Reviews

Looks like these filmmakers have done it again by delivering a sequel which surpasses the original in almost every way, just like they did with The Godfather, Shrek, Spider-Man and X-Men.

Storyline: superb and well-thought out. Homicidal terrorist known as The Joker who is hired by the Mob, but gets carried away and eventually takes over the mob, all the while trying to play a destructive game with Batman ("I think you and I are destined to do this forever".......LEGENDARY line).

Characters: brilliantly-developed. Primary focus on Batman and the Joker, and later Rachel and Two-Face. No more Batman as a supporting character like in Burton and Schumacher's films. It was also interesting to see a brief reference to Batman Beyond (where Dent says that Batman will soon want someone to take up his mantle), and how the Joker's claims were also horrible truths (how the public would happily sell Batman out in order to ensure their own safety, no matter how many times he protects them).

An excellent masterpiece which should be followed by a third film ONLY if it is worthy of making, not another Batman Forever or Batman & Robin (then again, change of director makes a difference). The one thing I really disliked about this movie was Natasha's line: "But this is a Democracy". The United States of America is anything BUT a Democracy: it has been a Dictatorship ever since the start of the so-called War on Terror (I've read about these things and listened to Naomi Wolf).

Apart from that stupid line, I give this film 10/10 stars. May the next film be up to expectations, and may Heath Ledger win that Oscar for Best Supporting Actor: he deserves it.

I first saw this movie when I was a kid, and quite liked it. Actually, I still do like it a bit, but not as much as before, because I now know the meaning of most of the supposedly meaningless jokes throughout the film. Basically, this is just a Flintstones rip-off.

Want to know why I believe that? Because of the nature of the film, the characters and the setting. Of course, it was meant to be funny, and I did find a couple of the jokes funny, but it just went too far. First of all, the film did not take place in Ancient Greece. It was just USA modelled after it. Second, the characters were too American to be considered Greek people. Third, the excessive American jokes, such as "Jerkules"; "Somebody call IX I I" (9-1-1); calling a baby God a "Sunspot"; seeing Narcissus (who wasn't even a God) kissing his own reflection in a mirror; Hades "working himself to death", in Zeus's words; calling Zeus "Boltboy" or "Mr. Lightning Bolts"......YUCK!! Too American for my taste, especially with the Gods being like laid-back American snobs (except for Hera, who I thought was the only convincing character in the movie).

Practically, this was either a Flintstones rip-off or a remake of "Hercules in New York". Personally, "Hercules in New York" was a better title for this movie.

It had it's moments, but too unreal (too Americanised). 5/10 stars.

First of all, before I give this game any negative comments, I will confirm one thing: I absolutely LOVED this game and enjoyed every moment of it, but it was not without flaws.

POSITIVE: Longer, more characters, and more places to explore. The worlds were very well done and the characters were brilliantly faithful to their original appearances on the big screen. Furthering the Heart concept also expanded the story, making it even more enjoyable, and I especially loved the fight scenes with King Mickey, my favourite one being where he faces off against Xemnas during the 1000 Heartless battle at Hollow Bastion (I don't take into account the King Mickey-Sephiroth fight: it's fan-fiction with a cheat code and non-canon).

NEGATIVE: The combos and attacks were sometimes a little bit too fancy. Yes, they were well-made and powerful, but still too fancy for my taste. Another major flaw in the game's story was too much irrelevant filler, such as the entire Atlantica world, Merlin's book, the episode in Hallowe'en Town with the Experiment, and Scar's Ghost turning out to be a Heartless in Pride Lands (under the control of neither Maleficent or Organisation XIII). But, in my opinion, the biggest disappointment in the game was the absence of Gaston, the villain from "Beauty and the Beast", the one villain I was looking forward to fighting most. An episode with Gaston attempting to round up Heartless for Maleficent or Pete would have at least been relevant to the story.

Fantastic piece of work from Square-Enix, but not as good as the first game. A PAL version of "Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix" with a Gaston battle would be a perfect version of this game for Europeans.

8 out of 10 stars. I do hope the four upcoming Kingdom Hearts games ("Birth by Sleep", "358/2 Days", "Coded" and the unannounced future game, possibly "Kingdom Hearts III") are as good as the three games thus far.

PS: I wouldn't mind a PAL version of "Kingdom Hearts: Re:Chain of Memories".

I quite actually enjoyed this movie for its plot and characters, but the animation was simply HORRIBLE. The characters in the background were more like paper cut-outs. The makers of "Angelica Anaconda" did a MUCH better job in animation than this cheap, rubbish method.

Story: an excellent way to end Jafar's story. Dramatic, exciting and astounding. Characters: the only disappointment was Robin Williams' absence, but you have to blame Disney for that (they went back on a promise they'd made to Williams regarding the first film just to make more money).

Animation was the only major disappointment here. I'm glad they rectified it with "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" (another excellent Aladdin story).

6/10 stars.

I can understand fully why moviegoers and critics alike would pan this movie: it departed too much from the original comics. Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight departed a bit as well, but it was made up for (The Dark Knight is by far my favorite).

But on the other side, that's what critics are for: to criticise. In my humble opinion, I think that this movie could and should have been much better. I mean, we've all seen Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane on "Batman: The Animated Series", which won TWO Emmy Awards. I don't understand why Joel Schumacher couldn't use a touch of "Heart of Ice" here, to make Freeze a less campy character and a stronger man. For instance, in the scene where Batman captures Freeze for the first time, they should have had Batman and Freeze fight for a while until Batman broke Freeze's helmet (forcing him to wear nose wires for a while until he got his spare helmet). Poison Ivy, well, she could have been less of a seductress, and Bane should have at least been able to talk and think (like say "Yes, Madam" or "This is reinforced steel. I can't break through this").

On the other hand, it DOES show the side of Freeze where he will do absolutely anything to revive Nora or avenge her death, even freeze the entire planet (a concept clearly taken from the Batman episode "Deep Freeze"). Just goes to show how much love can corrupt a good man's mind. That was the side of the movie I liked, but the characterisation of Freeze sometimes made it hard to believe (anything but Arnold's fault: he could have done a fantastic job had the filmmakers allowed him to).

All in all, this movie was nowhere near Oscar-worthy, but the cast members (especially Chris O'Donnell) did NOT deserve those Razzie nominations. It should have been much better, but it still wasn't bad at all. In my opinion, this was better than Batman Forever (too cartoon-like for my taste).

6/10 stars.

Basically, I liked this movie, because I like those kinds of fairy tale-like stories where two people from a completely different social class meet and fall in love (Aladdin and Pretty Woman, for instance). There is also the bit where each lover's friends try to persuade them to forget one another, and this is the bit where I think came the MAJOR flaw of the movie: the amount of bribery made it quite unreal.

I mean, imagine a powerful business tycoon like Cal Hockley bribes every single steward on the ship to keep Jack and Rose apart, and then tries to kill them out of spite when he learns he won't win Rose. That was the one thing I absolutely hated and found very unreal about the movie (until Murdoch threw the bribe in Cal's face: I loved that bit). The rest of the characters were very well done as well, and I am VERY surprised Billy Zane did not receive an Oscar nomination for his performance.

All in all, this movie was and will always be one of the best, but I don't think it really deserved the Best Picture Oscar over "As Good as It Gets" and "The Full Monty". It most probably won all those Oscars because of the special effects, because Kate Winslet's performance was CERTAINLY Oscar-worthy, and she didn't win (ironically, it went to Helen Hunt for "As Good as It Gets", "laugh").

In the end, everyone knew the story of the Titanic and how it sunk, so to me, the only special part was the side story (Jack, Rose and Cal). I expected nothing more. In my opinion, "The Full Monty" had a much better and realistic storyline to it, but then again, since when do comedies (even black ones) have a chance at the Oscars? Astounding, but not flawless. 8/10 stars.