Reviews

46 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
1/10
Thank the Maker that Nolan is done with Batman
29 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
People complained about Batman not having enough screen time in 1992 with Batman Returns. well, here it is again. the big difference is that whenever batman appeared in the aforementioned film, it WAS batman, and he was cool. this is not the case with bale. i have now had to endure 2 movies that call themselves "batman" movies, but cmon. don't kid yourself. this is not batman. frankly i am shocked at how the sheep have latched onto Nolan's batman, particularly TDK. i don't really understand it.....what was it that people saw in that dreck i didn't see? as a big fan of the original batman films ala Tim Burton and the FIRST film by Joel Schumacher, i remember going into batman begins all starry eyed and excited to see my favorite hero on screen. needless to say, i was let down. i did read in magazines beforehand the "realism" approach Nolan was taking. i thought OK, it will be dark like Tim Burton's awesome movies, yeah! but.....it was boring. it dragged. the villains were lame. Ra's AL Gaul i mainly knew from the cartoon show with Kevin Conroy i grew up watching. i expected Lazarus pits. didn't get that. the bat mobile looked like a freaking tank. that just ticked me off. I'm still not over that. then came the dark knight. i didn't expect much, given how incredibly lame batman begins was. and i wasn't crazy about the casting of heath ledger as joker. last person in the world i would have cast to play him. ah well, i decided to give it a try, plus the hype was incredible due to ledgers death. it turned out that was the only thing anyone could even remember about the film. its totally unmemorable, and try as i might, i could help but compare ledger to Nicholson. needless to say, ledger doesn't even come close to the genius of jack. the whole look of joker was totally off, looking like a grungy hobo. LAME. while the action is ever so slightly amped up, it never took off for me, and two-face, more like half-a-face, short cameo at the end (yes, thats really all it was) was incredibly insulting. sorry to say, tommy lee Jones still owns that part as he was a major player and played the role to the hilt.

now we have the 3rd movie, and boy am i glad its the last. being the batman fan i am, i knew it would suck but i just had to see it to compare it to the others. in retrospect, i would say batman begins is probably the lesser of 3 evils in this series. at least it followed the traditional batman movie feel, more or less, as well as being the only one to have the word "batman" in the title. i simply do not like going to a batman movie that doesn't have the word batman in the title. "the dark knight" is just Batman's nickname, not his REAL name. its just pure laziness. they could have easily called the 3rd one "batman rises". simple and to the point. dark knight is just stupid sounding. OK now onto the movie. stylistically, Nolan doesn't have a clue how to make a batman movie. did he even watch the previous movies? whatever happened to "does it come in black?". now the freaking tank look like army colors! huh? the helicopter looking thing.... THATS supposed to be an updated bat-plane? huh? looks more like the tumbler grew jets engines and learned how to fly. nope, the Tim Burton/Schumacher bat planes are really BATPLANES. they looked like a bat, not this hunk of junk. the whole deal with batman disappearing for 8 years is....not. batman. batman would not just abandon his city for that long. batman is always out there protecting people in Gotham. he wouldn't let some cops or some dogs stop him. totally out of character. bane looks like a mortal combat reject and catwoman..is it even fair to call her that? what did they do to one of my favorite characters *teardrop* *sniff* they didn't even use the name catwoman! so, she could be "leather clad biker chick" for all we know. for any people or kids who Haven't seen the other films and this is there introduction to the character. i feel bad for them cuz they wont know who it is. the costume is awful, yes even worse and uncatwoman-like then the Halley berry skank version. Michelle pfieffer still owns this part. tragic, dark, sexy and pshycotic on top of being an insanely beautiful woman in the classic grace Kelly mold. Anne Hathaway is a strange looking look duck, and her performance was ultra weak in comparison. even when not comparing to pfieffer, the gold standard of Catwomans, she is still weak. the scene where she dances with bale, when compared with the Keaton/pfieffer scene, shows how superior Tim Burton's films are in just about every way, story wise and artistically. but you cant blame her entirely when you look at the garbage she has to work with. if you watch what pfieffer did with the role, which was pretty damn intense (wrecking apartments in rage, blowing up buildings, killing a guy with a electroshock kiss, getting shot point blank range) there isn't much else you can do with this part. Michelle did it ALL. now bane. despite the mortal combat silly look, i thought he would be more cooler then the B&R bane at the very least. *sigh* once again, lame. the way he breaks Batman's back is stupid, ooh a comics reference! these movies are for the nerds i swear. and cat woman??? kills him? the constant flashbacks, the cheesy dialog, the lack of action *yet again*, killing off Bruce Wayne and showing batman hanging up his cape and cowl for good, is Nolan's last big flip of the bird to the real batman fans who expected more from a modern batman film.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Ah, the good old days, when the Batman movies were fun and cool
4 July 2012
Not sure why this movie gets a bad rap these days, especially considering how popular it was back in the day. Its a great entertaining, PROPER batman film, not some pseudo-crime drama borefest like the new ones are. i hate the new movies frankly. hate to break it to ya nerds but new movies are boring, older ones are more entertaining as batman films. this is a fact, not opinion. Forever is NOTHING like Batman & Robin. despite what a lot of jaded cynical "adults" say, this is actually a very good batman film. I perhaps am a bit biased because i LOVED this film when i was 7 and i still think its good today. Its exactly what i believe a batman movie is supposed to be, fun, cool, dark, brooding, colorful villains, cool car, etc. not sure what people mean that the older films aren't "serious". yes they are, they we re done seriously. If the villains didn't have any humour, the movies would be dull as hell! Just look at the new ones, the villains are as dull as dirt. Its got it all, and is the first batman to focus more on Bruce Wayne/batman. not as much as Nolan's films, thankfully. i never found batman as interesting as his villains. sure batman is cool and all, but once you discover that his parents were murdered in front of him and that that is what drove him to become a crime fighter, there really isn't much more to say about him. his villains however, always seem to have some crazy back story that makes them what they are and they are also typically the most fun. however in this film, while they do focus more on batman, they don't have that overtake the film, like in batman begins. i never liked "origin" movies anyway, they are too much like biopics and batman begins is no exception.

Jim Carry....LOL. what can i say? he steals the show, a lot like how jack Nicholson and Danny devito stole the show in there batman films. but this makes sense since riddler is the main villain. two face is also played rather psychotically by tommy lee Jones, but still manages to be funny in a joker-ish way. I'm not the biggest robin fan, but they really managed to make robin work for a film and not in a stupid campy Burt ward way. hes done seriously for the most part, except for that one line where he says "holy rusted metal batman!" lol but it was still fun to see a little nod to the 60's show. unfortunately the sequel did A lot of what the 60's show did, and that is where it started sucking. but Forever was sleek, loud fun and is still 16 years later, one of my favorite batman films. the first 3 were great, and to me they make a really great trilogy of batman films. i wouldn't really say that this movie is a real true "sequel" to Batman Returns, but if you had to put them together, it makes sense as a trilogy. first one is a awesome adventure movie, the 2nd one is the dark brooding 2nd chapter, and the 3rd is the light but still fun more family friendly film, much like they did with star wars and Indiana Jones. too bad B&R mucked things up.

the vehicles are cool too. i always loved the bat mobile in this one, with the blue lights, and the bat boat and bat plane. it was familiar, but fresh and new and the bat cave was HUGE this time. the music score is cool and exciting, but lets face it, Danny elfman is the bat master when it comes to scoring batman films. Hans zimmer....lets not even go there. the guy is a hack and cant write batman music to save his life, just sound effects. but Elliot goldenthal did a great job bringing the "fun" to batman, and a worthy score for this film.

from what i gather from history, this film did tremendously well at the box office. it was a movie that the audience wanted at the time. this was before comic book films got ridiculously superficial and "emo". this was back when comic book films were still allowed to be loud and fun and even a Little over the top. these are the batman films i miss. why did they have to change? sure one can say this film was made for the kid, but honestly, this is a film where "everyone won", as Schumacher put it. the movie was indeed a lot more kid friendly, featured many more "neat" looking bat gadgets/vehicles/suits etc, and was obviously very commercial but at the same time, it was a good story adding new takes on the characters, a new look and just dark enough to be taken seriously while being incredibly entertaining. the audience loved the movie and it was generally well received. the focused more on the hero, the villains were hilariously great, and Nicole kidman added some needed sex appeal to the movie. count in the cool soundtrack and you've got a winner. and i can see why. I'm not a critic and i don't pretend to be. if i like a film, i like a film. and batman is my favorite superhero. someone once said you have to have to heart of a child to enjoy this movie. perhaps so. either way, its a cool movie, even if you didn't watch this as a kid in the 90's, its still a awesome kickass movie to me and always will be.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
20 years on and still the better Batman movie
29 June 2012
Yikes, cant believe this film has reached its 20th anniversary! I was only 5 when this hit theaters but I do remember watching this many times on videotape. Anyway, I'm here to give the new revised review of this amazing film. Looking back at the batman movies, this one comes off as rather unique. Its not your atypical comic book movie in that it doesn't just have loads of action with one fight scene after another. not that it doesn't have its fair share of exciting action scenes, but its more about the characters and how they relate to each other, almost like little character studies. there's a reason why the tagline for the movie is "the bat, the cat, the penguin". the movie is all about these 3 characters. One thing that strikes me is the emotional level this film achieves. Its quite amazing what Burton did with the characters, particularly the 2 villains. In the comic books, they are very 2-dimensional characters. Catwoman is just a hot chick who likes to steal things, and Penguin is just a little roly poly guy who wears a tux. If there were ever 2 characters that were in dire need of a face lift, its these 2. Tim Burton gives them both a rather incredible amount of depth and pathos. Penguin is a deformed guy who years after being dumped in the sewer, seeks revenge not only against Gotham city, but more specifically, its children. Talk about a disturbed individual. Catwoman on the other hand was a quiet put upon woman treated badly by her employer, who eventually tries to kill her. This makes her go into a fit of rage, a sequence in which Selina totally lets loose in her apartment, which is quite a powerful scene and which also shows why I love Michelle pfeiffer. Very, very talented actress. Its in this moment she becomes cat woman. Sure beats the hell out of the comics version. Then there is Batman, once again dark and brooding Michael Keaton, born to play this part, who has seemingly no life beyond waiting for that big bat in the sky to call him to duty. During the course of the movie, all these characters go in and out of each others lives, betray each other, love each other, fight each other. The 3 leads are superb together, and the casting for this movie is PERFECT. I mean cmon, who else could possibly play the Penguin? Seriously? But besides the action scenes and the amazing visuals that Burton does so well, there is something about this movie, a kind of sad feeling, especially during the climax. These aren't just your typical run of the mill comic book villains and heroes. These are deeply hurt, deeply scarred people who inhabit this dark wonderland of Gotham city. The penguin acts and behaves like your usual crazy super villain, but at the same time you realize, why is he targeting little kids as his aim of his revenge? Because he himself was thrown into the sewer as a small child and now wants to reenact this on the children of Gotham. Hes hurting. Catwoman and Batman are both messed up which makes them perfect for each other, but they can never truly be together because of the very things that draw them together. The ballroom scene between Selina and Bruce is one of the best scenes in the movie.

What can I say, Tim Burton is a master of visuals, a true genius of dark filmmaking. Such is his talent of creating an amazing and creepy atmosphere. He is, as far as I'm concerned, the only guy fit to direct a batman movie. He just gets it. The nerds and basment dwellers who judge a movie simply on how accurate it is to the source material are just narrow minded haters, especially since its popular right now to hate on the older films in order to "prop up" the newer movies. the comics by the way, are not the Bible. characters and origins are constantly changing and being re-envisioned by different artists writers. one minute penguin is a tux wearing, snooty, intelligent human being, the next hes a monstrous, bulbous, disgusting slob with claws/"flippers" and long greasy hair. nothing remains the same for too long in the comics, so when it comes to comic books, nothing in set in concrete. its more up to personal taste, and i believe that burton took the source material and simply added to its greatness. he took the characters and made them so much more compelling then they ever were in the comic books. isn't that what the films are supposed to do?

Its really quite sad to see people and the weird crazy internet culture having this massive hard-on for Christopher Nolan's boring, bourgeois bland take on the character. heath ledger did not deserve the Oscar, and was the worst version of joker I've ever seen. Out of all 6 batman films made, none of them I believe have the same kind of raw emotion of this particular batman film.

I also like the film also because it deals with outcasts, of which I feel very much an outcast in many ways so I can relate to it. Heck even here on IMDb I am an outcast, as I hate movies that most people seem to love and I love movies people seem to hate! I hate the new Batman's. I think they are dull lifeless garbage. Does that make me Mr. popular or what? But I stick to my thoughts and wont bend just to make some stupid shmoe happy. So there's always this tension with people because my tastes are different. Lets face facts here, most modern versions of thing's suck, and that includes the new batmans. the original 3 are the best, simple as that.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cape Fear (1991)
1/10
Just proves that nothing beats the original
27 June 2012
i recently came across this movie again after having not seen it in years. i saw it as a kid and i remembered it did freak me out, but as an adult now, i cannot recommend it. i could barely get through it and was shocked at some of the things i was seeing. the original cape fear didn't need to show rape, blood and gore, cussing/profanity to be effective. turning the good guy into a "morally ambiguous" good guy was such a bad move for a story like this. pecks character was so good in the original, which made the the cady character seem even more evil, whereas here hes not really that good of a person thus you almost don't care about what happens to him that much. the original had better actors and though deniro does crazy well, he sucks in comparison to mitchum. they turned cady into some over the top horror movie villain, complete with Freddy Krueger makeup near the end, and deniro got an Oscar nod for this?

Scorsese seems to only know how to make sensationalistic, extremely violent, disturbing movies and cant just tell a good story without injecting some kinda ultra sadism or blood and guts into it. ever think of the motto "less is more" martin? i think Scorsese is a very disturbed individual.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Predators (2010)
1/10
One world: LAME.
21 April 2012
just saw the film a few hours ago with that movie money i got with the bluray predator.

the film itself is really stupid compared to the first (even offbeat second) brilliant film. like many here i actually think predator 2 felt more like a predator film then this did. at least that was original. there were so many homages to the first film in this one it started to feel like a remake and not a sequel. also none of the characters were likable and died off too quick to even care. those stupid looking CGI alien things were pointless and the new predators looked pretty retarded, even more then the AVP predators. and once again, a human siding with a predator? thats very hard to believe. i just couldn't buy little Adrian Brody taking on a predator in hand to hand combat. and like i said, the homages were one too many and some of them were so stupid like the Chinese guy taking out his sword like billy with the SAME music, and Laurence fishburne going "over here over here, turn around turn around turn around". it became almost laughable how many times they tried to reference the other movie. at least ATTEMPT to be original. just cuz the movie takes place on another planet while having every other scene reference the '87 movie doesn't mean that your being "original", just ripping off. the CGI for the predators while they were fighting, every time they hit the ground they glowed blue, that was so dumb and distracting. and Adrian Brody yelling "im right here kill mee!" basically copying Arnold with the mud and everything was so stupid!! and why was Laurence fishburne in this? he was in it for like only 5 minutes then gets blown up really fake like. also, playing "long tall sally" during the end credits makes NO SENSE AT ALL. yes, again, it was used in the original film as the guys were going to the jungle, but that made sense since they were just in a chopper listening to old-school rock. in this movie there is no such thing happening, so playing that song makes absolutely no sense in the context of this movie. it just serves as yet another homage (im getting tired of that word) to the first film but doesn't serve any point whatsoever.

I went in hoping it would be something different, but Predator 2 was much better then this. this one felt like an extremely lame ripoff of the first movie. if your any kind of fan of the original, save yourself from this corny cringe-worthy remake, er, "sequel".
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Best action film in years
15 April 2012
I saw this when it came out in the theater, and i now own it on bluray DVD. this is Stallone's 3rd awesome hit hes made in recent years. he went away for a while, but he came back as strong as ever with Rocky Balboa, which was surprisingly great and touching. then he brought Rambo back as hard hitting (and as violent) as ever. now comes Stallone's 3rd hit, Expendables. and let me tell you, its got everything you could want: loads of action upon action, a cast of Grade A action stars, hot female lead, great dialog and some truly funny humor. this was Stallone trying to recapture the energy and explosiveness of those infamous 80's action films he used to make (heck, still does) and it does not disappoint. the chases are done very well, the acting is top notch for a film like this, and the hand to hand combat is pretty spectacular, especially considering Stallone's age. he really is a legend, and hes still got it! this was better then many of the other so-called "action" movies that are flooding theaters lately, like those terrible Bourne movies, all those TV show remakes, the new Batman's, etc. this beats them all, because it doesn't pretend to be something more then it is: a really bad ass action movie. no silly pretentious rambling monologues, no sappy love stories, no soap opera drama. just plain and simple ass kicking, balls to the wall action, but not without connecting you with the characters. the other great thing is that this is an ORIGINAL. not a remake, not a sequel, not a "reboot", a totally original film with stallone. the team mentality is cool here, WAY better then the new A team movie. these guys are the real deal. words i suppose cannot describe how just plain cool this movie is. action stars from this generation as well as the last are all here, all the big names, even a cameo from ARNIE and Bruce! jet Li is hilarious, SO awesome to see Ivan drago back fighting rocky...ER i mean Dolph lundren fighting Stallone once again! Eric Roberts plays the typical skeevy sleaze bag hes so good at, stone cold.....what a MONSTER. this guy is scary, and plays a formidable foe to sly and his gang of freedom fighters. mickey Rourke provides the heart and soul and the movie, with one truly amazing scene where he talks about how he could have saved his soul by saving another's. almost brought tears to my eyes. in short, this is probably one of THE best most fulfilling action experiences in recent years. in a time filled with CGI overload and everything seems to take itself so seriously, here comes a movie that doesn't try to be anything other then a simple giant blockbuster filled to the brim with brutal fist fights and explosions. i hope Hollywood is taking notes here: THIS is how to make an proper action movie, the way they USED to make them. the movie has it all, and i am really hoping the sequel will be just as good, if not better.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The A-Team (2010)
1/10
terrible terrible terrible
15 April 2012
i admit when i first heard this was coming out i was a bit excited, but daaaamn this really sucked! NOTHING like the TV show, they destroyed the van! in the first few minutes! that was strike number 1. second, Bradley cooper was awful and Liam neeson trying so hard to cover up his accent with a bad fake American one was just plain embarrassing. strike 2. then the much looked forward to cameo I've heard about of Dwight and dirk was f'ing LAME! strike 3! then on top of all that, Patrick Wilson and Jessica biel: NEED I SAY MORE. most annoying grating actors I've ever seen. in short, SCREW THIS MOVIE. lame cash-in of a classic TV series. watch the original TV show instead.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jurassic Park: The Game (2011 Video Game)
7/10
Decent effort for a movie-based title on a budget
6 December 2011
i just bought this game for the xbox 360, as i am a Jurassic park fan and i loved the movies as a kid, but was sad they never got to make a next gen console game based on the movies. well, low and behold, alongside the anticipated release of the film series on bluray, they have a game to go along with it. i was at first excited, but when i found out the game is from a lesser known company and that its more of a "budget" game, i was turned off. however, i still plunked down the cash just to see if it was any good. i guess i am just too big of a JP fan to pass this up.

OK, so here it is. the game takes you through a separate story that is happening during the same time frame of the first Jurassic park film. a park vet Gerry Harding and his daughter jess spending time together, and of course when the park shuts down and all hell breaks loose is when the story picks up. there is also a subplot that deals with the shaving cream can with the DNA that was seen in the first film, and how a few different mercenary characters are all trying to obtain it to get the big bucks its worth. its basically the "macguffin" of the story. during the first few levels, at first i thought, oh the graphics (in comparison to many other games) are REALLY bad, and the story/dialogue seems pretty cheesy, but i soon realized that the game actually puts a lot of effort into the story telling and dialogue. its not your stereotypical action "shooting up dinosaurs" type of game. this is more about the story, which is surprisingly good. i think this was the big strength of the game, despite the not quite polished graphics (could have taken another few months to perfect, at least). it reminded me of the "enter the matrix" game for the matrix movies. could have been muuch better graphics wise if more time was given. also, in scenes involving lots of fast moving and action, the game tends to get all glitchy and freeze or slow down. reminded me of an old PC game or something. its definitely a budget game, no question. but the story and characters are the strength. there is no shooting, but a lot of action choosing, like you choose what your character will say to another, or solving some puzzles, or making movements by pressing RB or LB and things like that. very easy game, that is done in 4 "episodes". i assume this game was online somewhere that was then released as a console game for the bluray movie release.

all in all, i actually enjoyed it, but the replay value is very minimal, but if your a Jurassic park fan like i am, you will defiently get some enjoyment out of this effort. its definitely more of a one time play so i would rent this.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"Something Wicked This Way Comes" is SO much better then this!
27 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
i saw this only once when i was a kid. i vaguely remembered it, all i remember is a girl with a blindfold and a church. so many years later, my mom saw this on DVD and picked it up, thinking we might enjoy it. we had recently seen "something wicked this way comes", another movie i vaguely remembered as a child, which was really scary and excellent film, especially for Disney, and was very dark, and we thought "watcher" would be in the same vein as "wicked", since they were only made a few years apart. but it was definitely not. it was far worse! the ending with the "alien" thing or whatever, and some explanation of an "aternate reality" totally killed it for me. holly Lynn Johnson, though definitely a cutie, was REALLY bad acting. like, annoyingly bad. the story seemed to take forever to pick up, i didn't understand. Davis was not very good either. nothing stood out. i was especially disappointed that it wasn't a "ghost story" in the end, but some kinda scifi plot with switching the bodies back and forth because of some kind of weird chant the kids did in the chapel. didn't get it at all, and it got WAY too scifi. i thought the whole time it would be something supernatural. just lame. something wicked this way comes which came out a few years later was FAR Superior, genuinely scary, great acting, and just all around a better film from Disney studios.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Not a good Batman film. Over-rated in the Extreme.
23 November 2011
damn i cant believe the reviews for this film. I've only seen this twice and don't plan on seeing it again anytime soon, and this coming from a lifelong batman MOVIE fan (note the emphasis on MOVIE, not COMICS).I've seen the original film 200000 times and i loved all the sequels, even the "campy" Schumacher ones. but boy did they take this franchise in a reverse direction. JUST because batman & robin was terrible and silly doesn't make Christopher Nolan's films the comic book equivalent of the "godfather" or gone with the frigging wind. if anything, they only show how amazing Tim Burton's 2 original dual pictures are, and how utterly lame the Nolan ones are. not only is "the dark knight" worse then batman begins, its downright ridiculous! you feel like you need a degree in law to understand what the hell they are talking about. its like CSI meets Gotham city. you might as well call this movie GCPD or GCPD Blue, or any of those law and order-type shows that this movie seems to copy from. its even more silly when you look at the lengths the director went through to make this batman movie as boring as possible. they seem to think "if the story is engaging enough, we don't have to make the movie visually appealing". thats like saying "if the story is good enough, we don't have to make batman look awesome in the comics".

lets get this review started shall we? first, the joker. we are all familiar I'm sure with jack Nicholson's classic portrayal from the original film. it was truly amazing, he made the character eerie, funny, and charming all at once. yet he seemed to understand that this character is based off cartoons and as such you cant take yourself all that seriously. this is the complete opposite of what heath ledger does with the same role. but i guess you cant really blame the actor entirely with Nolan wanting to change up batman and his world to the point that the characters aren't really who they should be. first off, joker doesn't fall in a vat of acid like the original, he puts on makeup and cuts his own smile and dyes his hair green. i would hate to see his joker in the rain, he would look rather pathetic as a joker. i can guarantee that if Nicholson didn't already do this classic comics origin 20 years ago in the awesome first film, fan boys would be crying that joker was turned into common serial killer done a million times over in other films and not the funny amusing comic book clown prince of crime that everyone is more familiar with. oh, but since Nicholson already played THAT version to perfection, Nolan was somehow able to get away with turning joker into a common killer that we've seen time and again. Heath didn't really even play the Joker, he played "generic serial killer bad guy #13314". for those who would defend ledger by saying he was "really scary and terrifying", sure ill give them that, but to say he was better than NICHOLSON?!? JACK FREAKING NICHOLSON?!? PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!! The role was virtually MADE for the man when he was born. Nicholson captured the true essence of the Joker; a psychopathic man child out not to prove a good damn thing, but to kill and mess around with people all for the laughs. THESE are traits that define the Joker, not some cliché ideal of wanting people to accept that evil exists in all of us. and that brings me to another point, whats with this jokers anarchist pseudo-philosophic rambling monologues? boy Nolan LOVES these cardboard deep monologues he has his character spew out all the time, even in the last film. its laughable at how serious he takes the movie. did he forget this is based off of comic books and that there are supposed to be fun elements in the film? Tim Burton struck the perfect balance of comic book and reality. its somewhere right in the middle. Nolan puts a guy in a bat suit and places him right in middle of an unaltered real life city. it makes him look silly and out of place.

I'm not gonna dwell much on bales batman. this guy cant save any movie hes in. people seem to love this guy, or think hes some brilliant actor, but hes obviously just a wooden actor and once again phoned in his "performance" in this film. to quote Christopher walken from Batman Returns, "hes just a poor schmo, who got lucky". his batman voice is ludicrous. ludicrous! i still don't understand why they decided to make batman sound like an engine turning over. every time he talks he makes me laugh. the only decently done things in this film is how Harvey dent is portrayed (pre-twoface) and the pretty nifty bat pod, that has ONE cool scene in which it bursts from the bat mobile. but again, the action scenes never pick up because of Nolan's hard on for realism, so nothing in the new Batman films ever makes you go "OOH Awesome" for too long. this movie just dragged and i remember looking at the clock as to when it would end. they make it feel like the new Batman's are "smart" but honestly, in a comic book movie who the heck wants to listen to all this law and order talk and long drawn out "deep" monologues? its so....meh. i'd rather watch jack Nicholson laugh like a maniac shooting his henchman and making me laugh. who can forget gems like "bob, gun". today you have "why so serious?". yeah thats what i want to know, why so serious Nolan?? why cant you make batman fun? nothing against having darkness, Burton's films were dark too but not so much to the point where they weren't fun or exciting. again, disappointed.
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.