Batman Begins

Nolan couldn't have been a better choice to take the director's seat, and while Bale has a strong resemblance to West, their Batmans are completely different. After eight years of silence, the Batman reemerges with a most appropriate reboot which explains the whole history of how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Nolan makes both Burton and Schumacher look like Ed Wood — most impressive of all is that, while technology has improved tremendously since 1997's flop "Batman & Robin", "Begins" chooses to take little advantage of it. A-list actors are casted as supporting characters, with Michael Cane as Alfred, and a calm Gary Oldman (that's a first!) as Gordon; among others like Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes and Morgan Freeman. Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe and Colin McFarlane are also so wonderful in their minor roles. Cillian Murphy modestly appears as The Scarecrow, which one can say is a bit underused as a well-known villain, but it actually makes it all the more realistic. Perhaps the older series should have considered using major stars as supporting characters, not villains. This film proves that superheroism isn't impossible — you just have to be a billionaire. Nolan's uncle, John Nolan, plays Fredericks.

Batman Forever

The third film in the Batman film series has Joel Schumacher, Val Kilmer and Tommy Lee Jones replacing Tim Burton, Michael Keaton and Billy Dee Williams. Robin (O'Donnell) is introduced, which either greatly pleased or greatly disappointed fans. "Forever" gets the silver medal of the series, being significantly better than "Returns". Unlike "Returns", "Forever" seems to know it's place. Schumacher was able to capture a mood different than the previous two, strikingly similar to both the Adam West show and "Batman: The Animated Series". "Forever" was also able to better-develop more characters in a shorter story than "Returns".

Thirteen

While the acting was terrific and the story was very intriguing, there was so much more that could've been done with this film. As the movie unraveled, I began to realize that this is a no more than a typical story about a rebellious teenage girl. Wonderful character development, but it led nowhere. Perhaps one can argue that this movie can be made as a lesson, but it feels more like a pity-this-young-curios-girl story. When will teenagers begin to take advise from adults and realize that they are no more special than the people from the previous generation? The teenagers in this film didn't, and the outcome was unintentionally too satisfying.

Batman

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In a world where Batman was most popularly known as "Adam West in a costume", Tim Burton came along and made possibly the greatest Batman movie for it's time. Anybody who compares this to Christopher Nolan's 2005 masterpiece "Batman Begins" just doesn't appreciate what Batman really is… a superhero whose genre changes from series to series. He's always been a comic book hero since his first appearance in May 1939. But starting in 1968, Batman had a cultural impact with a campy television series that was generally well-liked, running two years with pretty consistent reception from both critics and audiences. And for twenty-one years, that's how the world viewed Batman -- Adam West assisted by Robin in whacky adventures, ranging from a surf-contest with The Joker to jellied-water in Gotham City's pipeline.

Starting in 1980, Warner Brothers went through several different scripts for the ultimate Batman movie. It took them nine years to create the perfect Batman movie, but they did it. The darkest Batman story to date. And now, thanks to this film alone, the world knows Batman as something else… a superhero who is virtually timeless. This is also the first time a lot of people saw Batman without Robin.

Tim Burton created a Gotham as ugly as possible, and a Batman who is willing to kill. And what better Bruce Wayne/Batman than Michael Keaton. The epitome of an underdog. Not handsome, but not ugly; not tall, but not short; not strong, but not weak. One could easily assume that a Bruce Wayne who looks like Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Christian Bale could easily be the man under the batsuit. What kind of secret identity is that? But with Michael Keaton, you can never be sure. Not only was Keaton's appearance fantastic, but the actual portrayal was splendid. "You wanna get nuts! Come on, let's get nuts!"

Sure, with Heath Ledger playing The Joker in the "Begins" sequel "The Dark Knight (2008), people will say that Jack Nicholson is THE Joker. But it's actually The Joker who made this film questionable. Who ever said that The Joker is supposed to have a back-story or kill Bruce's parents? Not to mention how convenient it is that a man dropped in a bath of chemicals survives with bleach-white skin, green-hair, and a permanent grin.

The film also suffers casting. Why not have characters who are critical to the franchise such as butler Alfred Pennyworth or Commissioner Jim Gordon be played by more well-known actors? Michael Cane and Gary Oldman are wonderful examples of this, from Nolan's series.

Because the Batman franchise has gone from campy-comedy all the way to intensely-dark, it's so easy to criticize any kind of portrayal of the Caped Crusader. So, judge for yourself, but keep an open-mind.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

In an era where fantasy books can be satisfyingly transferred into film, it was to be expected that the C.S. Lewis's classic "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" would be brought to life too. And it was. But without justice.

"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the "Harry Potter" heptalogy were as successful as possible. "Narnia", on the other hand, didn't seemed to put forth as much effort as the others. The technology used in the film didn't create the same magic as the other fantasy-stories did. As the film progressed, it became abundantly clear that "Narnia" was nothing more than a competition to "Lord" and "Harry" (with an obviously smaller budget).

Many people impressed with the film can argue that it was entertaining and enjoyable. This is all fine and dandy. However, it is mere fact that the film's creators didn't go about the project with the love and passion for the story like those of "Lord" and "Harry". The campy special effects, the underdeveloped characters, and the fact that the "Narnia" film-series is going to be abridged by four book leads to the conclusion that this is done for nothing more than profit.

For those who are bored and looking for something to do, you may enjoy this lazy excuse for a film. But for those who want to be impressed as they were with "Lord" and/or "Harry", wish to see a wonderful classic brought to life on screen, or just like seeing special-effects, you will be greatly disappointed.

"The Jamie Kennedy Experiment"

This show is so funny. Jamie Kennedy is genius. I am a Jamie Kennedy, so I started to watch this show the first time it aired, and have been watching it ever since. I didn't want to write a summary about it until the season ended, just in case some episodes were good and other weren't. Now the first seasons is over, and I can tell you that all the episodes are great.

I think he is best as the judge. After each episode, you keep wanting more. It's like a tease, how it's only 30 minutes; but the whole 30 minutes are filled with laughter.

If you haven't watched this show, you are missing out. Way better than Tom Green, way better than Jackass, not as explicit as CKY but just (if not more) funny.

The Legend of Zelda (VG)

I read somewhere in a magazine that "The Legend Of Zelda (1986)" is one of the greatest video-games of all-time. I wouldn't be shocked if it was the greatest. It is certainly my favorite video-game. I have played thousands of video-games, and this easily tops them all. Old games and new. This game has no genre of the tops, it tops all of the genres.

I remember crying when I was seven years old because my kid brother (who was about 3) deleted my Link. As I look back on that moment, to this day, it still seems logical to cry, because as a little boy, I put a lot of work into getting where I was. I think anybody, old and young, puts a lot of work into "The Legend Of Zelda (1986)". You spend so much time playing this game, and the game grows on you more and more. This game kind of becomes a part of your life. A classic never dies, my friend; and neither does a legend. :) It took me over five years to beat both of the quests together, while at the same time I was using Game Genie and a Walkthrough for some of it. This game is for the PROS ONLY! The score is unforgettable; I love the music so much. There is not one thing wrong with this game. I find it very shocking that they could've fit all this data into a NES game. 10/10. I don't think I'll ever see a video game, that tops this one.

"Big Brother" (Seasons 2 & 3)

I love this show. It's a real treat! It doesn't make you wait a whole week to see the upcoming episode, it's on three times a week! Now, maybe BB1 was terrible, but give BB2 a chance. BB2 is very fun to watch. BB2 truely shows how: people can break down when there surrounded by one person 24/7, for at least a week; what people will do for money; and how much people change from the start to the end. It is a very interesting show. I admit, I didn't have an interest in the first Big Brother, but the second one is just awesome. CAUTION: Don't watch the show unless you start watching when the season first starts, because you won't know what's going on, and you'll hate it.

A Clockwork Orange

Very bizarre film. Stanley Kubrick is great. Although, I wish he would've made the film a little longer, put more Russian into the language, and told us what happened to Pete (even though it says that in the novel). But, hey, maybe it would've ruined the movie, I don't know.

It is very hard to write a review on this one because there's no way to describe the plot. There certainly is a plot though. Just make sure to open your mind, and pay close attention

Cannibal Holocaust

If you decided to read my review, you are probably already interested enough to know what this film is about.

The plot is truly original. Actually, everything about this movie is great. But, one thing completely stands out in the movie…The score. The score was composed by Riz Ortolani. Everything about the soundtrack is beautiful. It goes from being very haunting, to emotional and sad, or simply just beautiful. Fits in with the movie all the way. The Main Theme is one of the best songs ever (probably would've been a hit if Cannibal Holocaust wasn't so feared).

I saw this movie about two months ago and decided to write a review about it now because I was speechless back when I just viewed it; and I still don't have much to say. Simply, it's a great movie. If you have the chance to get your paws on this movie, grab it. Watch With Caution: This Film Is Very Violent, But Is Something Anybody Will Be Able To Sit Through.

One question I have is, what happened to all the actors. They only played in a couple of films besides this. They were terrific. Also, does anybody have guitar tabs the "Cannibal Holocaust (Main Theme)"? Once again, I love that song. If you can answer one of my two questions, please e-mail me. Thank you.

Dracula

This movie is unnecessarily long. No, it's not a three hour film, but it didn't have to be as long as it was. It just kept going on and on. At least `Nosferatu (1922)' made it's point and was done. This film had every little detail, and kept going on.

Gary Oldman was a terrible Dracula. They could've at least made him look like Count Orlock rather than a stylish character. Or, if they wanted a stylistic character, than they could've casted a better actor, that wasn't so ugly. Maybe more of a nice face. It just seemed too weird that a guy as ugly as Gary Oldman, could get with a hot woman like Winona Ryder. But it wasn't just his looks, he was too old also. If you want to see a good Dracula movie, see Nosferatu.

On the upside, the casting and acting was great; besides Gary Oldman. It really respected it's story, and made it one of a kind. Although I had a lot of disappointments, I still think this film deserves a 7/10. I am being very harsh on this movie, since it's a remake, but I suggest you go out and rent it and judge it for yourself. Trust me, it is certainly not a waste of money. This is a movie that'll give one another various opinions. Watch it.

Men Behind the Sun

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's not worth it. Big disappointment. As I did, you probably are familiar with the title "Men Behind The Sun" because of it's violence; you heard this was a very violent movie. But, it's not even that violent. Anybody will be able to sit through this.

I was very p***** after viewing this film. Mainly because a lot of people who wrote reviews about this very film at IMDb said it was so violent.

Bulls**t. There is not very much violence to this film. That's probably why I didn't like it is because some stupid people built it up and over-rated it.

**SPOILER AHEAD**

(CH) -- Cold-hearted; Not violent at all, but just the idea that it actually happens will stay with you forever. (M) -- Mild violence. R-rated movie violence. (MED) -- Medium violence. Violence that about anybody will still be able to handle. (D) -- Most disturbing.

The only violent scene in this 90 minute film are:

- Cold-hearted soldier buries an infant in the snow. (CH) - A woman getting her hands dismembered; by freezing them, and then putting them in hot water, which leaves them melted. Then scientist rips off the skin, and we see the bones. (M) - Soldiers tie prisoners to a cross, and blow them up, but to the point where there still alive, to see what it's like. (M) - A man is put in a pressure-chamber, and his intestines come out of his body. (D) - A pigeon, a woman and her daughter and put in a gas-chamber. (CH) - Autopsy on live child, the mute-child actually. (MED) - The famous cat/rat scene. (D)

**SPOILER ENDED**

All those violent scenes combine, consists of about 10 minutes, if that. So the rest of this film is just bulls**t about trying to create a plague, and young soldiers who are against the experiments or something; I don't really know, it was a poorly made film. The directing was poor, and the acting wasn't that great either.

First off, there are no credits, so the director doesn't give anybody any credit for the film. Second, the violence is unnecessary for the film. Killing a real cat, and doing a real autopsy, etc. was completely unnecessary. Yet, one could argue that that was the point, to make us feel p***ed, so we'd know how offensive this event was. But that's what really p****s me off, because it was like they were trying to get to the point that it was worse than the holocaust; or at least that's how I felt. And it wasn't even close.

Sure, the events that occurred here, at Unit 731 were terrible, but it was no big event. The unit was closed down.

And third. The cat and rat scene was so inappropriate. It has nothing to do with the film. Plus, killing a live animal is just wrong. Now, I know Cannibal Holocaust, one of my favorite movies, had a bunch of real animal deaths in it. But the animals that died in Cannibal Holocaust died in less than two seconds. The poor cat took about three minutes to die. It was just wrong. Most unnecessary thing I've ever seen.

So, in conclusion, it was a very crappy war film. Wasn't tragic at all, nothing compared to the holocaust, and the violence was terrible. If you wanted to see this movie because you're a big war-film fanatic, don't waste your time, it sucks. If you wanted to see this movie because you heard that it was really violent, don't waste your time, because it's not even violent at all. I realized why this film is so hard to find, because nobody probably wants to see it. It sucks. If you're looking for a violent movie, see Cannibal Holocaust. That's a gem. Good plot and good violence, which Men Behind The Sun didn't have.