Reviews

Sam Raimis Spiderman was cool. It was fun, heartfelt, action packed and even had good dramatic moments. Above all, it was a passion project-only Sam Raimi could have put out those films.

The Amazing Spiderman lacks the energy and passion and comes across as cold and cynical. It has it's good moments but is overall a solid "meh".

Andrew Garfield I feel is a talented young actor who could be a good Spiderman. However he comes across as very unlikeable here, more of the hipster smart-ass douchebag I was at school rather than the lovable geek we have come to expect. He does excel in scenes with Gwen Stacy, played wonderfully by a stunning Emma Stone. This character is one of the highlights of the movie-she is cool and clever but also is reckless and gets into the action a lot-not something you see so often in comic book women. Rhys Ifans is creepy enough as the Lizard who is a decent bad guy. Although his motivation are a bit thin he is undeniably cool to watch on screen. The CGI can be ropey at times but the design is pretty cool and the motion capture is well done. Overall a highlight of the film.

Denis Leary is likable as Captain Stacy, although I did side with him in his arguments against the detestable Peter Parker. Sally Fields is decent enough as Aunt May but isn't given much to do. Martin Sheen makes for a very good Uncle Ben and while he doesn't say the iconic line "With great power comes great responsibility" he is the highlight of the first half.

And that's the biggest problem: the first hour. It is boring. I'm not complaining that it is a rehash of the first Spiderman film-its a poor rehash. A film like Batman Begins, Man of Steel or the Incredible Hulk were good reboots because they change the structure of the origin giving us something we haven't seen before. However the Amazing Spiderman shows us old tricks used in Spiderman and Batman Begins. And the worst part is that it seemed no one cared when writing it. Sure the acting is strong but what's the point if I don't care. The only interesting stuff that was happening was the relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter and the whole Curt Connors sub plot-and that's because I've never seen it before. It also moves at a snails pace. Once Connors becomes the Lizard the film picks up with a silly plot of turning everyone into lizard people. Surprisingly this is more interesting than the death of a kids uncle and gaining super powers. Yes its comic book cheese but its decent. I would have preferred it if this had been the main story 10 minutes in. The sub plot on Peters parents should've been the highlight but its just clumsily shoved in there and forgotten about.

The action lacks the kinetic style of Raimi but is decent enough, especially at the end against the Lizard. In fact any action scene with the Lizard was pretty cool and are the highlights of the movie.

The directing is decent from Marc Webb, but the visual style is somewhat lacking. The scenes in the sewer look admittedly nice with the green lighting but New York looks like Gotham city in the Dark Knight (and I was no fan of Gotham in that film). Spiderman costume looks decent enough as does Oscorp. James Horners score is OK but isn't very memorable.

The film treats the source materiel with as much respect as the Raimi films. It has mechanical web shooters now but removes the characters of J Joanh Jameson, Norman and Harry Osborn completely as well as make Peter Parker unlikable.

Overall the film is unremarkable. The second hour is a pretty decent comic book movie but the first half is a slog. I'd say ots the weakest spiderman film so far. While Spiderman 3 was more of a mess it was a least interesting and memorable but this film is neither. Watch it for Emma Stone, Martian Sheen and the Lizard with a few cool action scenes here and there but as a satisfying reboot to this franchise? I'd rather have seen Spiderman 4.

Batman was a new direction for superhero movies. Superman had a mature feel that was lacking in say the 60's Batman TV show and the serials of the 1940's but still had an innocent charm. Tim Burtons Batman at the time was dark and adult and ushered in the more serious take on superheros, popularised with the X Men and Spiderman films in the late 2000's.

Batman however is more than just the beginning of a cultural phenomenon but an excellent movie to boot with a good cast, solid story, great set pieces and the best visual design of any comic book movie.

First as usual the acting. Jack Nicholsons scene stealing performance of the Jokers remains my personal favourite. He handles the dark humour very well, with a particular highlights being the scene where he is coming out of surgery and when talking to the burnt corpse of one of his victims. These are classic Joker scenes that both creep the audience out while amusing them at the same time. The best scene however is the TV commercial which is so surreal its hilarious and Nicholson owns the role, even under his pretty cool make up.

Michael Keatons casting had fanboys up in arms but fortunately they made the right choice in his casting. He remains the best live action batman, able to come across as tortured but not overdoing it. He also is menacing as Batman. You get the sense he is at times as mad as the villain hes fighting and thats a good thing-Batman is already a concept only a madman would dream up.

The supporting cast is pretty good. Kim Basinger while a damsel in distress is a good enough actress to still give her character some personality. Both Michael Gough and Robert Wuhl are very likable as Alfred and Knox respectively while Jack Palance and Billy Dee Williams are decent in his their role of crime boss Grissom and DA Harvey Dent (Am I the only one who wanted to see Billy Dee Williams in a sequel?). Tracy Walker is also memorable as Bob the Goon who is a good sidekick to the Joker. The role of Commissioner Gordan in this isn't very well written although Pat Hingle tries his best.

The batmoblie, Batwing and Batsuit have never looked better. Compared with the chrome and flashy lights of Schmarcher and the super gritty military style of Nolans this is sleek, cool looking and faithful to the comics. The look of Gotham was done by Anton Furst who rightfully won an Oscar for his work-the Art Deco buildings, the surreal designs and the '30's clothing all fit in perfectly with the Batman aesthetic. Its clearly a comic book world and the film benefits all the more for it. Gotham has its own identity to it which makes the film all the more unique.

Danny Elfmans score is not only the best of his career but also one of the best film scores ever, Every tune is memorable with Batmans and the Jokers themes being particular highlights.

Tim Burton is a surprisingly serviceable action director. On their own the action is OK but Elfmans score makes it seem more impressive. The Batwing scene is the best in the movie along with the Axis chemical firefight and the confrontation at the Cathedral.

The story echoes film noir and is very well told and paced. The themes of revenge are present but are not hammered in your face like the Nolan movies which in my opinion gives this film the edge-its more subtle in its delivery. While the story is far fetched the film builds a world where it doesn't matter. The Jokers plan is crazy, but so is the Joker. I like how this isn't an origin story but we still have some backstory. Many comic book stories often have the main character becoming their alter ego in the middle or at the end but here hes Batman from the start. I think overall I prefer this approach. Although the film maybe to heavily focuses on Joker I do think they develop Batman with his romance with Vicki Vale being decent enough. There's some humour here contrasty of Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton.

The only problem is the out of place and very dated Prince songs. While their not awful they could have easily been cut out.

In recent years this films has had a negative backlash, probably from Nolan Bat-fans. I first saw this film after viewing the Dark Knight and would say to ignore them. Instead enter a comic book world of violence, romance, dark humour, revenge and action. Batman has aged well and continues to be not only the best Batman film but the best comic book film out there.

After seeing the Dark Knight I had mixed feelings about the films. Some parts blew it out of the park and were brilliant-others not so much.

The story concerns Batman (Christian Bale) fighting anarchist the Joker (Heath Ledger) alongside DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and police captain James Gordon (Gary Oldman)

First the good stuff. The acting in this film is overall very strong. Heath Ledgers performance has already been talked to death and he is excellent in the role. My only real problem is I do like a more charismatic Joker with the bright suits (a more devilish laugh would've been appreciated) but this portrayal suits the tone of film better than the more flamboyant approach. Surprisingly Ledger is only in 33 minutes but leaves such an impression you can't not be impressed by his performance.

The other actor worth talking about is the criminally underrated Aaron Eckhart. Harvey Dent/Two-Face has long been my favourite character and after Tommy Lee Jones's disappointing portrayal this is fantastic. Dent has the most interesting story arc in the film with it culminating in his psychotic madness at the end as the deformed Two-Face. Its a shame the character was killed off as Eckhart brilliantly portrays both a fallen hero and a deranged lunatic. The CGI/makeup on him is also fantastic-Nolans team did a great job bringing the character off the page.

Gary Oldman is always great and here is no exception. Other notable cast members includes some great monologues by Micheal Caine, and some welcome humour from Morgan Freeman. After Katie Holmes less than stellar performance in Batman Begins we are instead given Maggie Gyllenhaal who is definite improvement. She also has some chemistry with Aaron Eckhart making their relationship more believable. Cillian Murphy also reprises his role as Scarecrow in a wonderful little cameo.

The plot is engaging and interesting even if it is to heavy handed at times with themes being used as monologues. Nevertheless the pacing is good and the dialogue sharp. The Jokers plan is maybe to well thought out but it doesn't distract you overall.

Christopher Nolan swaps out the ever infuriating shaky cam from Btamn Begins for some truly breathtaking action scenes. The bank robbery and the truck scene especially is the highlights of the film. The cinematography by Wally Pfister continues to impress and Nolan continues to proves himself to be a very talented director. Hans Zimmer also underscores the whole thing very well setting an unsettling tone.

The main problem with the film is Batman. He is boring. I give Christian Bale credit; he is clearly dedicated to the role. But he lacks the charisma needed for Bruce Wayne coming across as a bit awkward and wooden. However it's in the Batsuit where he really suffers- the voice he uses is beyond hilarious. Its so stupid, so out of place and difficult to understand no one could take him seriously. The suit he wears is not as good as the one in Batman Begins and that looked stupid anyway. The batmobile is still a tank which is the most noticeable thing you can travel in-how can you be in the shadows in a tank. When it transforms into the Bat cycle it is a much welcome change. The batcave is also absent which is a shame.

My other problem is the themes or rather how they are presented. Rather than let an actor subtly put across their feeling or motivation they are spelled out to you in lectures. The worst example is possibly the Joker and if it wasn't for Heath Ledger this would become very annoying very fast. The death of Two-Face at the end seems rushed and a poor decision on part of the film makers.

As a side note while its not a problem the film does change a lot of details and characters personalities from the comics. As with all the Batman movies it quite happily deviates from the source. Also if like me you don't buy into the more realistic style you may not be all that impressed. Gotham is even blander and boring here than in Batman Begins.

Overall a weak protagonist and a few script problems does not ruin a great cast, solid action and an engaging story.

It's no secret I'm dismissive of Nolans Batman. To me, he is to realistic and, taken out of context (or costume) he is no superhero-in essence, they are superhero films by name only. Batman Begins was dull, but TDK was a solid film that was a fine addition to the batman film universe. So how does this film hold up?

To be honest, it's pretty crap

To cut to the chase, lets talk about our cast and characters. Christen Bale is boring in this film. Bruce Wayne isn't compelling in the way Tony Stark or Peter Parker are. I say this because in this film, Batman is in it for 33 minutes. It's mostly Bale being quite wooden, which is shame as I remember him in American Psycho being interesting. I can't say much about his batman other then what's been said all ready-yes, I can't understand that voice. His costume again looks like greens goblins with spiderman-only the expression coming from bale is less expressive.

Bane was bad. Gone is the superhuman powered by chemicals with a distinctive mask, replaced with our buffed up Joker wannabe-AKA "a villain who has something to say about our society." He's not engaging as he does long gloats like he's the new Josef Stalin-lame. The voice Tom Hardy does sounds like a dodgy crossover between Sean Connery, Jim Carrey from the Grinch and sheogorath. It's also incredibly hard to understand, and scenes with Bane speaking to batman are very difficult to understand because of the voices. I don't get how comic book fans criticise the Batman and robin bane yet praise this one. Sure that one was stupid but he at least had the characters backstory and basic appearance. At he end with a big plot twist, his motivations suddenly make no sense (he protects a young Talia but lets thousands of kids presumably parent less or dead in his takeover of the city?)he comes across as a mere henchman and is shot by catwomen. At worst batmans no gun rule is illogical, but if he can use his brains to defeat the bad guy, its OK. If batman had shot bane at the beginning of the whole thing he might not have lost his money, saved lots of lives, not be beaten to a pulp and not have to live in hiding. Hes pretty crap and not a faithful adaptation at all.

The costume designers got a modern day catwomen right, and Anne Hathaway did a fine job in the role. However I don't know if shes a villain, antihero, hero? At least we knew she was a villain in Batman Returns and a (very VERY lame) hero in Catwomen. I blame Nolans writing more than anything else though. Oh, and Hathaway is damn fine in this.

Lots of new characters are here along with the old. I swear Joseph Gordon Levitts character was written in just because they hired the guy- and set up a squeal to the "final chapter" of this series. Also how the hell did he know who batman is? Just because? Again, more bad script writing. Gary Oldman bring presence but hes not got much meat to chew into-and his characters decision to send all cops into the sewer is one of the worst pieces of script writing ever. Morgan Freeman and Micheal Caine are wasted here and and could've been edited out of the movie. Marion Cotillard is bland and her character makes no sense-she is introduced as a villain and dies 10 minutes later. Payoff, who needs that?

The story is so bad-full of clichés, lazy writing and making references to modern day conflicts and terrorist to make it look clever. After the realistic stylings of TDK this throws any realism out of the window. If a terrorist like Bane was under the sewer, than shouldn't Gordon at least notify the government? If Bin laden was seen hiding in New York the Americans would have sent special forces or something. Also I highly doubt that the plane opening would happen-the CIA have radars that could detect a plane that big and would have identified the prisoners by removing the bags before going into the air. Batmans back can't repair itself like that in real life, and he would've been incinerated by the bomb. Also Gotham would have been hit by the radioactive fallout-thanks for "saving" the day. The script is full of nitpicks that all add up to plot holes. The realism is abandoned for illogical plot convenience- at least Iron Man 3, the least realistic in its series of films, put in a comic book world to explain certain plot elements. Removing banes super strength to make him more realistic but having huge gaps in realism mean that the excuse "its a comic book movie" redundant. The film is boring with horrible pacing problems, having stupid or underdeveloped characters and clunky dialogue that only serves as exposition means this is Nolans worst script ever. The action is boring and half hearted, with clumsy fight scenes littered throughout.

Gotham isn't the dark, slightly warped city of the comics any more but the a bland version of new york-again, the modern world aspect of these films means it's not memorable in the way Tim Burtons batman films were. The music is pretty bad, just being loud strings in the background-no tune to hum to along with no tension or emotion.

Is this film worse that Batman and Robin? No. Its certainly bloated and boring, but not the cinematic train wreck the B&R is. However while batman & robin can be entertaining because it's bad (evident in it's camp tone) this is a chore to sit through. Its boring, has a stupid script and having very little of it's protagonist in this final instalment, it's a horrible sequel to TDK ,one of the worst entries in batman media and a dull and plain awful "cinematic" experience altogether.

My friends will know I have a mixed opinion of Nolans batman films. Begins was dull, TDK was pretty cool and TDKR....well, we have batman and robin to contend with worst batman movie.

I say this as my friends say "the old films are to light hearted" I reply "Go watch batman returns" This film takes influences both from Batman and Burton's film he made just before this, Edward Scissorhands. The latter was Burton's personal favourite film, and for this film, he wanted to bring something new to the table.

Batman returns has the Gothic, almost fairy tale like feel of Scissorhands-a dark, twisted fairy tale anyway. This is due to impressive production design, and Danny Elfmans score, which has the choir elements added in for that Burton feel.

Keaton returns and once again impresses as batman. He isn't in that much (more than in TDKR though) but he brings a real pressence on screen. He is in my eyes the true Batman. Danny DeVito is the warped penguin and he is a very interesting, if vile, character. A great costume and make up team make him a great villain. Although he is not the crime boss from the comics, the abandoned mutant makes him a more sympathetic villain- only Aaron Eckhart is more sympathetic than penguin in the batman films. Michelle Pfeiffer is the scene stealer here as catwomen. Her demented take on the anti hero is very engaging and she has one of the coolest costumes ever. Finally Christopher Walken appears as corrupt tycoon Max Schrek. He is basically playing himself-which is awesome, as he is Christopher Walken.

So we have a strong cast-what about the story? While it's morbid and dark, it's very interesting. Its complex and not realistic but is very powerful-but not uplifting. As for the production, Gotham looks as dark as it will ever look-its mostly set at night. Its a memroble setting, but not comic book-y-more Tim Burton-y. The music gets the tone of the film across very well-Danny Elfman has composed a real gem here.

The action however is a bit lackluster-the music holds it together, making it seem more exciting. The biggest problem the film has is that its not a comic book movie-it does change the villains backstories, batman is slightly to immoral and the story doesn't have the simple plots or action to make it a comic book movie.

Although its not the best representation of batman or comic book movies, and a disappointment compared to its predecessor, its a great watch if your into the dark worlds of Tim Burton-defiantly the dark knights darkest hour.