Lord Rahl's Cinematic Review Repository

[Lord Rahl]

Well, I personally found the Bond franchise dull and uninspiring after Goldeneye and as such seeing a new atypical actor putting on the 007 identity without always lurking around in the incessant suit.

Yes, Tomorrow Never Dies was bad, The World Is Not Enough was decent, and Die Another Day...was really really really REALLY bad. So they follow up with a movie where Bond doesn't convey the Bond we know?

I've never played poker and never found it the slightest interesting so I guess that's why I easily scroll over those parts

I found it to be terrible. I believe they were supposed to play baccarat originally but it was thought audiences wouldn't understand what was happening because hardly anyone plays it. That's why they chose Texas Hold 'Em poker, because it is one of the more well-known card games. I love playing it, personally. What makes the game the most interesting is that a player can bluff their way to a win. It's not like Blackjack where you as the player hardly have any control over what you can do and the game. In Texas Hold 'Em your personality, your daring, your ability to "read" other players, and your ability to keep the "poker face" are all just as important as the cards you get. That's why the game is so fun to play. But in Casino Royale they managed to make the game be very uninteresting to me. By the way, what's the deal with Le Chiffre's need for an inhaler? That addition to his character was completely unnecessary. It took away from him being a respectable villain.

In Goldeneye Bond plays baccarat against Xenia. I have no idea how to play the game but the scene in the movie is by far more interesting than what Casino Royale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbR5O86zcY

Sounds very much like a former relationship of mine.

Sounds like a relationship an MI6 agent has no business being in.

The best Bond was Sean Connery, hands down. And, we want more reviews!

He can't be beat!



Ok, reviews!

Drive Angry (2011)

Have you ever wanted to drive cool cars? Have you ever wanted to drink beer out of a man's freshly destroyed skull? Have you ever wanted to have sex with a woman with your pants still on, while smoking a cigar, chugging Jack Daniels, and killing several men aiming to kill you all at the same time? Are you completely, entirely, totally, utterly, and wholeheartedly obsessed with Nicolas Cage? If you answered "Yes" to any of those questions then Drive Angry is the movie for you.

The last Cage movie I saw before Drive Angry was Season of the Witch. What a complete piece of that was. I desperately NEEDED to see another Cage movie as soon as possible and luckily Drive Angry came. I wasn't expecting much. I mean, it's from the director of My Bloody Valentine, is a 3D movie (and no 3D movies are respectable), has a ridiculous plot, stars Nicolas Cage (that means more than you know), and all I wanted from it was to be better than Season of the Witch. I'll say if you go into the movie with the mentality I had then you won't be too disappointed. It wasn't terrible...but it wasn't Cagey enough.

Seriously, Cage is a very unique actor and if you give him a script where he barely shows emotion, has minimal dialog, and isn't playing a quirky character then you're not tapping into Cage's natural greatness. Not that Cage is bad in Drive Angry, but the role is better suited for someone who can bring substantial gravitas to a scene. Cage can do that but not with the character he plays in the movie. He's basically just angry the whole time and barely has awesome lines to deliver. If anything, Cage would have been better suited for the "Accountant" in the movie. My Cage needs to do more with his character than walk around, shoot people, and basically say, "I'm angry," all the time. How's that an interesting character. Whatever...

Cage's hair should get an Oscar for its performance though, and Amber Heard, a lesbian, is damn hot in it. I'll give William Fichtner credit for having one of the greatest one-liners in movie history. I didn't mind the 3D though, and I freaking HATE 3D. It was done in a way where it made sense. Avatar was crap in 3D. This was made for 3D and it showed.

So, should you see this? Well, if you're obsessed with Cage like I am then this is pretty much a must-see even though Cage's character isn't that great. That being said, the 3D is good, and if you're looking for a fun and unpretentious film to ogle then it's not a bad pick.

3/5 Stars

[Admiral Piett]

I must say I agree with a lot of your reviews, but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Casino Royale, which was meant to be more of the original novel based James Bond. Cold, reserved, brutal, unsophisticated, and is very morally relative. M barely, barely tolerates him.

[Lord Rahl]

I must say I agree with a lot of your reviews, but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Casino Royale, which was meant to be more of the original novel based James Bond. Cold, reserved, brutal, unsophisticated, and is very morally relative. M barely, barely tolerates him.

I understand that it was supposed to be more like the actual book, that I have not read, but I didn't enjoy what the new Bond was. I'm OK with things being darker and more realistic. Your avatar is fitting because Goldeneye is a pretty dark movie as far as Bond movies go. Casino Royale just wasn't the Bond I know, that I have enjoyed over a dozen movies. It's sort of like how I enjoyed JJ Abram's Star Trek a bit but didn't feel like it's the Star Trek that I know. Same characters, same universe, but with an "alien", and yes, forgive the pun, feel to it.

OK, another review...and one that's more personal. A Facebook user had this to say about my review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, "You are out of control."

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

I really like TMP. It might be slow, but I've always liked slow sci-fi movies. Take Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. They are both very slow paced but still good. Now, I don't consider TMP to be as good of a movie as those two, but my point is about the pacing. To me TMP is one of the most cerebral Star Trek movies. With Kirk's story, it is similar to TWOK in that he wants his command of the Enterprise back. But the difference in TMP is that Kirk isn't old. Instead, he an admiral who has to sort of go behind the back of the then-Captain Decker (not related to Captain Decker of TOS) to get the Enterprise. In TWOK, it is very similar, but Spock pretty much relinquishes his command of the Big E immediately to Kirk because he understands that Kirk and the Enterprise are one in the same.

Spock doesn''t show up until later in the movie and I love how he shows up. All of the original crew are extremely excited to see him, but Spock is the most Vulcan he has ever been. He's unemotional, stoic, and it seems like you watch Spock for an hour before he speaks one word! But from early in the movie we see that Spock is going through his own transformation as a (half-)Vulcan. He is on the cusp of fulfilling the Kolinahr until he detects the presence and want of V'Ger. So, he's pretty much 99.99% Vulcan and then he changes his mind to get on the Enterprise. Throughout the rest of the movie, Spock continues on his journey to figure out who he is, and a lot of this is done when he is psychically sensing V'Ger. At one point we see Spock actually CRY! I like that part of the movie because that is exactly how Spock would cry. He seems unemotional about it and yet we can see that tears were falling down his face and he explains V'Ger's emotion. Read that again! SPOCK is explaining another being's EMOTIONS!!! I love the fact that he forces (if you can call him Vulcan pinching an Enterprise crewman from behind "forcing") himself off the Enterprise to go and visit V'Ger to better understand it. By the end of the movie I think Spock understands V'Ger more than any human, even though V'Ger wants to get back to its creator, humans. I am, of course, excluding Decker who joined with V'Ger (I don't know what to call it).

Then you have Decker who is a young and intelligent captain of the refit Enterprise. In fact, he knows more about the new Enterprise than Kirk does! However, very early in the movie Decker gets the beautiful new ship taken away from him by the persistent Kirk. Now you add in his relationship with Lieutenant Ilia, and later on when she gets turned into a probe, we see Decker struggle with trying to get her to remember how it was to be human.

But what I like the most about TMP is the Enterprise and the music. Even when you compare the look of the Enterprise in TMP to 2009's Star Trek, the 1979 version still looks the best out of any of the films. We've all seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSvV2QTAcHY) scene from TMP. When I was younger, I did not appreciate the scene. I found it to be boring. Nothing much happens. But it's not about action. This is the unveiling of a brand new and beautifully designed Enterprise to the audience, and let's not forget Kirk! The few shots that show his face as he looks at his new-look ship is like a father looking at a new baby. And the model that is used for the Enterprise is pretty much flawless. CGI simply cannot replicate how real the Enterprise looks in TMP. I drool at seeing her in the movie it looks so good! The design of V'Ger is another thing I really like. When the Enterprise is cruising above the V'Ger ship, I think the design looks very well done. If you think about other sci-fi designs of alien ships, nothing looks anything close to similar to the V'Ger design.

And then you have the music. Jerry Goldsmith's score for the movie is one of the best scores of most any movie you'll come across, in my opinion. It uses a lot of electronic effects and weird-sounding instruments that were a little innovative back when it was composed. Name one of the tracks, whether it is "Ilia's Theme", "Klingon Attack", "The Enterprise", etc., they are all superb. It is obvious that TNG theme came directly from "The Enterprise" track. My favorite track might be "Leaving Drydock". The feeling of momentum it gives is something I can't get enough of. To me the track expresses everything about what Star Trek and the Enterprise is about; optimism, the unknown, and exploration. Now, take all of these amazing songs and then take into account the fact that Goldsmith composed much of the score without even being able to see any film footage. This just goes to show the genius of Goldsmith in the movie. He didn't even seen much of the movie at all and he still created an amazing soundtrack.

Unfortunately, Star Trek: The Motion Picture left a legacy that hampered the Star Trek franchise, at least as far as movies were concerned (and I say "were" because the new Star Trek movie broke this legacy). What is this legacy? Well, TMP cost a lot of money for its time. One reason why is the botched pre-to-post-production. Another reason was the use of graphics that were cutting edge at the time. The movie made a lot of money as well, but Paramount was not impressed with the box office revenues, and from then on they were very weary about putting out big bucks for subsequent movies. TWOK is a great Star Trek movie and a great movie in itself. Imagine if it actually had substantial production! This trend of minimal funding for Star Trek movies continued until 2009's Star Trek, and now that it made hundreds of millions of dollars, it gives me relief to know the same fear of production is no longer there.

Am I making the movie sound better than it is? Yeah, but I don't think it's as bad as some people think. If you check out information on the movie's production at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_I#Production), you'll better understand the difficulties of this movie is being in existence, let alone being made and then being of a good quality. Basically you had a good director with disagreements on about everything from the script to...JUST READ THE LINK! It was a cluster- of production. To me TMP is more of a slow-paced and a general sci-fi film with a Star Trek cast than a more Star Trek-feeling movie. There is something about TMP that I like. I don't know exactly what it is. Perhaps I like it because I've watched it since I was a little kid. Supposedly I always wanted to watch the movie since I was a child.

3.75/5 Stars


Dangit, the YouTube link doesn't work. Oh well. Some of you might know the scene I'm talking about.

[Hobbes]

The Motion Picture is a great movie, but I can't be very objective here since I like all the TOS based movies... I am a sucker for anything TOS related

[Lord Rahl]

The Motion Picture is a great movie, but I can't be very objective here since I like all the TOS based movies... I am a sucker for anything TOS related

Don't worry. I'm not going to judge you. If you have a bias for Star Trek then it's OK!

Since this movie has been brought up in another thread...

The Road (2009)

Before anyone sees this movie, they should go and buy Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same title. It's an amazing read. I loved the book and was very excited for this movie to finally come to a theater near me. Cormac McCarthy novels are extremely unique and it is easy to understand how transferring the literature to the big screen would be an extremely difficult and risky undertaking. The Coen Brothers' adaptation of No Country For Old Men was perhaps the best book-to-movie transition I've seen and after I saw that movie I knew that it would be possible for other McCarthy novels to be made into cinema in the future (let's not consider All The Pretty Horses a good one though!).

The Road was a bit of a let down for me, but let me highlight the word, "bit". I didn't dislike the movie but it certainly didn't make as much of an impression on me as the book. Perhaps...nay, definitely, that isn't fair since the book was so great, but I can't help but make the comparisons in that way.

The highlight of the movie is definitely Viggo Mortensen. Throughout the movie he was absolutely perfect. What was best about his performance was his face. Yes, his face. He truly looked like a man who for years had been living in a post-apocalyptic world while trying help his son, as well as himself, survive in the worst conditions conceivable. It was as if his face embodied what the whole movie, and book, was about. Nothing he did was overdone in his acting. He was a man in a world lacking in the same and didn't have the stomach for too much emotion. Viggo's dedication to his role has to be spotlighted as well. I read an article about how he starved himself to make himself a frail version of his former self (we all remember his stunning performance in Eastern Promises). Well, I definitely saw that in the movie. In the scene where he and his son bathe you can see his rib cage and his now lanky self. Seeing that made the movie that much more real. I have to be honest, his role with his endless dedication to survival and the safety of his son left me a bit emotional in certain scenes.

One thing I was scared of was that The Road would become melodramatic. If anyone reads the book and actually take the time to think about what a person would have to be like in order to survive for so long in the post-apocalypse then they will figure out what kind of person it would take to do all of that. It would take someone like Viggo; A person who doesn't let emotion get the best of him, has attention to detail, is steadfast in his purpose, and will do anything (except eat people) to survive. In this the movie did well. There was only one scene where I felt it tried too much to express emotion, but I was glad The Road did not go too far too often. Actually, there was no often. Most of the emotion was put through Viggo and everything he did was spot-on. There was a bit too much Charlize Theron, another thing I was scared of (the wife's role given more importance). She was sort of a like I felt she was in the book, but at least it wasn't too too much. At times I think the music, even though it was very minimal in its use and composition, took away from the bare feeling of the movie. Nothing emotional ruined the movie for me, though.

I've found many others' reviews weird and stupid. Some say it's too depressing. Uhhh...it's a movie about a man and his son in a post-apocalyptic world where there is nothing left of the past world that we know. Also, anyone who has read the book understands that it's VERY depressing. It's a ing Cormac McCarthy book! Idiots. Others keep making comparisons with zombie movies. Why? I don't know. There is one scene where it could MAYBE be considerd PSEUDO-zombie, but it's obvious that they aren't zombies at all and it fits with a story that is...oh yeah...not zombie. Anyone who uses "zombie" and "The Road" in the same review, unless it's criticizing the use of, is an idiot.

There were some things that I think the movie could have used. In the book, chapter after chapter was about the daily struggles the man and his boy had to get through. Much of what was discussed in the book about finding food, finding fuel, finding a good spot to camp, finding and maintaining clothing, etc made it very interesting and made me understand how tough and how overly-Spartan one would have to be in order to live and survive in those times. That wasn't shown enough in the movie. Yes, we did see the man and his son find food but at no point did we understand the practicality of it all. The audience knew it was a post-apocalyptic world, but The Road paints a very different portrait of that setting. The world in The Road is bleak and unforgiving. Basically every other post-apocalyptic movie tries to make it look bad but "cool". In no way is The Road that. Audiences appreciate movie characters if they understand better what they're going through. In The Road movie there wasn't enough of that for us to understand how awful and taxing the day-to-day challenges of food, food, food, food, food, clothes, clothes, clothes, shoes, shoes, shoes, etc. would have been. Remember in Cast Away when we saw what little Tom Hanks had and we thought, "Oh, that could be used for ______"? Well, that never really happened in The Road. It wasn't a major thing that was lacking, but it certainly would have helped.

The son was very good too. Most of the time in movies the kid actor is way too smart and is a horrible actor. Kodi Smit-McPhee did a fantastic job in his role. He didn't annoy me and that's enough to give him a lot of credit.

Basically, The Road is a good movie that comes from an amazing book that doesn't quite live up to it's novel predecessor. That being said, it's most definitely better than average of a movie and I think does enough justice to the book and the story to make it very worth while. The negatives are minor and don't ruin while the positives are major but don't quite reach the excellence I expected. Viggo should definitely be congratulated for his performance.

4/5 Stars

[Hobbes]

I saw this movie on TV one day, it was really riveting! Viggo Mortensen has so much potential as an actor

[God]

It's a good film, reeeeeeeeeally depressing though.

[Lord Rahl]

District 9 (2009)

It's very rare that a sci-fi movie comes out and is original in its thinking and style. We've all seen enough aliens, explosions, and spaceships to last many lifetimes but this movie didn't bore us with all of that. District 9 had just the right amount of action, sci-fi goodies, great CGI, humor, and drama to keep it interesting and not just a movie for sci-fi fans.

The main protagonist, Sharlto Copley had one of the most believable roles I've seen for someone in a long time. At no point in the movie did I think he had some bad acting. His acting was so good I didn't think about it throughout the entire film. Copley was not the only highlight either. The CGI was top-notch and although I think the alien designs were a bit uninteresting for me (I thought they'd be less humanoid but it's not a big deal) they were believable and even more so with close ups. The rest of the CGI with the alien mothership, weapons effects, and especially the mech at the end were some of the best I've seen in awhile. At no point did I think, "That doesn't look very good". The mech was amazing! In terms of believability of the plot I had hardly any qualms. Every single action that took place I thought made sense. Even the some of the more drastic sequences, for example, when they take Wikus Van De Merwe (the main protagonist) into the MNU headquarters and do tests on him with the weapons and such is a bit shocking but at the same time believable. Nothing was over-the-top in the movie and I appreciated that a lot. Too often movies try to do too much and it throws me off.

The fact the movie was made for around $30 million is extremely impressive and it goes to show that movies don't need to have budgets in the 100's of millions in order to be great. All-in-all this was a very fun, interesting, original, and COOL movie to see. If you like sci-fi then you'll love it and if you aren't so much of a sci-fi fan I guarantee you'll like it anyway. I want to see it again!

4/5 Stars

THX 1138

(1971)

I really enjoyed this movie. I was apprehensive at seeing it for a long time even though I had known of it because, well, after Lucas started making the latest three Star Wars movies I lost pretty much all hope in him. However, THX 1138 was made before Episodes I, II and III so it couldn't have been that bad. And that's exactly what it was, not bad, even...great!

It's a bit weird and it takes some time to get used to the movie's lack of self-explanation but I think that actually works out for the best. In a sense the viewer is as clueless about the Lucas-envisioned world portrayed as the protagonists are and that makes the experience all the better. I watched the Director's Cut and I got scared when I first saw some added CGI - seeing as how Lucas' last three Star Wars were basically ALL CGI - but most of it all was background to the rest of the movie and the one scene where it was all CGI with Duvall driving the Le Mans-style police(?) car actually looked pretty good.

Duvall is good in this movie and so are the rest of the characters. His mate/love, LUH, is in the same boat as him in that they both don't accept the world they live in and when you find out what happens to her it's pretty eye-opening. For those who are movie lovers they will notice most of the sounds in THX 1138 are in Star Wars too or are variants of what was used in the Star Wars movies. It's possible as well that the voices of the police officers in the movie are Stormtrooper voices but I can't guarantee that. It's just a hunch. The visual style of the film is interesting at parts. The sounds, like I mentioned already, add a different level of interest to it as well.

Most of the time when I find flaws in movies it's because I find stuff that I think didn't need to be in it, didn't make sense, or is just plain stupid. THX 1138 didn't have any of those and if anything I think it could have used more...as in action, suspense, etc but I don't think that is totally fair. The movie had it's own feel and adding more to it would have most likely added stuff that would have added faults. I love sci-fi and unlike most sci-fi flicks this one didn't have anything stupid in it which is fresh. I didn't think I'd say it but...great job George Lucas. At least you didn't rape Duvall along with Indy and those poor Stormtroopers.

4/5 Stars

[Hobbes]

I've watched District 9, I liked it, too. It was a great movie, I like the ending, very emotional.

[therussian]

Splice is ing horrible and Amber Heard is ing hot.



That is all.

[Lord Rahl]

And she's a lesbian!

Splice is awesome if you're wasted and want to see a bad movie.

Patton (1970)

There is a reason why George C. Scott was given the Oscar for best actor in this film, which he refused, by the way. It is almost an impossibility to find a performance equaled. It is flawless. Even though the film is long and slow at times there is no getting around being intoxicated by the Patton which George C. Scott portrays so well. The battle scenes aren't quite up to modern standards but Patton brings so much more to the viewer than most any modern movie would even try. Patton's character is so arrogant and rude that is might seem hard to think that the audience would enjoy him but those traits are just a couple in his self which are all too real and evident in ourselves that we must enjoy him. It was his vices which made him a bad politician but an excellent general. He has a troubled mind but a brilliant one. The scenes where Patton explains ancient battles are always interesting. We figure out that Patton, even though he didn't actually fight in the conflicts long ago, that in every sense he was a complete soldier and that only him knowing of the wars of history was he so complete as one.

There are too many memorable scenes to reference. Basically every scene with Patton is memorable because of the polished performance of George C. Scott. If you had to pick one, it would definitely be the scene that is quite possibly one of the most parodied scenes in film history. It's the beginning scene before the credits where Patton walks up in front troops, but it's also supposed to represent the audience themselves, before a massive American flag. The speech that is delivered is a prime example of who Patton is and what he wants to accomplish. Even before the movie has actually began you already know what kind of a man Patton is. If you haven't seen the scene, and therefore the movie, then here's a link to one of the greatest speeches in film history. The speech is actually derived from several true Patton speeches that he made during WWII.

Patton is also one of the most "American" movies ever. No matter how liberal an American is, I guarantee you that they'll get their meat-eating, red-blooded, flag-waving, ass-kicking blood pumping when seeing the movie. In a way the movie, and Patton, personifies the arrogance of Americans, and the (perceived) superiority that they have. It's also interesting to note that Francis Ford Coppella wrote the screenplay for Patton years before it was made into a movie. A magnificent movie and a war epic to stand the tests of time.

4.5/5 Stars

[Admiral Piett]

I'd probably rate D9 a little higher, maybe a 4/5. THX 1138 the same. Patton a little lower. The original Star Trek way lower.

[Hobbes]

Burn the heretic

[Lord Rahl]

I'd probably rate D9 a little higher, maybe a 4/5. THX 1138 the same. Patton a little lower. The original Star Trek way lower.

I really like District 9 but to me the whole apartheid thing was a little too obvious to me...even though it was meant to be that way. I wouldn't be against upping it to a 4/5 though. With Patton...I just love the movie too much. You rarely see performances of the caliber George C. Scott brought to the movie. I've been watching the movie since I was a kid too so there's extra appreciation of it with me. Also, my family is friends with another family that is Canadian and moved to America. Over the summer my family decided that they needed to see Patton so that they could...understand Americans better.

And don't you disagree with me about TMP!!! I know it's not as good as I rate it...but there's just something about it that intrigues me. I think it might be that I watched it all the time as a kid too...

[Admiral Piett]

I really like District 9 but to me the whole apartheid thing was a little too obvious to me...even though it was meant to be that way. I wouldn't be against upping it to a 4/5 though. With Patton...I just love the movie too much. You rarely see performances of the caliber George C. Scott brought to the movie. I've been watching the movie since I was a kid too so there's extra appreciation of it with me. Also, my family is friends with another family that is Canadian and moved to America. Over the summer my family decided that they needed to see Patton so that they could...understand Americans better.

And don't you disagree with me about TMP!!! I know it's not as good as I rate it...but there's just something about it that intrigues me. I think it might be that I watched it all the time as a kid too...

Patton is overrated imo. A little too much back patting.

D9 succeeded in surprising audiences from being just a typical gross scifi to be something with really good special effects, tension, and some depth. The main character is really entertaining to watch too. Honestly, when pitted against most movies that came out in 2009, it beats most of them. Hurt Locker was really boring and the events are completely ridiculous.

[God]

Hurt Locker was really boring and the events are completely ridiculous.

I thought I was the only one who thought that! D9 was a much better film.

[Hobbes]

Everyone wants to say it, but for some reason no one does . We need more of these reviews!

[Lord Rahl]

Patton is overrated imo. A little too much back patting.

What do you mean by " back patting"? I've read a couple of Patton biographies and I'd say the movie does a fair job of representing him. He definitely had his virtues and vices. And I really like how the presented his...timelessness with his poetry and claiming to have fought in wars of the past. I also very much appreciate the movie showing the Nazi point-of-view of Patton.

One of my favorite scenes is when Patton has his driver and Bradley turn toward an ancient siege between the Romans and Carthaginians. He explains what happened,

"The Carthaginians defending the city were attacked by three Roman legions. The Carthaginians were proud and brave but they couldn't hold. They were massacred. Arab women stripped them of their tunics and their swords and lances. The soldiers lay naked in the sun. Two thousand years ago. I was here."

My family would watch Patton all the time so I'll admit it's a movie that I overrate. But to me it's a 5/5. If I have a bias then I'll admit it!

D9 succeeded in surprising audiences from being just a typical gross scifi to be something with really good special effects, tension, and some depth. The main character is really entertaining to watch too. Honestly, when pitted against most movies that came out in 2009, it beats most of them. Hurt Locker was really boring and the events are completely ridiculous.

District 9 was a rare movie that surprised me with how good it was. Yeah, the protagonist was excellent. I didn't like The Hurt Locker too much either. It had ridiculous scenes that took me out of the movie, like when they decide to leave the base and go vigilante-style to get the bomb makers (I think that's why they did it). Man, I hated that scene. And when they kept talking all emotional to each other...that doesn't happen. The best scene was the sniping scene with the British troops. That was cool. And after watching Generation Kill it makes The Hurt Locker look extremely melodramatic.

Everyone wants to say it, but for some reason no one does . We need more of these reviews!

Alrighty...

Batman Begins (2005)

I liked it the first time I saw it but now I don't really want to see it again.

UPDATE: This movie is a lot worse than most people think. I believe most people who like it a lot have that opinion because a Batman movie hadn't come out in so long. Why does the movie suck? Well that's easy..1) Christian Bale is a horrible Batman. He has a stupid growl when he talks like Batman and while he talks he breathes heavily and sounds like he can hardly get out what he says. 2) Katie Holmes was terrible. You can see her nipples through her shirt in one scene though. 3) The plot! The bad guys steal some big microwave machine thingy so that they can steam up Gotham's water system...that will have Scarecrow's hallucinogen in it...so they can make everyone in Gotham go crazy...and they can do all of that because they're been crumbling empires for centuries. Now, if any plot sounds dumb...THAT one does. Oh, and Batman pretty much kills Ra's Al Gul at the end and Batman doesn't do that (unless he is in Frank Miller's "Return of the Dark Knight").

Alright, I don't really hate Batman Begins. Michael Caine is good but that's expected. And who would say something bad about Freeman's performance? I'm just tired of a lot of people saying this movie is really good. Yeah, it's good, but not that good. And The Dark Knight isn't as good as people say it is either.

3.5/5

Speaking of The Dark Knight...

The Dark Knight (2008)

This is the best Batman movie made. The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger, is downright insane. While the viewer will think he is a cold blooded killer they will also find themselves laughing at his craziness.

Let me try to explain the good and bad without writing an entire essay. Good: the action throughout the movie were awesome, especially some of the stunts like the 'Skyhook' and the car chase scene underground. I rarely like car chases but The Dark Knight certainly impressed. The drama was good too. The Joker really ed up people's lives and it is portrayed extremely well. The scene where Batman saves Harvey Dent but not Rachel was great. The movie also had different little twists in it that kept me interested in what would happen next. Of course Heath Ledger played the Joker perfectly. Aaron Eckhart was...good (but not great). Bad: I guess I could say that the movie was a little too long. I like long movies but when it comes to a superhero movie you don't want them to be too long. I thought the action subsided a little towards the end too. It was almost as if so much action and drama had already happened that the end wasn't as good as it could have been. The fact that Two Face dies (maybe) at the end pisses me off. Two Face is probably my favorite Batman villain and he could have easily been included into a third movie. Why not?!

UPDATE: After seeing The Dark Knight a few more times I have some more opinions about it. I've come to understand that the movie's "anchor" is Joker. We all know that Ledger's performance is one that you will never forget in all of your years of movie watching. He's one of those antagonists that makes you think or say, "Whoa!" He's so chaotic that you feel as if you don't know what he's going to do next. If the audience can't anticipate his next move then they will feel uneasy. If the audience feels uneasy about the bad guy then all the better. But what does all of this mean? It means that other characters in the movie, especially Batman, are not a highlight. In fact, Batman becomes secondary.

I didn't much like Bale's Batman in Batman Begins but I'll give some credit to Bale for toning down his ridiculous voice in The Dark Knight. I actually think Bale is the best Bruce Wayne of any of the movies. He's more like he is in The Animated Series: arrogant, charming, witty, and generally a likeable guy. But where Bale's Batman differs from the series and the other movies is that his version is not very likeable. We all like him because he's Batman but that's about it. Just because you wear the suit, growl, and disappear when someone is in mid-conversation with you doesn't mean you're a good Batman. And though Bale didn't go as crazy with his Batman growl in TDK as he was in Batman Begins, it's still distracting, especially at the end of the movie where he's talking to the dangling Joker. I actually like Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon more than Bale as Batman even though Gordon is barely in the movie. Let's be honest, TDK isn't a Batman movie. It's a Joker movie.

Eckhart does a decent job of portraying Two Face but at the end of the movie I felt almost as if his character didn't matter. By the way, why does Two Face not put on his seat belt when he kills the driver of the gangster car? He had more people to kill! Thank goodness they replaced Holmes as the love interest in TDK but Gyllenhaal still didn't make the character interesting. That's not her fault though. PUT CATWOMAN IN THE DARK KNIGHT RISES FOR 'S SAKE!!!

I said before that the action dulls at the end and I stand by that. We have the awesome "Skyhook" and Gotham car chase scenes earlier...and then at the end we have Batman using a (morally unacceptable ) sort of sonar-like device to save innocents and fight dogs and Joker. But that's not what really irked me the most about the end. When I first saw what Joker had set up with the two boats, one full of "innocents" and the other full of criminals, I thought, "Oh, this is going to be awesome." I loved that he had the passengers of both boats think of blowing up the other boat. But then...things got uninteresting and eye roll worthy when the "innocent" boat decided to have a vote. It got worse when the most badass criminal turned out to be a great guy and throw out the detonator. It forced the "people are good" theme at me too much. I would have loved it if Joker had lied about the detonators so that whoever would press their detonator would blow up their own boat instead of the other. How awesome would that have been?!

I'll stop ranting now...

4/5 Stars

[Hobbes]

I like both of them. And strangely, the first movie, gave birth to a good movie based game. And Joker was potrayed in the most perfect way, in the second movie. I didn't like Scarecrow...

[Lord Rahl]

I didn't like Scarecrow either in Batman Begins. He was pretty uninteresting to me and only seemed to be in the movie because he fit in with the Ra's Al Gul story. Scarecrow was treated much better in Arkham Asylum because it messed with Wayne's past.