5/10

The Batman franchise was clouded in uncertainty when director Tim Burton gracefully stepped away from helming the third instalment. Due to loyalty and creative issues, Michael Keaton also opted not to return as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Instead, a new creative team was brought into the picture. Leading this creative team was director Joel Schumacher. At first glance this could seem like an intelligent idea to employ the talents of Schumacher considering his past movies (these include The Lost Boys to Flatliners). With a director in place, it was then time to find someone to fill the vacated cape. Once again, a seemingly fantastic decision was made when Batman's outfit was donned by actor Val Kilmer. On top of this, Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey were brought on as Batman's adversaries - portraying Two-Face and The Riddler, respectively. Then throw in superstar Nicole Kidman, and have actor Michael Gough returning as Batman's loyal butler. What could possibly go wrong, right? Unfortunately, it seems a lot can go wrong.

It seems Batman Forever abandons the artistic approach adopted by visionary Tim Burton. Instead, a new creative team have given everything a makeover. One of the biggest insults is also abandoning Burton's method of creating a blockbuster crossed with a masterpiece. The original Batman was filled with stylish action in the form of a popcorn summer flick, and on top of this it was also a masterpiece of the highest order (and one of my favourite films of all time). Batman Returns continued this very effective approach. With Batman Forever we're presented with nothing to bring it out of the "brainless over-the-top action" category. As an alternative, this film submerges its plot in the abundance of campy stylised action.

Even worse is that the director can't handle action with any degree of style. Apparently with the recent Hollywood obsession, the studio demanded utilisation of the MTV quick-cut approach to the action. As a result the action is unfortunately difficult to follow. The visuals that were once magnificent to behold instead resemble something from Blade Runner or some other science fiction production. Gotham City no longer looks unique at all. Burton's neo-gothic vision of Gotham City is sorely missed. Batman Forever is almost an extended toy commercial that looks impressive, but cannot match Burton's mix of style and substance. In hindsight, it's a warning of what was to follow: the train wreck that became Batman & Robin.

This instalment in the Batman franchise finds Bruce Wayne/Batman (Kilmer) facing off with two menacing villains. Harvey Dent (Jones) was in a terrible accident for which he blames Batman, and is looking to get revenge. He returns as Two-Face. Dr. Edward Nygma (Carrey) is a technical wizard who's jealous of Bruce Wayne's success. He adopts the alter ego of The Riddler. Meanwhile, a young acrobat named Dick Grayson (O'Donnell) witnesses his family plummet to their death, and he's alone in the world. Dick takes a warming to Bruce Wayne and his butler Alfred (Gough). As Two-Face and The Riddler scheme nothing but evil for the future of Gotham City, Batman must again rise to the challenge to defend his home. This time, he is joined by Dick who takes the alter persona of Robin.

Like I said, Batman Forever is not a masterpiece. It's a summer flick, and with the heavy use of stylised special effects it keeps reminding the audience of this. Although sometimes impressive in terms of special effects and stunt-work (the close combat fights are awesome), it seems everything is now hyperbolic and exaggerated, with most of the action quite dumb and made just to sell popcorn. Throw in a few incredibly dumb characters, and voila. Val Kilmer is a decent Batman. He can't match Keaton, but Kilmer's portrayal has its strong points. Tommy Lee Jones pulls off a decent performance. Typically, he's pretty impressive but not perfect. Jim Carrey steals the show in every scene in which he features. He's the most impressive member of the cast. You'll also find Nicole Kidman who gives it everything she has, but the script is the unfortunate downfall.

All in all, I'm vastly disappointed with the result of Batman Forever. Despite colourful visuals, everything seems to be toned down for marketing purposes. The filmmakers were looking to make merchandise instead of making a worthy Batman adventure. The special effects are far too over-the-top this time as well. The action may look impressive, but this is not the Batman standard previously set by Tim Burton. Does it work? Not really, but it'll certainly keep you entertained and Jim Carrey provides a few laughs. In a nutshell: this is a shameless action flick with a dumb concept that could easily be employed for a James Bond movie. This is a campy flick that hasn't aged well. Followed by Batman & Robin.

5.4/10

Three years following Tim Burton's brilliant neo-gothic reinvention of Batman for the big screen, the outstanding director once again preserved his incredible nightmarish version of Gotham City on film with the much-awaited sequel, Batman Returns. In tradition with the law of a highly successful film, executives at Warner Bros. demanded a follow-up. Thankfully, director Tim Burton returned to fulfil the directing duties, with the exceptional Michael Keaton portraying the title role. Batman Returns can't match the brilliance of Burton's 1989 Batman, but it certainly served its purpose at the box office. It's virtually impossible to dislike director Tim Burton. His unique talent for eerie films is amazing, and he immediately reminds me why I'm so fond of his previous films. From the moment his movies begin, Burton draws you in with morbid curiosity. The visually amazing initial shots of Batman Returns conform to this standard. The title sequence in particular is enough to have you completely riveted.

This sequel is unfairly maligned and pasted, but it's still a visual masterpiece. It's a lot darker and more malevolent than its predecessor. Humour and comic relief is in short supply. Instead, Burton opted to craft a Batman feature aimed at a more mature audience who will appreciate its darker tones. This sequel is a worthy addition to the Batman canon. It features plenty of nuances, breathtaking imagery and marvellous performances all around. It's also far more a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions than its predecessor, with its final moments reminiscent of Hamlet. Unfortunately, with less room to accommodate the infants the film is already inferior to its predecessor.

Thankfully, the fantastic vision of Gotham City is retained. Burton's production designer on the previous film stepped away, and in some ways this interpretation is far more visually intriguing. It's set at Christmas, and hence the snowfall coupled with the frequent night-time setting looks similar to Edward Scissorhands. Even more effective here is Danny Elfman's score. It's evocative, breathtaking and sometimes very touching. Elfman's unique Batman theme is a recurrent element of the score. During an action scene, or a sequence featuring Batman flaunting his wonderful toys, Danny Elfman's score is valuable and gratifying.

This adventure of Batman finds the Caped Crusader (played by the remarkable Michael Keaton) continuing his mission to rid Gotham City of crime. A mutilated human who calls himself the Penguin (DeVito) spent his life since childhood in the sewer; abandoned by his parents. As an adult he resurfaces to win the hearts of the citizens of Gotham City. While appearing as a heart-felt person, he's secretly plotting to overthrow Gotham City with his squad of circus freaks (who seem more like the live-action cast of Nightmare Before Christmas) as well as his army of penguins. The Penguin is assisted in his goals by megalomaniac Max Shreck (Walken). Also thrown into the characters is Catwoman (Pfeiffer) who appears to be on no-one's side but her own. Aside from an obvious plot concerning the villains, Burton unfortunately never implements a clear-cut plot which is hopelessly lost towards the film's conclusion. This is one of the few drawbacks on an otherwise fine Batman adventure.

A key element firmly holding Batman Returns together is the magnificent cast. Tim Burton is known for his seemingly odd choices to fill the cast...and they end up working tremendously well. Michael Keaton once again impeccably pulls off the dual role of Bruce Wayne and Batman. As millionaire Bruce Wayne, Keaton has a subtle charm and he's simply a shy man of few words. It's impossible not to love his version of the character. And as Batman, Keaton has the looks and the voice. Danny DeVito perfectly executes the role of the Penguin. No-one could have imagined someone like DeVito portraying a character so repulsive and grotesque. Needless to say, it's impossible to imagine anyone other than DeVito as the Penguin. The brilliance of DeVito's portrayal is successfully being sad and innocent in his con of the citizens of Gotham City, while revealing himself to be evil and deep as well. It's interesting to note that DeVito was actually feasting on a dead fish at times. Michelle Pfeiffer makes a fantastic Catwoman. Granted, her transformation is peculiar and makes little sense, but her acrobatic stunt-work and striking outfit almost overshadow this marginal fault. Then we have Christopher Walken as Max Shreck. Interestingly, this name is a slight reference to the classic vampire film Nosferatu. The title vampire was played by German actor Max Schreck. There is a slight spelling difference of course.

Batman Returns is skilfully paced, and it flaunts quality visuals. The sets are utterly amazing for numerous reasons. You have the array of settings meant for a lot of action to unfold, and then the miniatures for wide-angle shots of a fictitious city or area. These are brought to life with eye-popping special effects. Even today, Burton is one of the few directors who hasn't given in almost entirely to employing CGI. Burton's Batman Returns contains astonishing panoramic shots with some vastly dramatic dark-and-light contrasts throughout the film. There is plenty of action present in the film, as there is in every instalment in this series. Another fantastic aspect is Burton's wonderful use of animals in the film. I'm not sure what it is about seeing a flock of penguins running along the street with candy-cane striped missiles strapped to their backs, but it's absolutely hilarious and will have you giggling uncontrollably! Perhaps Burton didn't mean for it to be that funny, as the missiles were intended to foretell Gotham's impending doom, but these scenes are funny nonetheless.

Infused with quality filmmaking, enthralling visuals and tonnes of fun action, Batman Returns is a sequel that will long be remembered. In my opinion, Burton's contributions to the Batman franchise will look a lot better as time goes by. This is mainly due to its practical effects as opposed to over-the-top, cartoonish CGI and wirework. The film is immensely entertaining, and visually it's a masterpiece. Also worth mentioning is Danny Elfman's brilliant musical contributions that set an immaculate atmosphere. Although the plot becomes slightly muddled towards the end, Batman Returns is much darker than its predecessor, and very emotionally satisfying. It's not as good as its forerunner, but a terrific effort nonetheless. Followed by Batman Forever.

8.2/10

When director Tim Burton grasped the reigns of the first serious screen manifestation of the DC Comics superhero, The Dark Knight (a.k.a. Batman), fans were understandably slightly nervous considering the director's little prior experience as a filmmaker. If one inspects director Burton's current résumé, it's crammed with some of the greatest fantasy films of all time - from Big Fish to Edward Scissorhands. However, towards the end of the 1980s he was only commercially recognised for Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. Tim Burton's Batman marks the first escapade of the illustrious superhero since the incredibly campy 1960s TV show. It was apparent from the outset that Burton's intent was to visibly separate himself from those roots, instead opting to return to the menacing psychopathology of vigilante violence amidst a neo-noir atmosphere with chilling gothic connotations. Burton's amazing vision is a mix of noir mobster clichés with remote psychotic notions that appear to encompass their origins in dreamlike imagery cast over with the compelling spectacle of the legendary Dark Knight. In a nutshell: this makes for equally a visual and an expressive extravagance.

Batman introduces an innovative interpretation of the renowned character: a traumatised albeit determined vigilante...a spot on blend of hero and anti-hero. The creative team eliminate the embarrassingly atrocious blue tights worn by Adam West in the 1960s TV show (and the campy film): these are substituted with smooth leather, latex and marvellously meticulous body armour. To contrast the dark image of Batman, we are presented with a flamboyant, vivacious Jack Nicholson portraying Batman's arch nemesis...the Joker. The characters are wholly believable as opposed to over-the-top and campy. They are placed where they belong: in a serious film noir. Burton's Batman is a template for the superhero genre that also introduced an innovative formula. This masterpiece gave birth to both the summer blockbuster and the contemporary superhero genre in general.

Bruce Wayne (Keaton) is a millionaire whose parents were killed when he was a boy. Bruce is now residing in Gotham City which is governed by fear and crime. By day he's a bland rich man with seemingly nothing to do. But by night, he masquerades as the Caped Crusader who's an illustrious, albeit mysterious figure. Jack Napier (Nicholson) is a criminal being hunted by the authorities. Following a disastrous encounter with Batman, Jack Napier returns as the Joker who threatens the entire population of Gotham City. The Joker is a brilliant but unreservedly crazy criminal mastermind capable of heinous and unpredictable brutality.

There are countless reasons in relation to why Tim Burton's Batman is a masterpiece of the highest regard. Principally, its brilliance is due to the director's decision to make his production as dark and realistic as possible while still preserving a comic-book sensibility. There's impressive stylised violence that's spectacular but not brutal. The kids will love the film due to its visuals, while the adults will appreciate the film on a much broader scale. It's a daunting task to convincingly pull off a film concerning a crime-fighter in a bat suit swinging from one building to the next in a fictional Gotham City. Burton manages the achievement by making us believe the characters, their ambitions, and even believe in their predicaments. Burton helps us suspend our disbelief by crafting a noir-ish atmosphere reminiscent of the best Hollywood film noirs of the 40s, the 50s and the greatest graphic novels of the 80s and beyond: we are presented with shadowy rooms; gloomy, rain-swept streets; and dark, smoke-filled alleys. This is a towering spectacle that stands as a monumentally creative reinvention of a superhero for the big screen.

The vision of Gotham City is an unparalleled feat. Instead of a typical city setting similar to those frequently seen in America, we are transported to a visual feast that is marvellous to behold. It's like a page of the comic being transported to film. The combination of Anton Furst's production design and Peter Young's set decoration makes everything look truly impeccable. On top of this, the action is satisfying and abundant. People watch superhero films to see their favourite superhero overpowering their adversaries. From start to finish we have a clear-cut villain, and we're rooting for the good guy. Then there's Danny Elfman's invigorating musical score containing a theme as recognisable and as energetic as the Superman theme. Prince also contributed a few songs to the film's soundtrack. Sure, they may sound silly but it adds to the film's perfect tone. One glance at the opening sequence alone and you know it's Batman: a unique labour of love flaunting considerable inspiration and imagination.

Michael Keaton shall always be Batman through my eyes. Burton's decision would have been considered slightly peculiar as the actor was known mainly for comedic roles (like featuring in Burton's Beetlejuice), however Keaton proves capable of pulling off a complicated role. Jack Nicholson is brilliant as the Joker. Granted he's over-the-top, but he nails the character's sinister undertones while maintaining a colourful appearance. His laugh and smile are faultless here. Kim Basinger would probably be considered an odd choice as well. But lo and behold: she also nails her character of the nervous and determined journalist. Also in the magnificent supporting cast you'll find such names as Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle and Billy Dee Williams. Michael Gough is perfect as Alfred. He has a warm feel to his character and it's impossible to imagine someone pulling off a better performance.

All in all, Tim Burton has accomplished a groundbreaking masterpiece with his neo-gothic vision of Batman. The comic has been brought to life in an amazing cinematic event. I remember watching this classic film as a child and adoring it. Years have passed, but I'm still in complete awe at everything about this film. It's perhaps needlessly long and slightly slow-paced around the middle section...still, this is possibly the greatest superhero affair of all time: a groundbreaking visual and aural onslaught that altered the way in which comic book adaptations were viewed. Followed by Batman Returns, and an additional two sequels before the series was rebooted in 2005.

9.76/10

If one glances at the cover for 7 Seconds, surely they'd notice the presence of Wesley Snipes and figure that with a veteran actor of that calibre, the film should be pretty good. However, if one erases the name of "Wesley Snipes" and replaced it with Steven Seagal, Van Damme or Chuck Norris there would be barely any difference at all. Just like Wesley Snipes' preceding low-budget films (he's probably bordering on 5-10 by now) this is merely another direct-to-DVD action vehicle featuring standard filmmaking in every aspect. The plot is dumb, the script is dumb, the action is dumb, the dialogue is dumb, and the film makes very little sense. Snipes' character is an interchangeable face holding a gun. There are no interesting character traits that Snipes is able to bring to the table. It seems these days, the formerly talented actor is spending his time in Romania getting fairly well paid to churn out generic, routine action films that exist to provide action geeks with something to chuckle over while wandering through the video store, searching for something to watch.

7 Seconds is shot on a cheap budget and is entirely overloaded with confusion: it's ostensibly a movie about one great thief, numerous dim-witted villains, and a very sexy British babe. Basically the director has no problem with displaying pointless action and violence throughout. When the movie isn't whooshing down a Romanian street or showcasing Wesley Snipes kickboxing feebly, we're strained to suffer through incessant reams of screenplay jabber that's not even dreadful enough to be amusing. You won't care who successfully escapes with what and/or who finishes up double-crossing whom. Ergo the chases, getaways, and butt-kickings never seem to matter very much. It brings me no pleasure to announce that this is another nail in the coffin containing Snipes' career: 7 Seconds feels like nothing more than a project featuring Snipes merely because Van Damme was feeling too lazy one week.

The film's almost non-existent plot appears to concern an allegedly hard-nosed-yet-charming master thief named Jack Tuliver (Snipes). Of course he was formally in the army and, in the typical clichéd manner, was honourably discharged. Jack is leading a supposedly foolproof, precisely timed armoured car heist. Instead he ends up stealing a case that (I think) contains a missing Van Gogh painting. Then another gang turns up and briskly eliminates Jack's men. Then Jack's girl is kidnapped and he has to rescue her. Somewhere in here, a British army Sergeant (Outhwaite) gets mixed up and decides to help Jack.

Okay, so 7 Seconds is a pretty appalling film. Its only redeeming feature is the action. The car chases and shoot-outs are competently made and don't look too low-budget. Still, director Simon Fellows appears to stick close to the fast-cutting Michael Bay style. The story doesn't make a lick of sense and is full of incredible coincidences. The film offers a few twists and turns, but most of them are seemingly superfluous.

Another thing that will stick out about 7 Seconds is the enormous amount of flashbacks. I wouldn't by lying if I said the film would have been an hour long (or less) if the flashbacks were cut. We're endlessly spoon fed flashbacks to remind us of faces and things people have done. Surprisingly, even they cannot add more coherence to the flick. 90% of the time I didn't even know what the flashbacks were pertaining to (they constantly replay a clip of some random guy delivering a Wizard of Oz reference and then getting shot). The acting is very standard throughout the film. The script attempts to insert running gags, but they will never have you laughing. The biggest insult is the villain with Parkinson's disease that is obviously making himself shake. It all looks contrived. Also, the sound foley during the action is generally appalling!

Overflowing with mountains of corny dialogue, pointless acts of violence, futile flashbacks, senseless editing and a poor directorial style - one can only describe 7 Seconds as pure crap. It's disappointing to see Wesley Snipes transforming into a direct-to-video king like Seagal and Van Damme before him.

2.8/10

American Psycho is a frequently misapprehended adaptation of the controversial novel by author Bret Easton Ellis. This is a remarkably faithful adaptation of Ellis' outstanding literary novel that is habitually hailed as a grotesque, disturbing and unnerving piece of writing that promotes misogynistic themes. Several directors, from David Cronenberg to Oliver Stone, expressed interest in directing this adaptation. However, the directing duties were handed to small-time director Mary Harron whose film debut was the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. Similar to the novel, this disconcerting film is marked as a horror or a thriller, when in fact it's a dark comedy and a subtle satire of society in the 1980s. This was a time when businessmen cared solely about their appearance: an attractive business card, a striking suit and reservations at the most trendy restaurant.

Whilst admittedly various audience members may regard it as a horror film, upon closer scrutiny it reveals itself to be something unreservedly different: it's a social satire. Mary Harron's American Psycho is a dark glimpse at society gone awry. It depicts a society so extremely infatuated with possessions and one-upmanship that even murder is unsuccessful to fulfil people's desires. The central protagonists solidly drive this message into the mind of the viewer. Similar to the novel, the film also contains almost no plot. This is probably the film's key flaw: there's no plot to fuel the film's events, and hence nothing overly interesting actually occurs. To hide this fact, the film is instead infused with incredible performances, mesmeric imagery and a dark but irresistible atmosphere.

Patrick Bateman (Bale) is a successful 27-year-old businessman who holds a superb job at a Wall Street firm and is being consumed by the superficiality of his colleagues and his life. His spacious apartment is luxurious but barren, which is essentially a manifestation of his character. Patrick is an unscrupulous, sexist misogynist. On top of which, Patrick is terribly egocentric and narcissistic. His contaminated mentality has been growing progressively, similar to a tumour, and is nourished by the bland, superficial appurtenances of life as a New York yuppie. To power his anaesthetised synapses, Patrick resorts to doing hard drugs, watching the 1974 horror film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, listening to gormless musicians such as Phil Collins, indulging in wild group sex, feasting on expensive boutique cuisine, dropping serial killer details into daily discussions, and pandering to his egotism among other twisted activities. Patrick's dormant psychopathic impulses steadily pull back the curtain of his sanity, revealing an outrageous allegory that no-one is capable of distinguishing. Soon, Patrick's uncontrollable lust for murder only grows more compelling.

Welsh-born actor Christian Bale completely immerses himself into the character of Patrick Bateman. This is an extremely impressive performance: Bale adds the right amount of charm to pull off both sides of the emotionless character. He's a smiling killer that employs a manner of power tools to ruthlessly slay women after he has sex with them. It's disturbing to see Bale's face...clad in blood while delivering an ambiguous smile. His voice is always soothing, particularly during lines of narration. The correct tone is immediately set with his impeccable dialogue delivery. In some ways he mirrors Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Here's some food for thought: Bates, Bateman, Bale, Batman. Hmmm.

Willem Dafoe is a minor addition to the cast, but he makes an everlasting impression. Dafoe's performance allows you to draw conclusions regarding his state of mind. Does he suspect Bateman of murder, allowing an oblivious side to shine through? Chloë Sevigny is another great addition to the cast. She's perhaps a little underused, but she's very memorable as the love-torn secretary.

The technical merits of American Psycho are marvellous to behold. The atmosphere is enthralling from start to finish. Director Harron's visuals directly allude to the bloodshed and sadism that Bateman unleashes on his victims in the novel. Although the gore that gets past the censors in the current cinematic era makes this film look quite tame, the murders are still a punch to the gut. The screenwriters faithfully transfer Ellis' novel to the screen. Although critics aren't fond of it, the author spoke up about his appreciation of the way in which the film communicates the tones and messages of the novel. Ellis writes: "Like the novel, the movie is essentially plotless, a horror-comedy with a thin narrative built up of satirical riffs about greed, status and the business values of the 1980s culture."

I must mention that despite this film being called "hilarious" by some, I couldn't find much comedy in it. For the most part the film works as an ambiguous horror film that's hard to categorise. The twists in the film are sometimes poorly distinguished...but this just means repeated viewings are wholly necessary. Another chief flaw in the film is that the power of the social satire has run dry past the first 20-30 minutes. After that point, things are on autopilot. Some of Bateman's characteristics don't surface again unfortunately. Still, it's hard to maintain a set standard for a film's running time. The spellbinding visuals are always a treat, though, with perfect visuals: great lighting, commendable cinematography and well thought out camera shots.

Despite its flaws, shortcomings and mountains of negative reviews, director Mary Harron has achieved a great film with American Psycho. Mainstream audiences may find things hard to devour, but if you watch with close scrutiny you'll pick up the masterful filmmaking on show. The film is thoroughly thought-provoking and interesting. It's a dark, deterrent tale regarding the ills of superficiality and the dehumanising effects of using too much moisturiser. This is a great reflection about an 80s society controlled by material possessions and appearances. Some will love it, some will hate it. Draw your own conclusions.

8.1/10

Key Largo marks another spellbinding on-screen collaboration of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. However, this film also marks a reunion of Bogey with famed director John Huston: a man who directed Bogey in such classic films as The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Combine the screen partnership of Bogey and Bacall with director John Huston...then further boast the acting talents of Edward G. Robinson among many others, and it's impossible to go wrong. Previously, Howard Hawks directed Bogey and Bacall in The Big Sleep as well as To Have and Have Not. With John Huston's Key Largo, this is a film much less sexy than Hawks' forerunners. Instead we have a heady thriller built around a crackling conflict. Despite the restricted setting, this film is stylish and impressive: sizzling tension, exhilarating dialogue, perfectly tense atmosphere and an amazing slate of characters.

Major Frank McCloud (Bogart) has recently returned from the war. Frank is travelling through Florida with the desired destination of Key West. However, Frank decides to make a brief stop at the tropical locale of Key Largo. While serving in the war, a young soldier named George Temple served under his command and was tragically killed in action. Frank's intention in Key Largo is to visit George's family: father James Temple (Barrymore) and wife Nora (Bacall). The two manage a run-down hotel, and Frank is very warmly received. But Frank's visit was badly timed. While a howling tropical hurricane thunders outside, gangster Johnny Rocco (Robinson) takes control of the hotel with his cronies. The current hotel residents discover that they are now the prisoners of Rocco until the fierce storm passes. While a hurricane rages outside, emotions flare inside as Frank endeavours to keep everything calm in order to guarantee that everyone not only survives the hurricane but also survives the callous attitude of Johnny Rocco.

Regardless of the reasonably constrained scope of the setting in a hotel, Key Largo offers an opportunity for dexterous character development that rarely surfaces in films these days. Whereas the characters get slightly clichéd at times, the film is still a very nice character-driven effort that doesn't drag. The pace keeps the film taut and enthralling. It works due to the remarkable dialogue that never sounds contrived.

Top honours for director John Huston who appears to be at home with the material. He easily masters the tension and conflicts between the characters that frequently surface. This is another tight piece of direction from Huston, perfectly using the great talent at his disposal. More than that, the film is extremely atmospheric. The locations are shown with class, and are depicted with filmmaking of the highest regard. Uppermost credit also goes to Huston for his masterful management of the tropical storm. The storm motif is reappearing and classy...essentially representing the vicious events unfolding inside the hotel. With a great sound mix and stylish visuals, the hotel never feels artificial.

The film is held together by the terrific characters executed competently by a stellar cast. We've never seen Humphrey Bogart like this before. Instead of a tough guy ready for anything, he's deeper and more vulnerable. The sub-plot concerning a love interest is kept to a minimum. Lauren Bacall is a dazzling actress and the camera does marvels for her. Edward G. Robinson is a convincing gangster. His character may be slightly clichéd, but Robinson plays it to perfection. However, the star of the show is the Claire Trevor as the drunk, washed up singer. Claire walked away with an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who's to quibble? She's incredible! Lionel Barrymore also does a tremendous job as the crippled old man running the hotel.

Overall, Key Largo is another classic film featuring the terrific Humphrey Bogart in fine form. Flawed only for a few too many clichés, this is a commendable effort that any film buff simply needs to view. There are sparkles between the protagonists who interact in a perfectly set atmosphere by a man who is always a master at his craft.

9.4/10

Mindhunters is one of Renny Harlin's newest films. The director is perhaps comprehensively acknowledged for his action movies: in the 1990s, audiences witnessed such films as The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cliffhanger and Die Hard 2 (debatably his best film). Unfortunately, the director has seen better days. The director has seen some real stinkers, for example Deep Blue Sea and Cutthroat Island. The remaining fans of the director probably had their hopes set pretty high for this film. In traditional Renny Harlin style the film is exceedingly entertaining, but contains a fairly preposterous set of events.

Mindhunters achieved poor results at the box office despite a solid cast and its renowned director. This film is a substantially flawed, but reasonably entertaining modern take on Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (a.k.a. Ten Little Indians). In addition to borrowing elements from Christie's story, there is further evidence of unoriginality: first of all, the film's trite plot is something one would expect to see every night on CSI or something. Secondly, there are also chief elements borrowed from typical slasher films such as Friday the 13th. In other words, this film borrows from everything.

In any case, the film's story concerns a group of seven FBI agents-in-training. These seven people have potential to reach the status of an FBI psychological profiler, and are being trained by hard-nosed FBI instructor Jake Harris (Kilmer). For their final test, the seven FBI students are transported to an isolated island where they will spend the weekend tracking a mock serial killer: performing as part of a team to solve the simulated murder. Those who manage things capably go onto FBI postings. Those who flunk will be cut from the FBI. For this weekend, an additional "observer" is brought along to report on Harris' training methods (this observer is played by LL Cool J, who's billed as his real name - James Todd Smith - probably to show that he's serious about acting). Once on the island, real murders begin unfolding. It grows obvious that among these agents-in-training there's a serial killer using precise timing techniques to execute each person one by one. The idea is that these FBI students are allegedly learning to profile killers...but the tables are reversed, and it appears the killer is profiling each student according to their psychological profiles. That's the cleverest plot twist in a story that is otherwise fairly mundane.

There are several key flaws in Mindhunters that unfortunately destroy its major potential. First of all, character development is non-existent. Very soon into the movie we're already on the island and the killer is on the loose. We're expected to attempt to solve things ourselves and sympathise with the characters. But do we care? No! We are never given a reason to care about these characters apart from their looks and absurd behaviour. We're never introduced to the characters sufficiently, and we've never given adequate background on them for us to be interested in their safety. They are purely exchangeable faces.

The cast are a mixed bag. Val Kilmer is in good form, as are a few other people. Jonny Lee Miller, on the other hand, is embarrassingly bad. His accents change frequently...from American to British to various incoherent accents. Another flaw is the high levels of improbability. These agents are supposedly smart, yet their behaviour is preposterous and laughable. Also, the killer somehow manages to set elaborate traps in just a few minutes. The precise timing of these traps is impossibly accurate and would take hours to set! Are we supposed to believe someone formulates these ideas incredibly quickly? Gimme a break!

Overall, Mindhunters is a reasonable thriller from Renny Harlin. The murders are usually grisly, gory and violent, with the film containing a few interesting plot twists. Of course the film is competently made with an impressive atmosphere and a moderate entertainment value. However things are just so stupid and it's impossible to suspend your disbelief. Not to mention some shocking acting at times, and zero character development.

5.3/10

Beverly Hills Cop III is the weakest link in the Beverly Hills Cop series thus far. The wait between the second and third films is amazing...as this film hit cinemas 7 years after the second film was released. Apparently they just had trouble getting a story together. Amazingly, after all that heavy development, the plot doesn't make a lick of sense. They seemingly decided on a story which is more convoluted than that of the second film. Even more tragically, the film succumbs to far more clichés and a formulaic plot structure.

It's also obvious that there was trouble getting a cast together. Unfortunately, John Ashton is missing from the cast! His seminal interactions with Judge Reinhold were utterly priceless. Ashton must have read how appalling the script turned out to be...and opted to give this one a miss. What a smart move on his part! John Landis now tackles the duties as director. The director of Trading Places and The Blues Brothers seems very out of place in a Beverly Hills Cop instalment. The laughs are made subordinate to the action. Considering the general quality of the gags, this isn't a bad move. But the action scenes are far too violent it seems. It just doesn't fit in with the light-hearted comedy tone that was established in the first movie released a decade prior. Also in the film you'll find a love interest (*sigh*) and a stupid plot. In short - this is utter tosh!

The thin story once again follows the continuing adventures of Detroit police detective Axel Foley (Murphy). After the tragic death of one of his good friends, Axel vows revenge and begins his own investigation into the murder. Does anyone else get a sense of déjà vu in relation to the first movie? This third film is nothing more than a rehash of the plot of the original with a few new characters and plot twists. Anyway, Axel uncovers evidence that relates back to the Wonderland amusement park in California (an obvious satire of Disneyland, of course). Axel teams up with Rosewood (Reinhold) and another cop that is essentially the replacement for John Ashton's memorable character. While solving the crime, some convoluted plot unfolds in relation to counterfeiting money or something. I have no idea how that could warrant an all-out gun battle with the security guards at the theme parks! I mean, if it was a drama then it'd be sorted out with a legal battle. If it was an actual Beverly Hills Cop movie I'd expect some sneaky investigating similar like Axel's investigating in the first movie. But the genre is now all-out action like some pointless Stallone vehicle (in case you weren't aware, Sylvester Stallone was originally cast as Axel Foley)...so problems are solved using violence and gun battles. There never seems to be much point at all for any of it. Once again, just a thin plot created for the action.

New director John Landis makes this instalment more of a sequel to The Blues Brothers rather than a Beverly Hills Cop movie. The car chases are impressive and exciting; however there is never any point! Like I stated before, the humour is extremely thin. However some of the film's strongest moments lie in surprise return of the beloved Bronson Pinchot as Serge. Once again this character is criminally underutilised. His scenes are simply hysterical. Eddie Murphy is in top form: shooting, wise-cracking and grinning. It's obvious that all the returning cast members have aged...and they haven't aged gracefully. Judge Reinhold is now a Rambo wannabe as he blasts away villains without a second thought. What happened to his initial tactics of instead attempting an arrest?

Beverly Hills Cop III is loud, noisy, incoherent and pointless. The script forgets to include credibility and class...instead there are plenty of corny situations, pathetically written dialogue and a non-existent plot. On a positive note, the soundtrack is still impressive and adds something exciting to the otherwise incompetently-directed action scenes. The film rehashes pretty much every idea that featured during Foley's first two outings (avenging the death of a friend, two up-tight sidekicks, etc)...and manages to be boring as well as making no sense whatsoever.

4.2/10

In Hollywood, if a film establishes a commendable paradigm for its desired genre then it's a common option to "go back and rehash it". Following the success of the first Beverly Hills Cop the producers spent some time endeavouring to turn the prize-winning concept into a TV series. When confronted with an unfortunately unenthusiastic reception from key cast members, the decision was finally made to just create another film. Hence, Beverly Hills Cop II was reeled out only 3 years after its predecessor's wild box office success. Luckily for the filmmakers, all of the crucial cast members were available to reprise their roles.

Eddie Murphy returns as the foul-mouthed Detroit cop Axel Foley. Who else could portray this role? Also featuring in the cast are John Ashton and Judge Reinhold as Beverly Hills policemen Taggart and Rosewood. Once again the interaction between these two is a delight to watch, although the two are less delineated in comparison to the first film. Director Martin Brest forfeited the director's chair, so the duties fell into the lap of Tony Scott - the man who helmed Crimson Tide and Top Gun among others. However, new director Tony Scott is more comfortable with action and less comfortable with dialogue and humour. Martin Brest was completely the opposite. Hence, Beverly Hills Cop II is a disappointing action puff piece with precious little comedy. Scott places the emphasis on a darker shade of violence, which is positioned awkwardly with the witty dialogue and localised satire.

The plot of the movie is confusing and convoluted. The team of screenwriters (including Murphy himself) create a wafer-thin plot that in the long run is just an excuse for violence and laughs. Basically, the film finds Axel Foley (Murphy) investigating a string of unsolved robberies that could be connected to the attempted murder of a Beverly Hills policeman. Although ill-advised, Axel enlists the aid of his good pals Taggart (Ashton) and Rosewood (Reinhold) and the three begin to bend a few rules to solve the case which leads to some confusing mumbo jumbo regarding gun smuggling that is somehow connected to a race track. As a reaction to the protagonists bending the rules, the script appears to be excessively fond of the customary melodramatic 'end of career' threats. It's merely a dumb action vehicle, but surely policemen are not threatened with the sack every single time they get something wrong. In this film we have suspensions, demotions, sackings and threats seemingly every few minutes. The story is as tortuously long-winded as it sounds, and then some!

The central flaw of Beverly Hills Cop II is its treatment of characters. All credibility is thrown to the wind at the beginning when there's discussion of a fishing trip. Are these the same guys we saw in the first movie?! Murphy's Axel Foley is almost his same old foul-mouthed, fast-talking self but there are a few odd alterations. Aside from that, both Reinhold and Ashton suffer from unnecessary changes. Tony Scott opts for style over substance, but his visual flair cannot overshadow the dreadful plot building. It's extremely hard to follow as well. With each new lead, the audience are left oblivious as to what is actually occurring! This film is just noisy action fluff, flaunting Eddie Murphy in fine form and some impressive ideas. The action is well-crafted despite not much point to most of it.

Overall, Beverly Hills Cop II is never close to matching its predecessor. The main star, Eddie Murphy, is just as charming but there isn't much for him to work with. New director Tony Scott is allowed the opportunity to have some fun with the set pieces: concocting invigorating chases shot with the copious sheen that was the trademark of uber-producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer. With more laughs and less unnecessary action there could have been something far more satisfying in the can. It's also annoying that this is an hour of nostalgia...characters from the first film are granted some minor screen time. This film will be devoured by action fans; however, it won't be taken kindly to those who loved the appeal of the original. Followed by Beverly Hills Cop III.

5.6/10