Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I know who killed me." (That's an actual quote...wow the filmmakers are trying to relate a quote back to the title...who would've thought. And I know who killed me: the filmmakers. For making this painful garbage!)

I Know Who Killed Me is officially career suicide for Lindsay Lohan: an actress who seemed to have a promising future as an actress after films like Mean Girls and Freaky Friday. The most unfortunate fact is that Lindsay desired to be taken more seriously as an actress by starring in a serious movie. Like most working actors/actresses, there comes a time to aim for an Oscar moment. Little did young Lindsay realise that this was the time for the Razzie committee to review her work. Lindsay became the honoured recipient of several Razzies: she tied with herself for Worst Actress, and she won Worst Screen Couple (once again shared with herself).

During 2007, audiences witnessed several inhumanely appalling horror flicks including Captivity, Hostel: Part II and even The Hills Have Eyes Part II. However, Lindsay's flick managed to rightfully beat the competition for the Razzie award of "Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie". Needless to say, I watched this film with shockingly depleted expectations. I knew that I was going to see a fairly poor flick...I just wasn't aware it would hold a convincing place on my 'Worst of 2007' list. Why is the film so appalling? Well, where to start...Lindsay's acting is dismal, director has no sense of style, the screenplay moves from one pointless scene to the next, it contains atrociously written dialogue, it's poorly made, and the film is also highly boring. I had to press the 'pause' button every few minutes to refill my coffee because I was falling asleep!

The plot essentially borrows from most commercial torture/horror porn witnessed over the past few years. We have elements of Saw and Hostel with a script that also mirrors police detective tales. This could have worked if done correctly. However, the film represents a Z-Grade version of all aforementioned elements. The horror scenes aren't even effective! Instead we have gore...lots of gore...nothing else.

Basically, Aubrey Fleming (Lohan) is a promising young teenage girl living off her parents' wealth. The idyllic small town in which she lives is soon rocked when a teenage girl is abducted and sadistically murdered. Soon Aubrey is abducted by (who we believe is) the same bloke. This is where the film goes from bad to worse. Flaws in logic begin surfacing multiple times every minute. I mean, they have one dead girl and a missing girl, yet the entire police force and even the FBI are called in to investigate! Talk about overkill. I mean, shouldn't they have dangerous fugitives or illustrious serial killers to catch? If not flaws in logic, it's things we simply find hilarious. An example? Well, the town sheriff resembles Santa Claus. So as Sheriff Claus makes his suspect list (and checks it twice) we also have unnecessary, tasteless scenes of pole dancing and nudity that make no sense at all. Oh, and there's a random gardener who decides to stroke a stick suggestively in order to impress Lindsay's character. No, I am not making this up. And of course, when the killer abducts Lindsay, her friends find a blue rose in her car. How did it get in there? Due to the futility of every other scene, imagine this: Lindsay asks the killer if she can quickly put something in her car, to which the killer responds "Oh yeah, sure. We'll do this torture and abduction thingy when you're ready". I can imagine that scene actually happening. Can't you?

Lindsay Lohan's acting is bottom of the barrel. 80% of the reasons why this film is so appalling are due to Lohan and her (*ahem*) so-called "acting". Every line she delivers is contrived, unrealistic or plain dreadful. At times she's meant to be screaming because of the unbearable torture. It doesn't sound like she's in pain. It's almost like she's moaning in pleasure...I'll leave that up to your imagination. To make matters worse, her pole dancing even looks incredibly trite! Lindsay spent time "researching" her character by spending time with real strippers and pole dancers. Whoa, you mean Lindsay wasn't doing this career already? Poor Julia Ormond...she looks like she's making an effort, possibly a few Oscar moments, but she wound up getting a Razzie award nomination.

The director and writer can't be let off too easily. Director Chris Sivertson has less talent than a film student. His uses of colour motifs simply do not work. Okay, so red signifies one character and blue signifies the other. Sure, we get it. But is it necessary? Nope. Not at all. And at the beginning there's a neon sign with a bulb darkening for the right arm and leg. Seems like the director wanted some foreshadowing in an attempt to look clever...but is he clever? The answer still remains an emphatic NO! Every scene in this movie is poorly written and its execution is distressingly weak. The result is boredom from the first 5 minutes. Highlights from these first few minutes: a few shots of Lindsay being a stripper (with no talent at all to show for), some blood dripping down her pole as she slides down (even blood dripping from where she never even touched...it's like witnessing the annual sap flow of the Stripper Pole Forest), and there's a few moments for Lindsay to read a story. Her writing is god-awful, and yet the class look so entranced and fascinated. On top of this, talk about a painful stereotype: Lindsay is wearing glasses in an attempt to look smart! Take the hint, Lindsay: if you wear glasses it doesn't mean you look smart. And you're starring in this film...so you're not smart at all!

The screenwriter should be banned from writing anything else in his career. The story is far from interesting and so cliché-ridden it's almost hard to comprehend! The whole concept is based on the myth of 'stigmatic twins'. Sound interesting? Didn't think so...because it's not! This film cannot be counted as a horror flick either. Aside from a few moments of gore that showcase decent prosthetics, there isn't a shock or fright in view until the finale when we've already lost interest. In between the torture of Aubrey and the rescue of Aubrey, there is a whole lot of nothing except for Lindsay showing the world her attempt to act like the daughter of a crack whore.

I Know Who Killed Me is a boring mess that fails to frighten, fails to entertain and has little to no redeeming value. After the first few minutes I found myself indescribably bored. The director has no sense of style at all. The result is a succession of pointless scenes with no abiding content. Heck, nothing seems vital except for the abduction and rescue. I wish this was a short film, because the filmmakers surely killed me with this film. At one stage the characters describe a serial killer who kills people in the cinema. If people were in the cinema watching this movie, it'd be a truly welcome favour. That scene is more irony than this film can handle.

1.1/10

"Those are sharks on steroids!"

The tagline for Dark Waters reads "No Air. No Time. No Escape." For the safety and well-being of all audiences worldwide, it would be a sublime marketing choice to add another two words onto the tagline: "No Good!" Dark Waters is dreadfully below average, even by customary standards of direct-to-DVD features. By the look of the film, it seems every cent of the budget went into creating an interesting DVD cover: it displays a few very realistic looking sharks looming underneath an oil rig. We know it's a direct-to-DVD feature and won't be a masterpiece, but you'll think that at least it'll be worth a shot, right? After watching 90 minutes of this garbage, I'm beginning to think the front cover was images from a David Attenborough documentary!

Those familiar with the résumé of director Phillip Roth know what they're in for. Remember Boa a.k.a. New Alcatraz? Credit must be granted for director Roth, as Dark Waters is far worse than his previous movies by incredible margins: Z-Grade special effects, hideous set design, no motivation...heck even the locations appear dull due to the disjointed nature of Roth's lens. Before reading any further, be warned that I have nothing positive to say about this movie so prepare for an exhaustingly long review diving into everything wrong with this shark action tosh!

The plot is a poor excuse to showcase a few poorly executed moments of shark mayhem. Basically, an Oil Transfer Station in the Gulf of Mexico is attacked by large Great White Sharks. The owner of the station, Allister Summerville (Gray), has no idea what happened and feels the need to investigate. Enter aspiring marine biologist Dane Quatrell (Lamas) and his assistant Robin Turner (Mackinnon). The two are drugged by Summerville who plans to hire the hi-tech submarine owned by the couple.

So imagine this situation: an underwater research station, a few highly intelligent sharks, and a few people to become shark food. What's that I hear you think? You're absolutely correct...this is the sub-par low-budget equivalent of Renny Harlin's Deep Blue Sea. The CGI effects in Harlin's picture were terrible enough, but at least there were practical sharks for higher realism. Dark Waters is all CGI...almost every shot. As a result nothing looks remotely believable. It looks like the graphics of a video game from 10 years ago! Even the opening shots are enough to leave a bad taste in the mind of the audience. After the first few minutes I was bored to tears, and I couldn't even laugh at the shark attacks because they're that bad. We can't even see sharks eating people due to the poor filmmaking!

The script had potential...I must grant them that. But that's not in the dialogue, the concept or the situations. The potentiality was purely in the use of hi-tech sharks, of which have 10 minutes of allocated screen-time. Half of that shows the sharks being mobile! So this is a 90-minute shark flick, with barely 10 minutes for the sharks. What's in the other 80 minutes? Laughable drama, incompetent action scenes, atrocious acting and clichéd situations! There are countless clichés that surface within each minute: marines who can't shoot straight, inexperienced civilians who can miraculously stay alive and shoot competently, loose air vents for a convenient escape, sharks never attacking a protagonist...the list goes on!

The plot is filled with plot holes aplenty, to the point that it's a slice of Swiss cheese in comparison. There are also script irregularities, factual errors that are impossible to overlook, and even logical flaws to boot. On top of this, Roth's usage of the camera is ugly. The central fault, though, is how impossible the task remains to categorise the film. The first scene is horror, then it's a drama, then it's a tense drama, then it becomes action before returning to horror/thriller before throwing it all together for the film's climax. The worst part is that there is no intensity. Even the editing is bad! Flashbacks are unnecessary, and there's fast cutting during the attacks that frequently employ close-ups. These looks so bad that it's not even worth a laugh! Dark Waters should sink into dark waters...forever.

0.8/10

"An innocent prisoner will become more angry by the hour due to the injustice suffered. He will shout and rage. A guilty prisoner becomes more calm and quiet. Or he cries. He knows he's there for a reason. The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation."

The Lives of Others is an enthralling, provocative German thriller that accurately captures a truly horrifying time in the East Germany's history (a period that concluded less than two decades ago). This sophisticated narrative is brimming with rich characters, amazing imagery, expressive direction and credible performances from a foreign cast. The brilliance of The Lives of Others warranted piles of acclaim and even an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film (a controversial win over the highly favoured and much-praised Pan's Labyrinth). The film's story is stemmed from actual happenings that transpired during the recreated period. Secret police were essentially dominating the streets. The filmmakers encompass many of the horrific rules and unfair practises that permeated the former society being depicted. Due to the amazing efforts behind the camera, the film will leave the viewer transfixed and wholly immersed in the visuals infused with such legitimacy and intrigue. Aptitude in every filmmaking aspect results in a compelling experience, one that successfully displays the devastating effects of socialism.

Set in East Germany a mere 5 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the film conveys a beguilingly effective narrative using real events for its foundation. This was a time when the horrifying Stasi (the secret police) made it their business to employ an all-embracing association of spies and extensive surveillance to expose every secret facet concerning the citizens that surround them. This was an inhumane culture that victimised mankind's vulnerability. The Stasi possessed the ability to devastate everything it touched, and make every citizen a potential suspect. Soft-spoken, popular playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) lives a moderately private existence with his wife - accomplished actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck). Georg remains a loyal resident, and becomes a Stasi suspect due to the fact that he's never done anything remotely suspicious. The couple are placed under scrutiny with the brilliantly skilled Captain Gerd Wiesler (Mühe) assigned to the case. With Wiesler listening in, the officer starts learning of intimate details: information that implies unsuspected motives behind the wiretapping. Wielser evolves from a desolate spectator to an emotional participant, becoming embroiled in the lives of others. His involvement transports the film's story to unanticipated and fascinating places with cataclysmic consequences.

The Lives of Others marks the film debut of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, whose meticulous and expressive direction further compliments the brilliantly written screenplay. This well-crafted thriller rapidly grasps the underlying communal and psychological factors within the film's context. This extraordinary film is both a profoundly moving human drama and a political thriller with hints of seductive features to boot. Director von Donnersmarck takes the audience into the very heart of reasonably recent European history, tackling the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and its dreaded Stasi. The directing is both expressive and engaging. Although a directorial debut, the director's utilisation of the camera cannot be faulted. Every moment is riveting, and provides deeply insightful views on the slate of characters.

Ulrich Mühe's performance as Wiesler is absolutely astonishing. The actor (who tragically died due to stomach cancer in 2007) credibly undertakes a challenging role. From the outset we find his screen presence brutal yet slightly charming. As Wiesler is entangled in the lives of the two central characters, his sinister persona withdraws and a more palpable side of his personality emerges: a sympathetic nature. Sebastian Koch is realistic as the seemingly innocent playwright that evolves into a far smarter, deeper character. Martina Gedeck is also worth mentioning for her astounding portrayal as the girlfriend of Koch's Georg Dreyman. To his credit, director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck permits the characters and their circumstances (with the back-and-forth structure) generate a natural tension. He doesn't utilise any callous camera techniques that would remove us from the story. More importantly, his transitions are so smooth that we begin to feel the close connection of the hunter and the hunted. The Lives of Others was filmed in Berlin, and this aspect only adds to the realism that appears organic to the screenplay.

On the whole, every feature on exhibition is accomplished in every aspect. The film is potent, fascinating, inspiring, powerful, engrossing and compelling, while challenging the audience to also become emotionally involved in the challenging skirmish between the protagonists. It's a smart, skilfully crafted political thriller that perhaps runs a tad too long. With flaring emotional intensity and capable filmmaking, though, it's possible to overlook the running time. The music as well is absolutely masterful. An impeccable mix of classical piano, with authentic music from the 1980s that's truly irresistible, is the final touch in the already sublime atmosphere. If that's not enough, the bleak and cold nature of the German streets is captured wonderfully by von Donnersmarck's lens. At places a tad slow, but The Lives of Others is an intriguing glimpse at subversive life in the GDR that bristles with authenticity. Hollywood filmmakers should start taking notes, as foreign films at times surpass the quality of Hollywood productions in every respect. If only these films were eligible for the Best Picture Oscar.

9.56/10

"How many lives do we live?
How many times do we die?
They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death... Everyone.

And how much fits into 21 grams?

How much is lost?

When do we lose 21 grams?

How much goes with them?

How much is gained?

How much...is gained?

Twenty-one grams.

The weight of a stack of five nickels.

The weight of a hummingbird.

A chocolate bar.

How much did 21 grams weigh?"

21 Grams comes from the same creative team that were responsible for the successful powerhouse film Amores Perros (more commonly titled Love's a Bitch). Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams is a moody, confronting, stimulating, mesmerising, often gut-wrenching and uncompromising character study that tackles some of humanity's darkest moral difficulties, in addition to delving into the fragility of life and relationships. Director Iñárritu proves his filmmaking skill with this production. In tradition with Amores Perros, he's delivered an equally gritty and challenging product here. The director is capable of managing this genre elegantly. This is a temperamental drama that won't be for all tastes. Similar to the director's prior movie, he again delivers a disjointed but engrossing editing technique capable of encompassing powerful, raw emotional exuberance. It's an unusual film generally devoured enthusiastically by those who can stomach it: a vibrant, riveting complex emotional tale concerning death, life, salvation, religious conviction, violence and confronting personal demons.

The film is fuelled by a multi-faceted plot that's difficult to outline without divulging regrettable amounts of spoilers. Basically, 21 Grams concerns interweaving storylines following three central protagonists. Paul Rivers (Penn) is a critically ill professor reduced to what he regards as "death's waiting room". Due to a grave heart condition, Paul has nothing to do but wait for a new heart to be transplanted into his chest. If no organ transplant is conducted, Paul will suffer a very unpleasant death. Cristina Peck (Watts) is a recovering drug addict who's also a textbook example of your typical suburban mother: with two beautiful daughters and a loving husband (Huston) back at her ranch. Jack Jordan (Del Toro) is an ex-con who's been an intermittent resident of prison since the age of 16. Now he's being supported by a family who are trying to help him get his life back together and keep it on track. Hoping to find redemption for the crimes he's committed, Jack has turned to Jesus Christ as his saviour and accepted Christianity as his religion. These three seemingly unconnected people clash in an unforgettable, unfortunate series of tragic events.

The critics wholeheartedly voiced their praises for Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams, to the point that it's worrying to consider that it was overlooked for Best Picture at the Oscars. The film is simply a brilliant creation frequently overflowing with risky, moving and unflinching performances courtesy of an A-list cast.

Mexican director Iñárritu tells the film in fragments. Short segments of the film are edited together in a non-linear structure. The interesting thing is that the plot is coherent and linear: the film could work as a logically constructed series of events as opposed to pieces of the puzzle being randomly scattered, leaving the audience to engage their minds to slide each puzzle piece into place. This technique is unnecessary, but it helps remind the audience that this is no ordinary drama. Also, perhaps with the film assembled in a linear structure it could be harder to watch. The film would still be essential viewing, but probably more hard-hitting as the audience wouldn't have time to recover before the next emotional issue is dropped on them.

At the centre of the filmmaking, the film's actual driving power is found in the enthralling performances. Sean Penn was unfortunately unobserved during Oscar season while his two co-stars were both recognised with nominations in their respective categories. Sean Penn's portrayal is convincing, credible, realistic and uncompromising. The character's major health problems are felt by the audience thanks to Penn's incredible performance. Every struggling breath...each labouring step is palpable and it's effortless to feel completely engaged. Naomi Watts was honoured with an Oscar nomination. Her performance is amazing beyond words. Every time Watts is distraught about the tragedy that has occurred, you will feel truly touched. However, both Penn and Watts are almost overshadowed by the career-altering performance of Benicio Del Toro. He was also granted an Oscar nomination. Del Toro is always infused with such incredible emotional power: he's riveting and believable. At times his character's rage feels like a kick to the gut. And at times you'll feel goose-bumps due to his capability as a performer.

The masterful filmmaking exhibited in 21 Grams in unlike anything preceding it. The director opted to film the movie employing a grainy look, almost like a home movie. Each assembled fragment is like one situation filmed by someone on their home video camera, and then all the tapes are being played in random order. It feels like the most haunting home movie of all time. The film was made on a tiny budget of only $20 million. This is absolutely mind-blowing when you consider the congregation of A-list actors that beautifully portray their respective characters. The filmmakers also decided to aim for realism as opposed to hyperbolic and Hollywood. The sound mix, music and ambience all conform to this creative decision. Of course this realistic edge makes the film even more riveting...never do the filmmakers tread a false step.

The realism conveyed in this visually arresting production will have you believing every frame. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the material isn't adequately illuminated as much as the filmmakers probably desired. In addition, there are several "fragments" depicted throughout the film's running time that seem either superfluous or of unnecessary length. As a result, the visual elegance and great performances aren't enough to prevent audiences from being bored to tears at times. Also, with fragmented storytelling the character development is slightly skewed. Hence this was a dangerous decision. Perhaps with a few rearranged "fragments" it'd be more effective. Naturally, more screenings will further allow the audience to see the characters as far more developed.

Overall, 21 Grams has been regarded as one of 2003's most essential films. It truly is! The masterful filmmaking being offered is of the highest regard: deep visuals, a subtlety touching score, thought-provoking dialogue, stimulating emotional intensity and thoroughly convincing performances that elevate the characters astronomically. You'll be baffled at how truly moving this film is. With no hyperboles in place, the audience will feel truly engaged in the proceedings and transfixed at the visually apprehending feast for the eyes.

8.6/10

"Love life, get paid, then get laid. That is the basic philosophy of... The Finch-meister!"

American Pie: The Wedding (known in America as American Wedding) was an inevitable event considering the box office success of its predecessors. The original two American Pie films were blueprint instances of contemporary American sex comedies: copiousness of profanity, nudity, sex references and plain lewd language...while still possessing an underlying poignancy. They weren't masterpieces at all, but in any case people could relate to the characters while reflecting on the rampant hormones of their teenage years. The first film examined teens enthusiastic to lose their virginity, the second film focused on college days, and now the third film explores some of these characters tying the knot. There never seems to be much point, does there?

The preceding American Pie films I didn't overly love despite a few laughs to be had. American Pie: The Wedding is the worst film in the series thus far. This third film is wholeheartedly superfluous. The studio got their box office profits, but this instalment makes the film as gross and vulgar as achievable...pushing things to maximum extremes in the faint hope of a laugh. However it fails quite unspeakably to the point that I was rarely laughing. In fact, the film is just plain sickening, repulsive and occasionally offensive! Half the original cast is missing for this film. At least some characters have finally grown up and moved on!

Jim (Biggs) and his girlfriend Michelle (Hannigan) have now been dating for a number of years. After college graduation, Jim proposes to Michelle. As the title would suggest, Michelle accepts and the wedding preparations commence. This thin plot is an excuse for a long string of pointless jokes. These gags frequently fail. It seems that the screenwriters have a clear idea that the audience desires more Stifler (Scott). Now Stifler has been promoted to a protagonist (obviously replacing Chris Klein as 'Oz') as he endlessly swears and desperately searches for sex. Throw in Finch (Thomas) and Kevin (Nicholas) as those present to support Jim in the lead up to his wedding, as well as Jim's sex-crazed father (Levy) who's there to make things more interesting (it seems).

Before the release of American Pie: The Wedding, the marketing tried to make us believe that this is the funniest "slice of pie" yet. Either they were amazing lyers, or the filmmakers are seriously self-deluded. What has become a supposed rites-of-passage trilogy initiated as a cunningly appealing amalgamation of gross-out comedy (sometimes amusing) and a credible set of characters. With disparaging predictability and mountains of clichés, the trilogy has devolved into this mess...effectively a remake of Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers and Father of the Bride. It's a clichéd wedding affair we've seen billions of times before! But this time, it's been given a makeover to suit the modern sex comedy genre.

Worse yet, this instalment never seems like it actually accomplishes anything. These characters are more of the same. Finch is there to confess his love for Stifler's mother, Kevin is there to whinge his way through everything, Stifler is there to shag anything that moves, etc. And of course Levy as Jim's dad is going to make a few more allegedly funny situations created at the expense of Jim's embarrment. The final insult concerns Stifler...learning his lesson and starting to change his ways. Yet this seems thoroughly pointless because by the end of the movie he's still foul-mouthed and he still just yearns for sex. Of course, for this genre it's customary for these unnecessary sub-plots to be included. The script seems to go no-where. It's drenched in dispiriting amounts of conventions leading towards the predictable wedding that we all know will turn out okay. Every other aspect of the filmmaking is standard. Acting is fair, with the exception of Jason Biggs who sometimes seems very disjointed and uncoordinated.

Overall, American Pie: The Wedding takes things too far. It's only for you if you find the following things hilarious: eating dog poo, shagging a granny, dance off in a gay bar, etc. Bottom line: mildly entertaining with a good soundtrack, but wholly unnecessary.

3.7/10

"...Then I go inside the airport and I'm watching. I'm watching on the television... and I... and I... I... I saw it. I saw it and I felt it at the same time. I thought about Geena's birthmark, and I... I felt them burning..."

Reign Over Me is an uplifting, emotionally-straining drama regarding friendships and heartbreaks set on the foundation of a person's life that was distressed by 9/11. It's intense but humorous, and heart-wrenching but touching. Reign Over Me also signifies an endeavour by Adam Sandler to undertake a serious role that espouses an unequivocally distinct style of humour. The former star of Happy Gilmore and other mediocre comedies attempts something dissimilar to anything he's done before. Instead of nonsensically overzealous and unnecessarily foul-mouthed, Sandler is poignant, challenging and moving.

If you're not in awe at the performances, you'll certainly find yourself profoundly amazed at the dazzling photography. This drama submerges straight into the intricate city setting: the grimy streets, the congested traffic, the regular appearance of apartment buildings...and yet the realistic view of the city is absolutely beautiful. The filmmakers opted to lense the film using digital HD in lieu of employing actual film. This look alone furnishes the film with an abundantly realistic edge. This incredible filmmaking, coupled with the equally moving music, will leave you completely transfixed. Regardless of a number of distracting script flaws, Reign Over Me is stimulating, thought-provoking and challenging - it's an extraordinarily rare event to behold this standard in a contemporary production.

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) is devastatingly afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome. His wife and daughters (even his poor poodle) were killed during the September 11 attacks on New York...they were passengers on one of the doomed planes. Now Charlie is distressed and living a desolate existence: he's neurotic and withdrawn...he no longer works, instead he lives off insurance money. Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a lucrative dentist on the outs with his current dental colleagues. Alan remembers Charlie from college when they were roommates. A chance meeting between Alan and Charlie sparks an intimate friendship. In such a significant part of Charlie's life, camaraderie this special is critical to him. Alan takes a fascination in his erstwhile college friend, primarily by feeling of obligation. It's obvious that Charlie needs professional help to battle his condition that's spiralling hopelessly out of control. Alan becomes extremely determined to relieve Charlie from his grief, and help him escape from his emotional abyss.

The performances present in Reign Over Me are superbly compelling. Don Cheadle looks slightly out of place as the film's protagonist, but he gives the flawed material 100%. Adam Sandler is a scene stealer. The character of Charlie Fineman is challenging and very intricate. When the character breaks down to tears, Sandler is absolutely impeccable. If you lost family in the 9/11 attacks, you will be especially moved. Some people passed up the opportunity to catch the film during its theatrical run due to Sandler's status as a mainly comedic actor. It may seem difficult to accept the actor in a serious performance. Despite this predisposition, Sandler lets us quickly forget about being a typecast funny man. Liv Tyler looks perplexed among an otherwise stellar cast. She simply doesn't suit the role of a psychiatrist. Despite this piece of gross miscasting, top honours to the rest of the cast including Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland and even the writer/director Mike Binder appears as the character of Sugarman.

The director has skilfully crafted the film, employing spellbinding visuals and an equally amazing slate of dialogue. However, writer/director Binder's script feels far too cramped. He tries to incorporate too much into his screenplay. As a result, the film plods drastically during its mid section in particular. It's a moving tribute to those whose lives were affected on that fateful day in 2001, but despite solid filmmaking the film will occasionally bore you to sobs. Miscasting (looking at Liv Tyler in this instance) and occasional humdrum pacing prove lethal to this film, and it falls marginally short of its lofty intent. Also, the film loses the plot into its second half. Without a crackling story to maintain one's interest, it's impossible to feel entirely engaged in the proceedings as there's no underlying driving force. It's a succession of grand filmmaking featuring great photography and sublime acting with no glue to hold everything together. In the long run, you'll be baffled at the over-length. Although there is a clear message and a noble portrait on offer, it takes too long to paint a simple picture. Binder relies on its subject matter to see things through. But that's the fatal element - it's driven by concept instead of plot. With too many unnecessary sub-plots including a patient who wants to "go down" on Cheadle's Alan Johnson, there is lots of potential that is sorely wasted.

Overall, Reign Over Me isn't the clichéd drama that it promised to be. Underneath an ostensibly overdrawn succession of absorbing dialogue, there's a marvellous message to be uncovered. It encompasses foreign territory in relation to 9/11 - the consequences and repercussions of people whose lives were hopelessly altered by the tragedy. Reign Over Me is a truly enthralling character study that scrutinises the lives of two friends coming to terms with the world surrounding them. At times the film is simply faultless, but a tighter middle section and a better platform could have provided this film with tremendous benefit. It's far better than Sandler's brainless comedic roles; however it's clearly distant from Oscar material in spite of a potential to reach that quality.

7.1/10

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

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

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

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

"Tonight's forecast...a freeze is coming!"

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

"Riddle me this, riddle me that, who's afraid of the big, black bat?"

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