Reviews by PvtCaboose91

The Dark Knight easily establishes itself as the greatest movie of 2008 thus far. Considering the unfathomable hype surrounding the production one would think that the set expectations would be absolutely impossible to fulfil. After all, director Christopher Nolan had some serious shoes to fill with the quality of the preceding Batman adventures taken into consideration. Personally, Tim Burton's 1989 masterpiece Batman is a film I cherish very dearly. Through my eyes Burton's original film was the best Batman movie of all time and it's too perfect to be surpassed. However, Nolan has achieved an unprecedented feat with The Dark Knight. This is a phenomenal movie...an artistic accomplishment that exceeds standards set by its hype and trailers. Everything has been executed with filmmaking of the highest regard: from the sheer scale, the dark atmosphere, the acting, the music, the action, the concept, the production design, the script...there are essentially no faults to be pointed out. The special effects, as well, are absolutely mindblowing.

The Dark Knight is a wholly gratifying, realistic, down-to-earth comic book movie. Just like Batman Begins, the film feels far more potent and gritty. Gone is the over-the-top, colourful visuals that once plagued the frame in Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever and the disastrous Batman & Robin. Do not mistake this for a Batman flick aimed squarely at the kids. This is the darkest Batman escapade so far. This can be looked upon as a fault as it alienates its target audience, but some children may enjoy the stylish visuals. The Batman outfit is more eye-catching than ever! The film is deep, satisfying, gripping and enthralling - and at the same the film is immensely entertaining, and permeated with fascinating undertones that effectively contrast good and evil in a way that isn't even slightly exaggerated. Every shot is enriched with realism and infused with visual intrigue. Superhero films have never reached this quality ever before!

Bruce Wayne (Bale) spends his nights masquerading as the Dark Knight as he raises the stakes in his war on crime. Bruce aims to dismantle the remaining criminal organisations that still plague the streets. As Batman he aims to inspire a sense of good in a city dominated by evil and malevolence. Bruce now exists in a life of complete desolation, anguish and seclusion, which is fuelled by his passionate abhorrence for crime and his dedication to its abolition. Batman, already partnered with Lt. James Gordon (Oldman), unites with new District Attourney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) in his perseverance for the strengthening of justice on the streets of Gotham City. Amongst the already overwhelming organised crime numbers, a new prominent figure emerges in the form of The Joker (Ledger) who elaborately schemes to unmask the Dark Knight whose identity is always concealed. As days pass by, The Joker creates a new wave of chaos unlike anything Gotham City has previously experienced. Beneath that menacing grin of scars and heavy make-up, the perplexing figure unleashes a heinous agenda. What follows is a game of cat-and-mouse as The Joker hunts Batman and vica versa.

The foremost thing that will remain unforgettable about the film is the cast. Christian Bale surpasses his previous performance in Batman Begins. Batman is a far deeper and more developed character in this film, and his loyalty to preserving peace is significantly more palpable. Bale's character of Bruce Wayne has a flawed personality that Bale pulls off with extraordinary skill. His perception of justice and the methods of its execution eventually cause a shift both personally and mentally. As he drifts further away from the people that love him the most, his choice to become a superhero transforms into an unnatural obsession. It's easy to sympathise with Bale's faultless embodiment of the character. But this is not Bale's show...this is Heath Ledger's time to shine. I was among the many millions of people mourning his tragic death in February 2008. Even more tragic is that his portrayal here would have guaranteed him a place on the A-list. Michael Caine even spoke excitedly regarding Ledger's performance as The Joker. Caine, a veteran actor, forgot his lines due to the level of intimidation instilled by Ledger's character rendering. This is wholly understandable: Heath Ledger's portrayal as The Joker is electrifying and terrifying! We have never seen this actor reach this standard before. If the actor was still alive, acting offers would have gone through the roof! Ledger masters the creepy, psychotic side to the character. It would be unfair to compare him to Jack Nicholson's performance from almost two decades prior. Where Nicholson was frequently reeling out gags and making us laugh, Ledger is occasionally very funny but at the same time psychotic and sinister. Ledger's posture and facial expressions (hidden behind that intimidating make-up) are enough to make you laugh. His hand gestures and dialogue are the icing on the cake. I agree with the hype: Ledger deserves a posthumous Oscar nomination at the very least. Deciding the man of choice to portray The Joker...I call it dead equal between Nicholson and Ledger.

Thankfully, Katie Holmes stepped away from the role of Rachel Dawes. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes the role with style and a subtle screen charm. Maggie is beautiful and dashing, presenting the audience with some amazing acting skills. Aaron Eckhart undertakes the duel roles of DA Harvey Dent and Two-Face. It goes without saying that Tommy Lee Jones' past portrayal is left far behind. He was too much like a comic...whereas Eckhart is more realistic and looks far more credible. He's downright terrifying with a half-scarred face. Michael Caine once again displays his talents for tackling the role of Alfred the butler. Caine has always had a charming screen presence, and on top of this his voice is soothing and poignant. Gary Oldman is a far younger depiction of James Gordon who's more commonly known as Commissioner Gordon to the Batman fanatics. All those characters previously stranded in a world resembling a comic book have now been brought to the screen with a truly amazing host of actors. Look out for a brief appearance by actor William Fichter. Blink and you'll miss him!

The creative team involved in The Dark Knight ensure that their efforts match all expectations. Thankfully, Nolan's previous creative choice to use quick cuts and shaky cam isn't as distracting here. Instead the action is far more involving and stimulating as the film moves at an invigorating pace. Interestingly, the filmmakers have also employed a shock value. There are abusive beatings, intense action scenes (more so than its predecessor) and some frightening images. The moody visuals are mainly attributed to the cinematography. The city of Gotham feels like a character in the piece with the visuals that encompass the intricate locations within the complex metropolis. Although the city isn't as visually stimulating as Burton's neo-gothic vision that was brought to life in the late 80s, I must give credit to the production crew for topping the cheesy interpretation presented in later films. It may still seem like just another American city, but this time every facet is far more involving.

The music conforms to the standard set by Batman Begins. The joint musical skill of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard produces fantastic results. Every piece of music is ear-shattering, and is complimented by the equally loud sound effects. Each gun shot, each punch, each piece of dialogue will have you riveted. When the action comes booming onto the screen, you'll be giddy with delight. The sheer scale of The Dark Knight is a marvel to behold. This isn't just a superhero movie...it completely rises above the superhero genre. The filmmakers cited Heat as a key influence on their filmmaking. This film is simply a dark, bleak, realistic multi-layered crime tale. The film is long but not overlong. It certainly feels like one heck of a lengthy movie and it will frustrate you due to the length. However, it's impossible to remove a thing. The screenplay is so well written and its execution is so stylish that you'll be riveted the entire time. It's a saga of crime set in a superhero setting.

Overall, I don't think anyone imagined The Dark Knight to be this good. The whole film is lacking clichés, instead presenting the audience with something unpredictable. This film is on par with Burton's original Batman film. It's impossible to choose a winner, although that is subject to debate. However, I think Two-Face was a bit underused and his participation is a wasted opportunity. Bottom line: The Dark Knight is an awesome movie with more tragedy and a less sentimental approach to characters.

9.76/10

Tim Burton revitalised the Batman movie franchise in 1989 when the world witnessed the release of Batman. Burton's original film is still possibly the greatest superhero movie of all time. This was the first live action interpretation of Batman since the unbelievably campy TV series and movie of the 1960s that had just about done it in. Director Burton had gone to the graphic novels of the Dark Knight, infusing his two Batman movies with a moody, noirish tone that left fans satisfied and transformed non-fans into believers. Little did Burton know that director Joel Schumacher would hijack the series after Burton created Batman and Batman Returns. After director Schumacher created the mediocre Batman Forever (a fairly dismal title), he then buried the franchise six feet under with the indescribably bad Batman & Robin. The 1997 release of this terrible aforementioned film effectively derailed the Batman express for the succeeding 8 years.

In 2005, renowned director Christopher Nolan returned to square one to start all over again to repair the damage. Nolan was already famous for such films as Memento and Insomnia. In hindsight, this director was the perfect choice to instigate the birth of Batman Begins...the best escapade of the Caped Crusader since Tim Burton's brilliant 1989 blockbuster. First of all, it's extremely important to note that Batman Begins is in no way related to the preceding Batman films. Instead, director Nolan opted to start the series at the beginning. This is a different timeline...essentially an entirely different universe for Batman. To ensure no disasters like Batman & Robin ever occur again, all the previous Batman films are completely disregarded.

Although a bold move, the efforts of the creative team are virtually impeccable. With modern technology in place, the visuals look fantastic. I must state, though, that this interpretation of Gotham City is far more regular than Burton's mind-blowing vision. It essentially resembles any city in America. Nonetheless, every other location is delightful to behold. From the Batcave to Bruce Wayne's estate...to glorious locations displayed at a training facility in the middle of a snowy climate. Batman Begins is a phenomenal film, and while it doesn't invoke the effective mystique of Burton's initial movies, it has abandoned the look of an old comic book for the darker, more realistic aspect of a graphic novel. Gone is the campy dialogue, the detestable corniness and the embarrassing screenplays exhibited previously (in all the non-Burton films). In its place is a gritty, realistic, highly entertaining film guaranteed to please fans of all ages.

As the title suggests, the film dives into the origins of Bruce Wayne and the Batman legend. The whole story is absorbing and complimented with amazingly effective (and compelling) drama mixed with exhilarating action aplenty. The first half of Batman Begins recounts the genesis of Batman: how infuriated, disheartened young billionaire Bruce Wayne (Bale) travels the ends of the Earth to examine the criminal mind and struggle with his own fears, forever seeking a means to combat the injustice he sees around him. Wayne seeks training in an ancient society known as the League of Shadows: centuries old and with an impressive reputation, they are committed to checking world balance. Here he learns to look inward, confront himself, and employ his inner as well as outer strength. When Wayne returns to Gotham City he finds his home governed by corruption, fear and crime. In the film's second half, we watch the transformation of drab billionaire to a caped superhero dedicated to erasing crime. The film takes great pains to offer every facet of its plot and characters as things that could truly happen, no matter how outrageous. There isn't any radioactive bat biting Bruce Wayne to transform him into an instantaneous superhero with mystical powers. Wayne is a commonplace human with extraordinary susceptibilities, a robust physical make-up, access to high-tech gadgetry, and masses of money.

Director Christopher Nolan clearly distances his film from those preceding it. Personally, I found the film to be energetic, exciting, exuberant, involving, compelling and enthralling. There's plenty of drama to exhibit with equal amounts of action. However, Nolan's style isn't without flaws. For starters, it seems Nolan believes everyone expects the irritating close-ups and quick-cutting. Not just for the action, but for the entire film. In action it's detracting albeit still exciting. Nevertheless, I must give credit to the entire creative team for pulling off an incredibly atmospheric adventure. Burton's 1989 film had equal amounts of drama, comedy and action. Nicholson's embodiment of the Joker made us laugh constantly. He was comic relief mixed with psychopathic undertones. Instead of conforming to the set standard, Nolan opts for straight-up drama. This could have proved disastrous as the comics are mainly aimed at younger viewers who may find so much seriousness off-putting. However this style works! The visuals are impressive enough for kids to be excited about. Even during the drama, kids won't be bored (except for perhaps some instances when Batman isn't anywhere to be seen).

The cast is filled with some of the biggest names from the last few decades. Leading the cast is Welsh-born actor Christian Bale. While Michael Keaton shall always remain my all-time preference as Batman, Bale comes in at a close second. It's an extremely close call. Bale easily beats Val Kilmer, although granted Kilmer's interpretation was still highly impressive. Even easier, Bale is far superior to George Clooney (Even Adam West was better than George! It's amusing to note that George apologised for being part of wrecking the Batman franchise, and he even offered to refund the ticket price to anyone who saw the film). Christian Bale is charming as billionaire Bruce Wayne, and perfectly makes Batman his own. His strong jaw-line looks particularly good while under the mask. I will admit that his voice was sometimes slightly over-the-top. Occasionally it just sounds like he has a sore throat. Also in the cast are Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine (in my opinion surpassing Michael Gough as Alfred the butler), Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson and even Rutger Hauer. Everyone is perfectly cast with the exception of Katie Holmes who seems extremely lightweight in an otherwise solid bunch of actors. Holmes should never be given the opportunity to reprise this role. Sorry, Tom Cruise, but your wife is an underwhelming actress. (Funny thing is...Katie won a Razzie Award for 'Most Tiresome Tabloid Target' shared with Tom. Katie was also nominated for a Razzie Award for 'Worst Supporting Actress'. Who's to quibble? She sucks!)

Overall, Batman Begins clearly surpasses Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin with flying colours. It's still not as brilliant as Burton's 1989 Batman, but the film is certainly on par. Considering the diminishing quality of the previous two Batman outings, it's easy to discern why it's a fantastic choice to reboot the series. The creative team underwent a labour of love, painfully researching the source material for maximum quality. This film is only marginally flawed by slight over-length, the sometimes detracting shaky cam and by Katie Holmes' disappointing performance. Despite a number of shortcomings, the style is essentially perfect and the atmosphere is effective. If you consider yourself a fan of the comics or the character, watch this film without hesitation. Followed by The Dark Knight.

7.9/10

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

David Moore's 2006 BBC made-for-television version of Sweeney Todd is a creative re-imagining of the Broadway musical that was originally written by Stephen Sondheim. Moore's vision of the classic story eliminates the songs and the singing: this is not a musical, but instead a dead serious drama that's more based on the old urban legends in preference over Sondheim's musical. This film bears little relation to Tim Burton's lucrative cinematic musical released in 2007. In place of songs, there's dialogue that dives into characters relationships and motives behind their emotions. By all means, Burton's musical is the superior film - however this is a competently crafted television movie that showcases some extravagant visuals.

With proficient direction and tight scripting, the film moves at lightning pace and is a remarkable interpretation. It's radically different to its supposed source material, in fact the only thing kept the same are some of the character names and part some concepts. Apart from that, the structure is dissimilar and the characters are vastly different. Sweeney Todd is an enthralling effort, especially considering the budget constraints and its nature as a television film. Aside from a few imperfect technical aspects, it's possible to look upon this interpretation as an official Hollywood production. Unfortunately the film will always be extremely overlooked due to Tim Burton's big-budget cinematic masterpiece that was soon to follow.

The film is set in London at about 1765. Sweeney Todd (Winstone), understandably the film's protagonist, runs a barber shop in Fleet Street. Previously, Todd's childhood was crushed by injustice when he spent 20 years in gaol for a crime his father committed. It's interesting to note that, in the original musical, Todd was formerly known as Benjamin Barker. In a few brief dialogue scenes the characters hint that Todd's name is not his natural name; however his true name is never revealed in this version. Anyway, Todd lives a tranquil and lonely life making money from his flourishing business as a barber-come-surgeon. His reputation is renowned around London as nothing but satisfied customers leave his barber shop. But one night, Todd's services are being employed by a gaoler who too long has boasted about his appalling treatment of children. A former child prisoner himself, Todd's fury leads him to commit murder. Stunned at his actions, he quickly tries to hide the corpse. Soon he befriends pie maker Mrs. Lovett (Davis) who takes a warming to him. Todd soon purchases an establishment for Mrs. Lovett to utilise to set up her own pie business. Wanting nothing but the best for the lady, Todd begins slitting the throats of innocents and sending the meat to Mrs. Lovett for use in her pies (with Mrs. Lovett being none the wiser).

Ray Winstone is a fine actor who convincingly pulls off the title role in this version of Sweeney Todd. His interpretation of the character is much less demonic, instead more sympathetic. His emotions come through impeccably, and it's shocking to witness the character slashing someone's throat in cold blood. Essie Davis is a very different Mrs. Lovett. Instead of a depressing widow with a pale appearance, she's a whore - finding pleasure in the arms of a new man almost everyday...while she still has a husband! The supporting cast are all admirable in their character executions. You won't find characters such as Judge Turpin, Beadle Bamford, Johanna, or even Lucy! Instead, this adaptation of Sweeney Todd relies on a mostly new slate of characters and different interactions.

While many who are die-hard fans of Sondheim's musical may find this a preposterous re-imagining, it's possible to toss away all prior conceptions and be wholeheartedly engaged in a different set of events. With a modest budget and a skilled production team, Sweeney Todd is a remarkable version of Stephen Sondheim's musical. Like I previously stated, the filmmakers here opt to play out the events as a drama as opposed to a musical. I must say that the film works less due to being so radically different to the source material. It's a good film, but it's slightly underwhelming and I feel that some things could have been expanded. In 2007, Tim Burton made a cinematic musical of the story.

7.0/10

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