The Amazing Spider-Man

*Spoiler Alert, maybe.*
Spider-Man has been one of Marvel's most famous superheroes for decades. In terms of movies, Spider-Man found success in Sam Raimi's successful first film released in 2002. The villain of the film was Norman Osborne, a.k.a The Green Goblin, played by Willem Defoe. A sequel came in 2004 which saw the web-slinger lose his powers and the villain was Dr. Octopus, played by Alfred Molina. In 2007, the thematically weakest of the bunch was released. It saw, not one, not two, but THREE super-villains. Sandman, played by Thomas Haden Church, Harry Osborne, played by James Franco and Venom, played by Topher Grace. While it was spectacular in the visual effects department, Spider-Man 3 suffered from having too many villains in one film and having Peter Parker become emo. I guess they wanted to show Peter Parker having a dark-side, but all we got was a bad hair day and cartoonish musical numbers. The only villain in the film that really had any substance was Sandman, who was a bank robber, but he needed the money for his sick daughter. He was fairly compelling, and Thomas Haden Church did a fantastic job with the character. Eddie Brock, a.k.a Venom was a complete joke, with Venom only being part of the film, because the studio wanted him to be. Venom deserves a movie of his own, I think. Overall Spider-Man 3 was a wreck of a film, and as a result, Sony Entertainment who owns the rights to Spider-Man put the series on the back-burner. While there was talk of a fourth film with Tobey Maguire, and having The Lizard as the villain, but Sony decided a sequel wasn't really the best option, so they opted to re-boot the series. It's unusual because Sam Raimi's trilogy isn't even a decade old yet. But it may have paid off in the end.

The film opens as Peter Parker(Andrew Garfield)is going to high school with Gwen Stacy(Emma Stone), a girl he's become infatuated with. When he gets home, his uncle Ben(Martin Sheen)has him help clean out the basement when Peter discovers a briefcase belonging to his actual father. Turns out his father worked with a fellow scientist Curt Conners(Rhys Ifans) to develop a syrum that could help people regenerate lost limbs. But Parker's father disappeared before that could happen. So, Parker pays a visit to Oscorp and ends up getting bitten by one of the genetically engineered spiders. Parker soon discovers that his strength has been enhanced, he's faster, can climb up walls and has a unique "spider-sense." Afterwards, Conners gets the formula for the syrum and injects himself with it, unintentionally becoming a ruthless reptilian monster. Meanwhile, Gwen's father, Captain Stacy(Denis Leary)is on Spider-Man's trail.

Sam Raimi's first film of Spider-Man was an origin story, that turned out to be fantastic and a whole lot of fun. The Amazing Spider-Man is also an orgin story, and it covers some of the same ground as Raimi's film, but it tweaks some of it to make it fresh and exciting. For example, in the re-boot, Parker's love interest is Gwen Stacy, who is not a damsel in distress in this, but also as smart as Peter. No Mary Jane Watson in this one, folks. Emma Stone does a fantastic job. Rhys Ifans, who plays Dr. Connors, is simply amazing as a doctor who's frustrated at having only one arm and trying develop a cure of sorts, that will give him his arm back. Connors is very compelling villain, in that he doesn't come off as a villain, but as someone who's desperate to fix his own situation. Martin Sheen is fantastic as Ben Parker. When Parker lost his parents, Ben comes in to take over and brings a very fatherly stature to the character. He's great. Denis Leary surprised me as Captain Stacy. Usually, Denis Leary is a very sarcastic and snarky stand-up comedian, but he brings an authority to the character, that I've seldom seen from Leary, as the movie progresses, his opinion of Spider-Man changes. But the real revelation here is Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Unlike Tobey Maguire's turn as the social outcast, Garfield's character is an outcast by choice, preferring to keep to himself. And, unlike, Maguire's version, Garfield's Parker isn't a master of his abilities almost overnight. In fact, he makes quite a few mistakes and gets really bruised and beaten up. His motivations for using his powers are also selfish and fall a little on the dark side, when his uncle is killed by a robber. He eventually does end up becoming a hero, but it takes a while for him to get there, and I think that makes for a far more compelling Spider-Man than what Sam Raimi did.

The visual effects are fantastic, as you see Spider-Man swing around the city, but in many of the shots that are closer to the ground, it's actual stuntmen that are flying around. On wires, to be sure, but still, it's good to see actual people doing this stuff on screen rather than a CGI character. When the Lizard enters the fray, he HAS to be CG, otherwise it come off as ludicrously horrendous. The action set pieces are amazing, especially towards the end of the film. Also, it should be mentioned, that when Parker uses his web, he uses web shooters that he designed himself, like in the comics.

At the end of the day, however, it's the characters that help drive the story, and the characters are driven by some really great performances from the cast. It's usually well over a decade before you see a re-boot of a popular film series, but in Spider-Man's case, it was less than a decade. And I have to say it was the right decision to make. I don't think I could've stomached another Spider-Man film by Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire in the lead. I was never a big fan of Tobey in that role. Also, having only one super-villain in the film helps keep it grounded. So, with fantastic performances from Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Rhys Ifans, The Amazing Spider-Man works a lot better than it should as a re-boot. I had a lot of fun with this one, and found it far more compelling than any of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. This one gets a 9.5/10.

Ip Man

Donnie Yen: One of the greatest martial arts actors to ever grace the screen. He's had an amazing career spanning over 50 movies including films like Iron Monkey, Once Upon A Time in China 2, Legend of the Wolf, Hero, Seven Swords, Kill Zone-S.P.L., Flash Point, and two movies that he starred in here in America: Highlander: Endgame and Blade II. The first film that most people remember him was in Once Upon A Time in China 2 when he starred opposite Jet Li. He played a villain in one of the most amazing fight scenes ever. An expert in Chinese Wushu, Donnie Yen not only starred in movies, but he also choreographed many of his own movies including Flash Point and Kill Zone, both in which he employs mixed martial arts, like the stuff you see in Ultimate Fighting Championship. He is also the 4th actor to portray the character Chen Zhen, who was originally played by Bruce Lee in Fists of Fury, which was known as the Chinese Connection here in the States. The second was Bruce Lee imitation number 1, Bruce Li in Fists of Fury parts 2 and 3. The third was Jet Li in the renowned Fist of Legend, which was a re-make of Bruce Lee's film. Donnie Yen would portray the character in a Fists of Fury television series in Hong Kong and returned to play the character in Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen. But perhaps the most compelling character he has played was the real life martial arts master, Ip Man, grandmaster of Wing Chun kung-fu.

The film opens in Fo Shan, China in 1938 on a demonstration of various styles of kung-fu in the streets of Fo Shan. Ip Man lives comfortably with his family in a mansion outside of town when some northerners come to Fo Shan to challenge the various masters of kung fu. Then they challenge Ip Man and are beaten by Ip Man in a very one-sided confrontation. A couple of months later, the Japanese invade China. The general stationed in Fo Shan, is curious about Chinese kung-fu so he stages a tournament in which kung-fu masters fight for a bag of rice. Now, anybody who knows anything about Bruce Lee and the real-life Ip Man, will automatically know the outcome of the film. The film also tends to take liberties with certain aspects of Ip Man's life, mostly to dramatic effect. It's to be expected, although I don't seem to recall in the history of Ip Man, of him actually facing off against a Japanese general.

The acting is fantastic, Donnie Yen shines as Ip Man. He's humble, brings respectability and humility to the character, but is also fantastic in the film's fight scenes which are choreographed by legendary Sammo Hung. Donnie Yen spent nine months straight studying Wing Chun so he could get the moves right. Wing Chun is very different from other styles of kung-fu. It's more direct, and emphasizes speed and economy over strength, and by economy I mean not over-extending the strikes or using your muscles to the point where you're going to be exhausted. Instead, Wing Chun teaches you to use your opponents energy against him, by blocking his attacks and striking at the same time. It's definitely not as fancy as the other forms of kung-fu because it's a very close-range style of combat. It certainly has it's own grace, but it's very direct and very brutal in the hands of a master. The other actors are fantastic as well, particularly Simon Yam, who plays Ip Man's best friend and the guy who plays the Japanese General. The general doesn't strike me as your typical mustache-twirling villain, because he's a soldier and as a result has a particular sense of honor when it comes to fighting. The guy who plays him, Hiroyuki Ikeuchi, is fantastic.

Now, as great as this movie is, there are certain issues that I do have with it. First, the use of wires. I can understand using wires in movies like The Matrix as it fits the context. But in a movie where the fighting is supposed to be grounded in reality, the use of wires, and they are obvious, take you of the film. Thankfully, Donnie Yen doesn't really use them because Wing Chun doesn't employ fancy kicks or moves. The second real issue is the complete shift of tone half-way through the movie. The first half is pretty colorful, seems like your typical kung-fu movie, but when the Japanese invade, not only does the story take a darker turn, but visually, all the color becomes subdued. It's very jarring. It's like you're watching two different movies. But those are my main issues. Overall the film is fantastic, with awesome performances and great fight sequences. I definitely appreciate Wing Chun as a style, because I've been actually studying Wing Chun for about a month and a half. There's a lot about it in the movie that would actually make sense in a real fight. Ip Man is a great movie, albeit a little historically inaccurate, but it's definitely one of the better martial arts films of the past decade. If you're a fan of kung-fu movies, it's one worth watching. If you're a Wing Chun practitioner, like me, you can appreciate the film because of it's accurate use of the style, for the most part. Aside from some suspect wire-work and sudden shift in tone, I give a Ip Man a solid 9/10.

The Cabin in the Woods.

Joss Whedon: One of the most underrated writers/directors. This man was responsible for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly(both series and the movie), Angel, and the recent comic book movie blockbuster, The Avengers. His writing credits include, Toy Story, Alien Resurrection, and the Avengers among others. With The Avengers, Joss Whedon proved he could handle huge movies almost better than anyone else. There was a little film that was supposed to be released last year, but was shuffled around by movie studios until LionsGate picked it up: The Cabin in The Woods. Co-written and directed by Drew Goddard, The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most unique horror films to date.

The Cabin in the Woods opens on a group of teenagers as they hop in an RV and head off to the mountains for the weekend. As soon as they hit the mountains, they encounter a strange and bitter old man at a run-down gas station. Then they find a lone cabin in the middle of the forest. As soon as they settle in, strange things begin to happen and they find themselves under attack by zombies. I won't say anymore about the plot, because it would give away too much. Let's just say, that the film really takes a left turn to "WTF"-ville. Most movies that try a bizarre twist, end up failing because they either don't go far enough, or they don't know where to take it, but in the hands of Whedon and Goddard, Cabin in the Woods takes your average horror movie cliches and turns them on their head. For example: the group of teenagers includes, The Jock(Chris Hemsworth), The Whore(Anna Hutchinson, The Fool/Pothead(Fran Kranz), The Geek(Jesse Williams) and The Virgin(Kristen Connelly). Pretty average group of people for a horror movie right? In fact, the first half of the film plays out exactly like your average horror movie, but it's done will with an interesting twist. Where it gets really interesting is the second half of the film. I won't say anymore, but suffice it to say, you don't see it coming.

The effects in this film are really fantastic. There's a great deal of practical effects, but when the film really veers off into left field, CGI definitely comes into play, but unlike most horror movies that employ CGI, Cabin in the Woods, combines both practical effects and CGI. And this movie gets really bloody and gory, so it will satisfy gore-hounds. But this being a Joss Whedon film, it doesn't really take itself seriously. In fact, the film is pretty damned funny at times. Sure, it's gory and intense, but there is a twisted sense of humor throughout the whole film, that makes it better. The performances are solid across the board, but the one that really stands out is Fran Kranz as The Fool, Marty. He gets some of the best lines in the movie and he delivers it in such a way that it's hilarious. The story is actually quite unique and interesting.

The Cabin in the Woods was intended to be released last year, but due to movie studios shifting things around, this one got lost in the shuffle, which was a shame, because it deserved more pomp-and-circumstance than it got. LionsGate Studios eventually picked it up and the film finally saw release this year. The Cabin in the Woods is one of the smartest and most unique horror movies I've experienced in the past decade. It's twisted, it's funny and it's a hell of a lot of fun. But it's also a movie that likes to keep things interesting. So overall, I'm giving The Cabin in the Woods a perfect 10/10.

Legion

Supernatural thrillers have always resonated with me in some way, particularly ones based on Christian mythology. Usually, most supernatural thrillers involve demons or Satan or some combination of the two. It started with The Exorcist, but there have been many movies of that sort since then, some good, some bad. But there really haven't been many films where it's angels, instead of demons, that are wreaking havoc on mankind. The only two that really come to mind are The Prophecy, where Christopher Walken plays the archangel Gabriel, and most recently, Legion.

Legion opens as a mysterious man falls out of the sky and it's revealed that he is the archangel Michael(Paul Bettany). After cutting off his wings, he storms a local gunshop and grabs an assortment of weapons before leaving the city. In the middle of the Nevada desert at a rundown place called Paradise Falls, the owner, Bob(Dennis Quaid) is trying to fix his TV while his assistant Percy(Charles S. Dutton)is cooking food for some customers. Bob's son, Jeep(Lucas Black) is in love with a pregnant woman, Charlie(Adrianne Palicki). Soon after, a mysterious old woman comes to the diner and asks for raw meat. Then, all hell breaks loose. She becomes unhinged, attacking one of the other customers and starts crawling on the ceiling like a spider. After she's dispatched, Michael shows up. Turns out that God is angry with mankind and has sent his army of angels, led by Gabriel(Kevin Durand), to destroy them. Michael still has faith in mankind and has disobeyed God in order to save humanity.

The concept of angels laying waste to mankind is actually really interesting, but the execution is not exactly what I had expected. Instead of angels in their full winged glory, the ones we see the most of are actually possessed people. Pretty cliche if you ask me. The aforementioned scene with the old lady is actually pretty creepy, as we see her just become unhinged and start attacking people. The only two angels that we actually see are Gabriel and Michael. Michael clipped his wings so we only see him with wings for a short time. Gabriel only shows up in one scene where he and Michael are in Heaven discussing God's order to exterminate mankind. The next scene we see him in is when he's fighting Michael in the diner, which is actually a very spectacular fight, and towards the end of the film. The performances are all across the board. I've never been a big fan of Lucas Black and I can't stand that heavy southern accent of his. He's just not convincing. Adrianne Palicki, is also fairly unconvincing, and she comes across as whiny and overly unsympathetic. Being a fan of Dennis Quaid, he came across as a little too over-the-top as resident skeptic and crotchety old guy Bob. He's still fun to watch though. Charles S. Dutton has always been reliable and he's no different in this film, I just think he lays a little to heavy on the whole religious bit, even though it's appropriate given the circumstances. The real saving grace here is Paul Bettany as Michael. He brings a real humanity and grace to the role. Not to mention he does most of his own stunts. Paul Bettany isn't usually known for action movies, but he does a fantastic job here. Kevin Durand brings a very intimidating presence as Gabriel and the confrontation between him and Michael is nothing short of spectacular.

I'll be truthful, I was expecting more of a horror movie with Legion. What I got was an action movie with elements of horror. And I have to mention this, if you were God and were going to send your angels to exterminate mankind, why would you bother having them possess people, like demons? Also, where is Lucifer in all this? Wouldn't he try to capitalize on something like this? These are important questions that aren't answered and leave huge gaping logic holes in the film. Not to mention the people in the film make some really stupid decisions. Legion had potential to be a really epic kind of thriller and unfortunately, it only gets half-way there. Granted, having a film where angels are the bad guys, probably wouldn't sit too well with everyone, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless. The execution just wasn't 100 percent. The action scenes are decent though, and the film moves at a pretty good clip. A lot of the effects are practical, and some of the possessed people are creepy, particularly the ice cream man. Overall, while the film disappoints in the whole mankind versus angels aspect, the action scenes and Paul Bettany help considerably. With a little more time and more money, Legion could've been so much more. As it stands, it's not really a bad movie, it's just not a very memorable one either. So, it gets an 8/10 from me.

A Serbian Film(Two reviews in one)

Alright, for A Serbian Film I have two reviews, that I'm going to post here. I'm a film critic for a horror website called The Dead Centre. Both reviews I did for this website, one is my initial viewing of the original uncut version of the film, and the other is the U.S Blu-Ray release, which runs a minute shorter than the original film. My reviews tend to speak for themselves, but for A Serbian Film, I have to say that I've never seen a more fucked up movie in my life, and I do mean fucked up. There is no equivalent film in existence that is this brutal, unrelenting and merciless. So, be warned: My reviews will be describing things that are....graphic.

Original Review:

There have been a number of truly shocking horror films throughout the decades: I Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, Inside, Martyrs, just to name a few. But few, if any come close to what A Serbian Film portrays. Be warned, this review is going to be spoiler heavy, so if you still want to watch the movie, leave now.

A Serbian Film tells the story of a pornography actor who's been out of work for years and is struggling to make ends meet for him and his family. Along comes an offer from a "unique" filmmaker who promises to set his family up for life. The only stipulation is that Milos does not know what he is making. It starts off harmlessly enough, but soon, Milos becomes witness and participant to some extremely disturbing activities. A Serbian Film is effectively one of the most disturbing and fucked up movies I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen some messed up movies. Nothing compares to A Serbian Film however. I had heard and read reviews of the film and how it really goes to places that no one should ever have to go, but I was absolutely not prepared at how deranged and depraved the movie became. There are some truly horrific set-pieces that while seemingly over-the-top, are extremely difficult to sit through, particularly a scene involving a newborn baby. That was one of the most revolting things I've ever seen. But it gets worse as the movie goes on, particularly the last act of the film, and it involves Milos' family. While a lot can be said for the extreme sexuality that is portrayed in this movie, it's not erotic, and it's most definitely not pleasant to sit through. Basically, the filmmakers made this film as an allegory to what the Serbians experienced during the Balkan Wars. It's not something I can identify with. This is one of the most angry movies I've ever seen. The amount of rage portrayed on the screen gets very brutal, and at times, unnecessarily graphic.

That being said, there is a strange kind of brilliance to this film. The story is actually quite good, provided you can manage to get through the shit that is thrown at you. You're right there with Milos, and you feel his disgust at what he witnesses. The acting is actually very good, and the cinematography is top-notch, and it certainly amplifies the grotesque scenes that are put on the screen. The ending to the film is a real kick to the head. I won't spoil it here, but let's just say....it's wrong on so many levels that you can't really wrap your head around it. As soon as the credits rolled, I literally couldn't move for about ten to fifteen minutes. I had my head in my hands trying to comprehend what I had just seen. Most horror movies NEVER get under my skin and shake me up like that. This is a film that chews you up and spits you out. The film is finally getting a release here in the States on DVD/Blu-Ray. But I don't know if it'll be uncut or not. I saw the uncut 104 minute film, and while I don't regret seeing it, you can bet your ass I won't be revisiting until it hits home video, and even then, I'm not entirely certain I'll watch it again. It's one of the most repugnant, vile and unbelievably fucked up movies I've ever seen. And at the same time, it's also brilliant, because it not only managed to get a reaction out of me, you actually managed to connect with Milos on some levels. If you still want to see this movie, be warned. Be afraid. It's merciless, unrelenting and brutal to the extreme. On a technical level, A Serbian Film gets a 9/10 for being well-made and constructed, but as a whole, I can't give it a score at all, because it's one of those movies that defies all explanations, logic and god knows what else. A Serbian Film is the cinematic equivalent to being kicked in the gut, head and groin. Several times. It goes to very dark places that no-one except the truly depraved, are prepared to go to. I can't recommend this movie to ANYONE at all. I was curious about it, and basically got my ass kicked for it. Yes, A Serbian Film kicked my ass. I don't believe in censorship at all, but there are going to be people who demand it because of this film, and they would have every right to.

Blu-Ray Review:

Some spoilers, so beware*

The first time I saw A Serbian Film was almost a month ago. It was 104 minutes and contained some of the most shocking and disturbing scenes that I've ever seen in a film. I was shocked and repulsed at what I saw. I wasn't prepared for it, and most people who see it for the first time aren't either. The depictions of rape, necrophilia and pedophilia crossed the lines on so many different levels that it was obscene.

Having seen the film for a second time, this time on recently released Blu-Ray in the U.S., the question is was it edited? And the answer is yes. The slipcover of the blu-ray says the film is unrated. It would have to be in order to be released in the U.S., but it was still edited. The American release is only a minute shorter than the original cut, but it is astonishment the amount of power that is lost in that minute. Don't get me wrong, A Serbian Film is still a very powerful movie with powerful imagery in terms of sexual violence and the brutality of the violent acts. What was edited was the newborn scene, which removes the infant and what was done to it, leaving it more implied than shown, which still leaves an impact. It leaves more to the imagination which I think is a lot more effective, than actually showing. The other thing that was edited was in the last act of the film, when Milos is raping the two figures on the bed. One of the two was a child, but in the American release, you don't actually see the child's face. But you know who it is. Digging through all of that nasty stuff, there is a good story about a man who is a loving husband and father who wants to provide for his family, but is down on his luck and gets an offer that will set him and his family up for life, only it ends up not being what he wanted it to be.

Now, I'm posting a second review of the film, because I think I can finally give it a rating. But that will come later. First, as I said before, this is my second viewing of the film, which is an edited version, and I think a version that actually works better with some of the more extreme bits restrained a little bit. It's not much, but for people who have seen the uncut version of A Serbian Film, the difference is noticeable. The power of A Serbian Film lies in its ability to shock, but it only works once. Seeing it again, I didn't have the same reaction. Mostly because I knew what was coming, and that robs the film of its power. That's not to say it's not an effective thriller, because it is. There are twists and turns in this film that really hit you in the head, especially the ending. The acting is fantastic, especially with the actor who plays Milos. You see him as a loving husband and father that's pulled into a dark and twisted world of sexual deviance and brutal violence, and his reaction to what he has unwillingly done, helps drive the movie. The guy who plays Vukmir, the director of the unnamed "art film," is also fantastic as a twisted child psychologist-turned-filmmaker. The make-up effects are very well done and realistic. The music by Sky Wikluh is amazing, and really adds a sense of despair and intensity to the film. A Serbian Film is the directorial debut of a guy called Srdjan Spasojevic. It's a hell of a first effort. And one that's going to leave an impact on viewers for some time to come.

I feel that censorship for any reason is a bad thing. And even though the American release of A Serbian Film is only a minute shorter than the original cut, it's absolutely astonishing at how much a minute can change a movie. It's still a very powerful film and definitely not for the weak-hearted or weak-stomached, but some of that power has been diminished. Not by a whole lot, but enough. I think in order to get the film released in the States, some adjustments had to be made, and thankfully it was only a minute. Apparently the UK cut had four minutes sliced, which is an egregious amount of censorship, for a movie like this. But I haven't seen that cut, so I couldn't tell you what was excised. Having seen A Serbian Film as originally intended and as it was released here in the States, the cut I actually prefer is the American release. The film will knock you down and kick you while you're down, but the American release won't kick you in the family jewels. I still wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, not even horror fans, as there is some fairly horrific imagery at work here. But having seen it a second time, it just doesn't have the same effect. Again, I'm not advocating censorship here, even though it may seem hypocritical of me, but I feel for the newborn scene and some of the final act, less is more and can be just as effective. A Serbian Film is a brilliant movie in how it goes for the jugular and doesn't let go, but it also has a decent story at the heart of it with some of the most wretched and yet well-made effects seen on film. It was put together very well, the direction was amazing and is really a well-made first effort. I actually really want to see what Spasojevic can do when he's not angry at his own country. After having some distance from this movie for a month, I can actually give it a rating. It gets a 10/10. It's a very good movie. I can't say that I enjoyed it, it's not easy to sit through and I certainly wouldn't really recommend it to anybody, but I have to give credit where it's due, and I don't really see anything wrong with the film itself aside from some of the subject matter involved. So, there you have it: 10/10.

As you can read, my thoughts have changed somewhat between my first and second viewing. A Serbian Film is the only movie that I've reviewed twice. The first time was an....experience to say the least. What I can tell you is that the power of films like A Serbian Film lie in their ability to shock people. And they succeeded. But it only happens once. Repeated viewings, the film loses its power. Not by much as it's brutally intense, but it doesn't have the same edge as the first time around. So....viewer beware, and I'm not kidding.

The Dark Knight

Every comic-book superhero has to have a great villain, and in Batman's case, he has a great Rogue's Gallery of villains to pick from: Ra's Al Ghul, The Penguin, Catwoman, Hugo Strange, The Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Two-Face, Scarecrow, Bane and Batman's most infamous rival, The Joker. The Joker was first portrayed by Cesar Romero in the 1960s live-action television series. In Tim Burton's Batman, The Joker was portrayed by Jack Nicholson who turned in a very maniacal performance which was very memorable. In the cartoon series in the 90s, The Joker was voiced by Mark Hamill. The Joker would eventually take to the big screen again in Christopher Nolan's sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight.

The film opens during a robbery at a mob bank in which the mysterious culprit known only as The Joker(Heath Ledger) steals from the most notorious mobsters in Gotham City. Hours later, at a meeting between the Russian mafia leader and The Scarecrow(Cillian Murphy), Batman/Bruce Wayne(Christian Bale)shows up and apprehends not only Scarecrow, but a handful of copycats. Later we cut to a hearing in which Gotham City's new District Attorney, Harvey Dent(Aaron Eckhart)and Rachel Dawes(Maggie Gyllenhall, taking over for Katie Holmes)are attempting to put Salvatore Moroni(Eric Roberts)behind bars. Then, The Joker shows up again and people start dying left and right.

Much has been said of Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. There's not much more I can say, other than he steals the show whenever he's on screen. Ledger just disappears into the role like no-one else. Make no mistake, Christopher Nolan's take on The Joker is a far more sinister character than Tim Burton's. Tim Burton's version was more of a manic kind of character. In The Dark Knight, The Joker is intelligent, brutal and merciless, all with a sadistic and twisted sense of humor. His complete lack of regard for human life makes him a far more vicious villain than Batman has come across before. The Dark Knight is darker and more violent than its predecessor and makes for more heightened drama, especially when Harvey Dent gets directly involved. Aaron Eckhart is absolutely incredible as Gotham's white knight. Michael Caine is in top form as Alfred as is Gary Oldman as Gordon and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is stellar as always and his physicality brings an intensity to the role. If there is one weak link in The Dark Knight, it would be Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes. Now, Rachel Dawes was never a really strong character to begin with, as she served as a love interest to Bruce Wayne, but Gyllenhall just doesn't sell it at all. Katie Holmes, I felt was a better fit. The action scenes have been stepped up. In the previous film, it was difficult to tell what was happening because the camera was too close to the action. Here, we can actually see what's going on, and it's brutal. The Dark Knight still uses the unique Keysi Fighting method introduced in the first film, but it's much more refined here. Each subsequent action scene just keeps building until the final confrontation between Batman and The Joker. Hell, there's a scene in which The Joker blows up a hospital. Christopher Nolan actually leveled a building for that shot. It's spectacular. Aaron Eckhart's transformation from Dent to Two-Face is fairly complex. His character gets half-his face burned off as a result of an explosion, and the results are grotesque. The burned half of his face is CGI, but it's very detailed. Some people have had issues with Dent becoming Two-Face so late in the game, but I think it fits in with the theme with that even the greatest person can be torn down. But I have to hand it to Eckhart for selling the character so well.

The Dark Knight takes what was awesome about Batman Begins and turns it up several notches. The performances are stellar all across the board, with Heath Ledger stealing the show. He was so awesome, that he was posthumously awarded the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. It's tragic that his life was cut short before The Dark Knight was finished, but I think he would be proud of how well The Dark Knight was received. The Dark Knight is currently regarded as one of the best comic-book movies ever made and Heath Ledger and Christopher Nolan helped make it so. Despite some niggling issues with the film, it gets a very enthusiastic 10/10 from me. It tops Batman Begins in every way and then some.

Batman Begins

After the utter disaster that was Batman And Robin, the future of the Dark Knight was in doubt. Joel Schumaker was actually asked to do another Batman film when he declined. The problem with Batman And Robin was that it was completely the wrong tone for the character. Batman is a very dark character with an extremely scarred psyche and Batman And Robin, basically jettisoned that in favor of a more "family-friendly" affair. It wound up being nothing more than an over glorified toy commercial. Also: Nipples on the batsuit. What the hell, Warner Bros? Several years later, Warner Bros decided to try again, except they were going to reboot the franchise. For this, they brought Christopher Nolan on board along with writer David S. Goyer. For the lead character of Batman, they chose Christian Bale, and the result speak for themselves.

Batman Begins as Bruce Wayne(Christian Bale)wakes up in a Chinese prison when he's visited by a man named Ducard(Liam Neeson) who offers Wayne a path: The path of the League of Shadows, headed by a ruthless warrior named Ra's Al Ghul(Ken Watanabe). Trained in the ways of the ninja, Wayne realizes that the League of Shadow's ultimate goal is to destroy Gotham City, so he escapes the organization. After Wayne escapes, he realizes that only by becoming a symbol of fear can he save the people of Gotham from the criminal element. Thus he begins the real journey to become Gotham's greatest hero.

After Batman And Robin, the future of the franchise was very much in doubt, so Warner Bros. brought Christopher Nolan on board and gave Batman a much-needed shot in the arm. And what a shot it was. Gone, are the neon lights of the Schumaker films. Gone, are campiness of the previous films. In their place, a dark, realistic and gritty portrayal of Batman now exists. By showing the murder of Bruce's parents through flashbacks, we are given an insight into Bruce Wayne's damaged psyche. Angered by his helplessness and the corruption of the city that his parents tried to help, Bruce decided it was time to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful. By giving Batman a more modern and utilitarian look, Batman Begins sees Bruce Wayne evolve from playboy billionaire to the Caped Crusader. Instead of a flashy Batmobile that we got in Tim Burton's films, we get: The Tumbler, which is more or less, a tank. A tank that can fly on rooftops. And it's spectacular. The car chases are intense and move at a real good clip. The action scenes are amazing. Utilizing the new Keysi Fighting Method, Batman Begins brings a more realistic fighting style to the series. You don't see flashy loop-kicks or backflips or any of that junk, What we've got here is grounded in reality-based hand-to-hand combat. It's spectacular in a completely unexpected way.

As far as the acting goes, Batman Begins has real ensemble cast. Christian Bale leads as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Michael Caine is wonderful as the butler, Alfred Pennyworth. He brings a very human and father-like quality to the role. Liam Neeson is well.....Liam Neeson. What can I say about Neeson? This guy is one of my favorite actors for a reason, and his role in Batman Begins is one of those reasons. He starts off as a potential ally for Wayne. But as the movie progresses, you see Liam Neeson's character truly become the villain. Cillian Murphy was an interesting choice to play Dr. Crane/Scarecrow. He's very thin, but he gives the character a very sleazy and menacing presence to the film. Tom Wilkinson plays the mobster, Carmine Falcone, a real piece of work. Katie Holmes plays Bruce Wayne's love interest, Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes. Gary Oldman is a revelation as Sgt. James Gordon. The acting is definitely one of the best parts of the film. The music is handled by legendary composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton-Howard. It's a very powerful and heavy hitting soundtrack that really gets the adrenaline pumping.

While I'm definitely singing the praises of Batman Begins, the movie has one noticeable drawback. The fight scenes. While expertly choreographed and brutal, you can barely see what's going on, because the camera is either too close to the action, or is zoomed way in. Either way, it kinda takes you out of the experience if you can't see what's going on. Overall, though, Batman Begins is everything I hoped it would be and then some. The film has set the franchise back on track. And because it did so well critically and at the box office, two more films were commissioned, although, if I remember correctly, this new series was envisioned as a trilogy. Batman Begins was released to critical acclaim in 2005. In 2008, the first sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, was released. And recently the final film in the trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises was released on July 20. Batman has such a huge following and is one of the most popular comic-book characters in history, despite some missteps. Batman Begins gets a 9.5/10.