Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Batman & Robin (1997)
Not the best batman, but certainly not the worst either.
I have to take exception with the first reviewer of this film. Batman and Robin wasn't the best of the series, but it wasn't the worst either. (That honor goes to the previous one with too overthetop Jim Carrey as the "villian?".
Arnold Schwarzenegger did an excellent job portraying Mr. Freeze. (which surprised me; I didn't think he could do it.) And yes, Uma was over the top a bit as Poison Ivy, but it fit the character.
If the series hadn't started out with Michael Keaton is Bruce Wayne/Batman, I would have had no trouble with George Clooney's portrayal. He did look the part, but failed to exhibit the brooding and torn personality that was Batman. So far no one has done that better than Keaton.
The storyline was a bit better than the last two as well. The villains had reasons for destroying the world that one could almost sympathize with if it didn't mean the annihilation of the human race.
Now on to the bad news. I couldn't agree more with the other reviewer when it comes to Chris O'Donnell's Robin and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl. O'Donnell just didn't look or act the part, in this movie or the last one, and Alicia Silverstone can't act her way out of a paper bag. I have NEVER seen her do a good job of acting in any movie. There are so many other young actresses that could have done the job well, why did some idiot choose her? This isn't the best of the series, that honor goes to the first batman movie. But it is probably the best of the sequels. As much as I enjoyed Michele Pfieffer as Catwoman, the way she came into being (being licked alive by dozens of cats) was ridiculous, as was the idea of Oswald Cobblepot being raised by penguins. At least the way Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy came into being had a hint of believability.
Enjoy this movie for what it is - entertaining escapism from the real world. It wasn't great, but it was good.
Overall, a very good movie
Unlike most of the people who have commented on this movie, I enjoyed the first two prequels, although the second one was a little too rushed to be logical.
I went to ROTS hoping that it would clear up some of the apparent plot conflicts between the prequels and the original trilogy. I was not disappointed in this. For example . . .
1. The mystery is solved regarding. C3PO of the original series. How could he have no knowledge of Darth Vader nor Princess Leia, even though Anakin Skywalker AKA Vader, built him in the first place? 2. A very believable explanation is given why the clones suddenly turn on their masters, the Jedi, and work for Palpatine and the Sith.
That being said, it also created a few questions in my mind that remain unanswered.
1. How is it that, with all his Sith powers, Vader never sensed that he had children? 2. If, as Yoda says, there are always only two Sith in existence, Master and Apprentice, where was Count Dooku when Darth Maul was Sidious' apprentice? And why wasn't he shown or at least mentioned in TPM? 3. Why in the universe would Luke be given to Anakin's step brother? It seems that Darth Vader would have checked on Tattoine long before he did.
4. As others have mentioned, why would it take 15 years to build the Death Star, as the movie would suggest? Equally mystifying is the fact that the Death Star shown in ROTS is in the exact stage of completion that it first appears to be in the original movie. Besides, in the original movie, the Rebels acted like it was a new creation of the empire.
Now on to ROTS itself. Frankly, I found the first part of the movie boring and having little to do with the overall plot. It looked like Spielberg just threw it in to show the special effects of space battles. But once the movie settled down to show the internal conflict of Anakin that we were all expecting. The movie was excellent. Anakin's descent into the dark side of the force happens gradually and with logic. Although turning villain in this movie, Anakin remains a a pitiable character, whose fall isn't entirely his own. In fact the Jedi have a large hand in it by the way they treat him, like not making him a Master instead of just a knight.
What isn't logical (and this is a spoiler), is why Anakin the Sith would try to kill Padme when protecting her was most of the reason he turned to the dark side in the first place? And why kill the children in the Jedi Temple. They couldn't be part of the so-called plot against Palpatine yet, and without the Jedi masters they would not be able to complete their training anyway. I also found it extremely hard to believe that someone as burned as Anakin is after battling Obi-wan could survive long enough for Palpatine to rescue and and for his medical team to repair and heal. Personally I was hoping that Palpatine would bring him back from the dead, as proof of his boast that the Sith have power over death itself.
Still, overall this was a fine edition to the Star Wars saga. Personally, I had no complaints about the acting or the dialogs. And I was overjoyed to find that Jar Jar is speechless in ROTS. Although you have to wonder why Jar Jar isn't present in the Republic's senate scenes since he was a senator in AOTC.
I would suggest, however, that you read the novelization of the film before seeing it. There are a couple of things in the movie that would have left me scratching my head and saying "Huh?" if I hadn't read the book and seen what was cut from the movie. Kind of like the scenes in AOTC involving Padme's sister that were cut from the final movie. Do that, and you will come out of the movie nearly completely satisfied.
Don't agree with first comment
As much as I like Flaming Star, I like Charro a whole lot more. Elvis's acting was more refined. You could tell he was better trained than in some earlier films. Yes, it's a western, and westerns are hardly ever Oscar material. But in its own genre, it's very entertaining. The plot is as good as any other western movie I've seen, John Wayne notwithstanding, and the acting (again for the genre) was quite good. I wish Elvis had been allowed to make more serious movies. As much as I like most of his musicals, the three dramatic ones (Love Me Tender, Flaming Star, and Charro) and his supporting appearance in Change of Habit, were by far the best and the ones that showed his real talent for acting.
Touched by an Angel (1994)
Without a Doubt, the Absolute Best Show in the History of Television
I must strongly disagree with the previous reviewer's comments. I have never seen such an uplifting show (even more so than Highway to Heaven was). Yes, it broached controversial subjects now and then, and had stories quite often contrary to my personal beliefs. But the show was uplifting and left one with a good feeling, whereas most of today's television leaves one cold or with thoughts one would rather not have.
I was an extra on a couple of episodes, and the "spirit" of the show was evident even in the filming. Everyone got along really well, conflicts were always restored quickly, and the well known actors on the show went out of their way to acknowledge even the extras and to treat them like equals. (Something you'll rarely see at tapings of most other shows._
Granted there were times when the acting left something to be desired, and I've never been a fan of Della Reese's singing. But over all the show was great, and if I had one negative comment, it would be that they didn't work the character of the angel Celeste (played by the great actress Hudson Lieck) into a regular spot in the show.
The Incredibles (2004)
This is a must see movie, and not just for children. Unlike most pixar or animated films, this one has some three dimensional characters, and spends the right amount of time on character development. Mr. Incredible, while incredibly egotistical at first, is also incredibly human, and the other superheroes in the film (at least the ones seen in more than a quick glance) are human also; with human weaknesses that threaten to overcome their superhuman powers. But good triumphs in the end, after the kind of cartoon violence I grew up with (no blood, use your imagination a bit), and personally I left the theater feeling a little more uplifted than when I entered it. On a scale of 1 to 10 (considering this is an animated feature), I give it a 13.
Team America: World Police (2004)
The absolute worst movie I have ever watched
I heard someone say that if you're a South Park fan, you'll love this movie; if not, you'll hate it. I am NOT a South Park fan (I find it occasionally funny but mostly crude and tasteless), but South Park is high brow family-oriented fare compared to this piece of garbage. I was so disgusted at one point that I left the theatre rather than watch a highly offensive seen where the "hero" must prove his loyalty with a disgusting perverted sexual act. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming in this film, in my opinion. Not only do I feel it is a tremendous waste of money, but I came away with a new absolute movie rule. I will NEVER go to a movie again that Trey Parker has had anything do do with.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (when 10 being a must see movie), I wouldn't give this movie even a 1.
Kurt plays a genetically altered soldier thought dead, and dumped on another planet.
Kurt plays a genetically altered soldier thought dead, and dumped on another planet. While there, he bonds with the local inhabitants and, when the new genetically altered army of his homeworld atack, he is his new home total defense.
As usual, makes a three dimensional hero. (good guy vs. bad guy; he does them both at the same time)