The film covers a vast amount of years in Bruce Wayne’s life, from his early childhood, to an adult, as he travels the world to discover his true destiny and become a crime-fighter. We finally get to see the entire transformation of a billionaire playboy into the mysterious creature of the night and it really makes it easy to relate to him when we’re on the journey with him. What’s most intriguing about the film is that for the first hour or so, the story is told in a non-linear style, however there is a logic to the order in which events occur. The story is overall very coherent and it has some good realistic themes; also it’s worth mentioning that everything in the film, most notably the villain combination of Ra’s Al Ghul and Scarecrow, work within the context of the film and while the idea sounds really strange conceptually, it works really well because it doesn’t follow the formula of the usual supervillain team-up.

Characters are really well developed this time around. Even the side characters get some well-deserved screen time, with Gordon and Alfred being my favourite of the many we get to see, the exact opposite to my reaction when seeing them portrayed in the older films. A new addition to the screen is Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, finally a long-awaited explanation to the age old question; where on earth does Batman get those wonderful toys? He and Bruce have some great dialogue between each other that can be tongue-in-cheek when it needs to be without taking us out of the serious world we’re in. On the subject of Bruce, how does Christian Bale compare to the actors before him? Well, he’s certainly much more relatable to the audience as Bruce Wayne and he plays the billionaire playboy perfectly, although his portrayal of Batman in full costume isn’t as badass as, say, Keaton’s performance. This is in large part to the fact that he growls whenever he dons the cape and cowl, which comes across as quite forced, and unfortunately it gets worse in The Dark Knight. Still, he’s pretty good overall. The only character I had a problem with was one who, to my knowledge, was never in the comics, and that’s Rachel Dawes, played in this movie by Katie Holmes (she was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal in The Dark Knight). She was pretty useless for most of the film and seemed to just be shoved in to be a love interest, although she and Bruce aren’t trying to have a relationship in the middle of the story.

The film has an excellent score, thanks to the excellent work by Hans Zimmer. While not as hummable as Eflman’s work, it will definitely have you drumming the nearest table or armrest to the beat of this epic soundtrack. Similar to Eflman’s score though, it fits the atmosphere of this interpretation of Gotham City and Batman as a whole. Interesting note: all of the tracks on the soundtrack’s CD are named in a foreign language (I think it might be Latin, but don’t quote me on that), just thought I’d put that out there.

Batman Begins is more than just a good comic book film, it’s a great film in it’s own right, about a man overcoming his fears and learning to inspire good in others. The cast all give solid performances; even Katie Holmes, despite the fact I didn’t like her character much, put in a good effort. Hans Zimmer’s score fits Nolan’s Gotham and makes the immersion into the film that much stronger. It’s rare to find a film that is so wonderfully thought-provoking but also a greatly entertaining action crime drama. I rate this film a 9.5/10

First of all, Batman and Robin has the most cookie-cutter plot in film history, as well as being plagued with sequelitis. Let’s see if this sounds familiar; Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy plan to take over the world together. Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne is dealing with a personal issue, and a recently orphaned teenager joins Batman’s team. Didn’t this exact same thing happen in Batman Forever? Replace Freeze and Ivy with Two-Face and Riddler, then Robin with Batgirl, then you have the same film from 2 years prior, talk about lazy writing. Secondly, this film can be easily summarized in the same way you would discuss a toy commercial. The villains plan something evil, Batman, Batgirl and Robin stop them, the end. Sure, there’s the subplot about Alfred being at death’s door, but it gets completely lost amongst sexual undertones, ice puns (we’ll get to that later in the review) and Bane acting like a zombie on adrenaline . The film has more meaningless and unexplored ideas and themes than you can shake a batarang at, which leaves the audience feeling like the last 2 hours spent watching the film wasn’t worth the effort at all (and it isn’t, it really isn’t).

The characters are also highly overacted. We get George Clooney of all people in as Batman this time, with NIPPLES on the batsuit! What were the costume designers thinking when they came up with that idea? If they had some sort of function like, I don’t know, firing bullets at light speed or something, then maybe I’d buy the idea, but there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. Anyways, I’m getting off track here, Clooney makes Batman out to be way too happy, certainly not the tortured character from the comics, in fact, in an interview he said that he didn’t want Batman to be like that. If you don’t like the way a character is, don’t play them, it’s that simple. Chris O’Donnell returns as Robin, this time being even more of an ungrateful sod than in Forever. All he does is whine to Bruce, and it doesn’t help when they both start fighting over Poison Ivy. Essentially, you could dub whining rants over his lines and still get the same basic premise of his character in the film. Arnold Swarzanegger is ok as Mr Freeze, but he becomes totally unbearable when every line he says has something to do with ice or cold, so much so that there should be a counter in place for each time this occurs when watching this movie. Poison Ivy is played by Uma Thurman, and she’s probably the one person amidst the acting mess that I would consider bearable, along with Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl and Michael Gough as Alfred. Both women play their parts very well, and although there isn’t a lot to them backstory-wise, they are the closest to their comic counterparts than the other actors in this film. Having said that though, they totally messed up Batgirls origin, totally ditching her true motivations (oh, her parents died, she must become Batgirl by the end! Not) and making her related to Alfred somehow instead of Commissioner Gordon. Still, that makes more sense here considering how goofy Pat Hingle plays Gordon in this series (Yeah, no improvement, he gets worse). Michael Gough, like I said before, is still great as Alfred, and he could have redeemed the film, had the loyal butler’s sickness been given more importance towards the film’s narrative (or lack there of). But then, we get to the most butchered character of them all…Bane. In fact, why call him that? This is not Bane, this is a zombie-like henchman on steroids. He has no lines in the film except for grunts of his name, and one instance where he is planting bombs and says “Bomb”. I for one was jumping up and down in excitement when he was announced as a villain for The Dark Knight Rises, because I have faith in Christopher Nolan that he will pull off the character the way he should be translated to the screen.

Even the sets are worse this time around. You thought that Batman Forever was bad, wait until you see the sets in this. Pretty much everything looks computer-generated, and one of the most embarrassing ideas in the film is that Mr Freeze chooses t hang out at an ice-cream parlour, it’s ridiculous. Batman and Robin even attend a public event with flashy lights and people in dancing gorilla costumes, so gone is the idea of mysterious creatures of the night.

Music is recycled from Forever and feels like it belongs in a film about Jazz music, not Batman, that’s all I can say about that.

So, Batman and Robin, I’ve finally let out what I think of it. It’s a terrible Batman film for sure, a result of what happens when the director becomes the Yes man to a film company; Joel Schumacher was forced by Warner Bros. to make it more “toyetic” (appropriate content for children in order to sell lots of toys), so the only positive thing I can really say about this film is that it ticked the boxes marketing-wise and made money, but as for film quality, it’s trash. Still, for some warped reason, I find it just bearable to watch, despite its problems. However, because of these problems, I’ll give it a 2/10.

As usual, I’ll begin with the story. It’s pretty much what we’ve come to expect with this franchise, Batman has to stop the villains, the Riddler and Two-Face, who decide to team up and take over the world, while at the same time, Bruce is dealing with his own personal demons. On top of that, recently orphaned Dick Grayson is taken under the wing (no pun intended) of Mr Wayne and becomes Robin, finally forging the dynamic duo that we all know from the TV show. The story is certainly formulaic and predictable, but for the most part it works. Robin’s backstory is done very well, and this plot thread helps Batman to grow as a character, learning that working alone is not always the most practical approach to a situation. Riddler’s origin is particularly entertaining, showing off Jim Carrey’s typical humorous antics, whereas unfortunately, we don’t really get much on Two-Face. Harvey Dent was introduced in the ’89 film, but the villain concept was never fully developed and not explained much in Forever, apart from a fleeting reference. The biggest problem with the story for me was to do with Bruce Wayne and his personal struggle. It just didn’t seem necessary to go back to the  origin with his parent’s death, and it just felt like a forced plot to give Nicole Kidman’s character something to do beyond seducing Batman.

With this sequel comes an almost entirely new cast. Batman/Bruce Wayne is now played by Val Kilmer, and while he doesn’t really have the same intimidating presence as Keaton, he does a good job at portraying the caped crusader without making him look silly. Chris O’Donnell is good as Dick Grayson/Robin, his motivations feel real and there is emotion in his scenes, although sometimes he just seems like a whiny little kid (that only gets worse in Batman and Robin). Nicole Kidman plays a psychiatrist of sorts named Chase Meridian, who is made into the token love interest for both of Kilmer’s identities. She too fits the role well, but her character isn’t as fleshed out as she could have been, and again, she’s the damsel in distress by the end. Jim Carrey, like Nicholson as the Joker, is a fantastic Riddler, and when he’s on screen, he steals the show. From the Baseball pitch bomb throw, to his crazy laugh, he’s a funny sight and makes for a fun villain. Two-Face though, was a disappointment. I think that the way Tommy Lee Jones played him was too over-the-top for this character; with Riddler, it’s acceptable, that’s the way he is, but Two-Face is a truly tortured character who’s always at a dilemma with his moral decisions, and Jones doesn’t really deliver that to the extent that he could have. Michael Gough is back as Alfred, still by his master’s side, there’s not much to say about him that I haven’t said before in my previous Batman reviews, it’s a consistent performance. Of course, Pat Hingle is still playing Gordon, and he’s even more bumbling than before, in fact, one of his first lines in the film is “didn’t see this one coming”, yep, that’s him in a nutshell, but I think it’s even worse when he stumbles in front of Batman in a dressing gown and slippers wondering “what’s going on” when the bat signal is lit, it’s painful to watch.

Now, for the sets. Gotham city, in this film, looks like a glowstick nightmare. This is one of the goofiest looking sets I’ve ever seen (apart from Batman and  Robin’s set, which looks even worse),there’s just too much eye candy and not enough gothic architecture like the last two films, you can’t associate this disco party appearance with Batman, it just doesn’t work.  I swear, I saw purple and red lights on in the windows of buildings, it’s about as non-realistic as you could get, and even for a comic book film, they’re pushing it here.

Music is still pretty good, although sometimes it gets a little tiring to here remixes of the theme tune being played over the most of the scenes (the theme is new to this film and the score is not done by Danny Elfman this time around), no real variety. For the most part, it makes the film seem even more campy, they might as well have just played the “nananana” of the 60′s show over some scenes.

So, what did I think of Batman Forever? It’s not great, certainly not very faithful to the comics, nor should it belong in the same universe as Tim Burton’s adaptations. The sets feel cheap and campy, the music has no real variety, and the story is relatively lackluster. On the plus side, the acting is good from most characters, so I guess that’s something. I’ll give it a 5/10.

The film begins 33 years in the past, as the Penguin is being born. Shocked by the bizarre appearance of their child, the Penguin’s parents put him in a basket and throw him into the sewers, leading to the iconic theme tune playing as we follow the basket towards its final destination. This is a great setup of the film’s atmosphere as a whole, dark and moody. This time around, Batman Returns feels more like a Tim Burton film than a Batman film, in the sense that it has that stylized charm to it. Story-wise, it’s pretty simple, the Penguin is looking for his parents, and he asks a rich businessman named Max Shreck to help him. The penguins plans turn more sinister however, when he plans to become mayor of Gotham. Amongst all this, a lowly secretary named Selina Kyle has a strange encounter with some stray cats and becomes Catwoman. Of course, there is a whole love story involving Bruce Wayne and Selina, but neither of them realise who the other person really is. On the whole, the story wasn’t as interesting to me as the first Batman, but it still had enough happening to keep me interested.

Acting is still great, Michael Keaton reprises his role as Batman, Michael Gough still plays Alfred, and (unfortunately) Pat Hingle still plays Commissioner Gordon. Yeah… I still don’t like the way he’s portrayed in this film, still, he doesn’t appear too often, so it doesn’t really matter too much. Michelle Pfeiffer is great as catwoman, really making the character her own with the purrfect (sorry, I had to) amount of attitude. Danny DeVito is fairly solid as Penguin too, however his constant grunting can get a bit tired after a while. Also an honourable mention goes to Christopher Walken as Max Shreck; he’s really good at playing the shrewd businessman, and it’s nice to see him in a role that isn’t..well, awkward (see Nostalgia Critic’s top 11 list of most awkward Christopher Walken moments to see what I’m talking about).

Music is still really good, although toned down a bit more than last time and definitely more haunting; there’s a lot of choir music in the background, which helps with moments like the Penguin’s origin, telling the tragic story with the notes. There are of course some more upbeat scores, as it is set at Christmas time (sometimes I wonder whether it should have been called Batman’s first Christmas), so it evens out pretty nicely.

Like I mentioned before, the atmosphere of the film is even gloomier than the previous film, and sometimes it feels a little bit out of place. The first Batman film had such an amazing gothic style, and with what we got in Returns, it feels a little bit empty, so it’s not my favourite Gotham, although it’s not nearly as bad as the glowstick disaster that is Batman Forever/Batman and Robin which I’ll get to in my later reviews.

As an overall film, Batman Returns is a good sequel, but not the best. Its dark approach lessened the entertainment value for me, simply because it was more of a depressing sort of dark rather than just being more serious and realistic (Batman Begins/The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises). The acting is still great, so I can’t really fault that, and the music is still pretty good, so at the end of the day, it was the atmosphere that killed a bit of the enjoyment for me, but it’s still decent. I give it a 7/10.

The story follows the caped crusader in his early years, stopping criminals in the dark alleys of Gotham city. He eventually encounters the Joker, an insane criminal who uses his knowledge in chemistry to poison all of Gotham city via the mixing of makeup products. Meanwhile, Vicky Vale, a reporter and photographer for the Corto Maltese, develops an interest in Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, but what she finds out is far more tragic than she could have imagined; the very motivation for Batman. It’s an excellently crafted piece of cinema, also being the first ever dark take on the character to be brought to the silver screen, a far cry from the ’60s television series. The mystery behind Batman is executed brilliantly, truly capturing the feeling of a dark figure hiding in the shadows. Everything from the Joker’s origins to the final battle between Batman and the clown prince of crime atop a cathedral has a dramatic and badass feel. Still, while the majority of the film’s story is well-written, the final act is where things get a little strange. Just a warning for anyone who hasn’t seen the film, spoilers follow.  It’s always been the general consensus amongst fans that Alfred letting Vicky Vale into the batcave was a really stupid idea, and I have to agree. That should have been Alfred’s last day of service at Wayne Manor, what were the writers thinking? They played Batman up to be so mysterious and at the end, he gets found out! Secondly, the reveal that it was in fact Jack Napier as a young crook who killed Bruce’s parents was something that didn’t mesh well with fans. On this, I have to say that yes, it isn’t faithful to the comics in that regard, but the idea of this added so much more tension to the battle between Batman and the Joker at the end, although it still feels like a bit of a plot convenience. Logic goes out the window a lot by the end too, with Batman shooting missiles at the joker and, despite aiming directly at his target, misses completely. On top of that, the Joker is able to shoot down the Batwing with merely a pistol, albeit a ridiculously long one.  The Joker’s death, while it pissed off a lot of fans for killing off, for some people, the greatest Batman villain of all time, for me, made sense. He was such a big threat and couldn’t be allowed to live, and this also meant the writers couldn’t reuse him later so we could get more variety on the villain front. What I was annoyed about was how silly it was that Batman was so easily able to grapple the Joker’s leg and tie it to a gargoyle at the same time from a distance. Ok, spoilers finished.

Acting is phenomenal, too. Despite the uproar from fans that Michael Keaton was not suitable for the role of Batman at the time, he portrays, in my opinion, one of the most convincing Batmans of all time, as well as being able to play the tortured character of Bruce Wayne. Also, nobody can do that epic Batman smirk like Keaton can, it’s truly fantastic. Jack Nicholson portrays the Joker to a T, maniacal and crazy, very much bringing the comic book character to life, in fact, I was scared of him for a large part of my childhood. Supporting cast is good, although I don’t like Commissioner Gordon too much in this film, heck, in this entire series he’s depicted as a fat police chief, he’s got nothing on the comic book Gordon. Michael Gough (R.I.P.)  plays the subservient and forever loyal butler Alfred quite well,  always there when Bruce needs him, showing great concern for his master. Kim Basinger and Robert Whul as Vicky Vale and Alexander Knox, respectively, have some funny scenes together, as well as Basinger and Keaton having some good chemistry; the scene where Bruce tries to tell Vicky he’s Batman is priceless. The only negative thing I have to say is that some characters don’t get nearly enough screen time, even the memorable ones from the comics. We see Harvey Dent in a few dialogue scenes, but at least something to suggest Two-Face would have been nice (more on him in by Batman Forever review, coming soon), and although I’ve already stated my opinion on how they screwed up Gordon’s character, he could have at least been more involved in the story, otherwise there’s really no point in him being there. Hell, even Batman doesn’t get as much screen time as the Joker. As the villain he steals the show, making the film more about him than Bruce or his alter ego, a trend that unfortunately is never changed in the later films.

 On the music front, what can I say? It draws you in. This film has one of the most sophisticated music scores in film history; immersive, pleasing to the ears, it’s like we’re being made love to through song, Danny Elfman did a marvellous job here, the theme is right up there with the Star Wars and Superman themes, just as memorable, if not moreso, and the Joker’s music sounds very much like circus music, everything fits together nicely.

The sets are gorgeous as well. Gotham City is truly brought to life in this gritty dystopia that Tim Burton has created; alleyways are dark and grungy, the architecture is truly gothic and chilling, which sells the corrupt atmosphere of a place that is completely overrun with crime. The fact that it was completely built from scratch is also what makes this version of Gotham City one of my favourites; it sells the comic book aspect of it so well, because it’s not taking a real city and altering its appearance, no trickery involved, the film-makers simply made an entirely new location within a set, so it’s timeless, in a way.

Overall, this is one of the best adaptations of Batman ever made. The acting is great, bringing the characters to life from the page, music is fully immersive and the sets are incredible, but most importantly, it has a great story that makes you invested in what’s happening in the world. Still, it feels more like Joker’s movie, and for an introduction to the series, that’s not really the best idea, even though Batman’s character is developed enough to get the sense of mystery around him. Some characters appear for so little that they might as well not be included, which is a shame, and the third act, while not as strong as the majority of the film, is still dramatic and suspenseful. Despite the negatives, they don’t detract from the overall product, it’s a film that’s aged very well, I give it a 9/10.

Jurassic Park

From the trailer to the reports that have been made of the style of gameplay this will have, I’m very much looking forward to Jurassic Park: The Game, because it will be so much different from anything Telltale has done before and I feel that they will do it well regardless. The graphics look amazing, I know Telltale have been pushing their engine to the max to do this and it shows. While it may not be in the same graphical range as some other games that are out there, for an action/adventure game it’s absolutely stunning. I especially like the direction Telltale is coming from by not including the original characters as the main focus of this game, thereby allowing new personalities to take prevalence and develop and be freshly implanted in the players mind.

So, basically, Jurassic Park is a game I’m looking forward to from Telltale this year. Unfortunately, that can’t be said for everything…

The Walking Dead

Yech. A zombie game. Really, Telltale? And I know that the series is very popular, and there’s comic books and a TV series and blah blah blah, its just that aren’t there enough of these kinds of games as it is? I thought Telltale came about because they wanted to make adventure games and no other company did. I thought Telltale was trying to stand out from the crowd. But what with the apparent probability of this being an action game and potentially also a first person shooter (unlikely as that seems), I worry that Telltale is thinking that it has to conform to the general, boring, currently popular releases in order to make money. (Dead Island or Call of Duty: Black Ops, anybody?) But here’s a tip for Telltale; by trying to change your games to appeal to a wider market, you also risk cutting off some of your longer supporters in favour of a group who will, lets face it, ditch you for the next big thing later on. Although I may sound harsh, this is my opinion, and I just don’t like zombie games. Granted, I’m still going to play it, because I think that any game Telltale makes is probably going to be in one way or another entertaining, but I don’t think I’ll be a rabid fan of this series. I hope there won’t be another one coming afterwards.

Fables

Ok, so after my displeasure at The Walking Dead, I’m happy to say that Fables, another comic book video game, looks like it will be BRILLIANT. First of all, the idea of this comics themselves is wonderful and creative, take this and add 2 heaping spoonfuls of Telltale brilliance and you get a potentially awesome video game. I had a quick look at some pages from the comics yesterday, and the writing is fantastic. I can’t wait to get into this game. It’s just a shame that it won’t be out until 2012…

Hector: Badge of Carnage

This game… This game… I can not wait for it to be on PC. Ok, granted, Telltale is not developing this series, merely publishing, its still brilliant. I got the game on my iPhone yesterday and am currently loving it. I wish I found out about it earlier. By the way, a review will be up sometime next week. It has classic British humour, llewdness, strong puzzles, great characters, brilliant voice acting, and I’ve only been playing for half an hour. This is another game that Telltale’s got me anticipating.

Puzzle Agent 2

Frankly, I’m very relieved that one game Telltale’s done before wound up on this list, and I’m especially glad that it’s Puzzle Agent because that damn game had no ending the first time around, and I’m looking forwards to seeing how the game wraps up, as well as the developments that are made in the puzzle, graphical, story telling and plotting departments. Also, the Hidden People are back, which makes me scared. Honestly, they are some of the scariest little… I can’t say that word… that I’ve found in games EVER! So it should be good…

King’s Quest

Wait, what? King’s Quest? When I saw this I got excited. And I don’t know why. I’ve never played a King’s Quest game. I mean, I’ve played Peasant’s Quest, but not King’s Quest. It’s just that hanging around all the old adventure gamers has made me sort of feel like I know these old games, and so I think I’m going to have a good time when this game gets out in 2012.

So that’s pretty much it. All in all, I’m pretty happy, I think Telltale can do a good job, except that damn zombie game that they seem to be so happy about… Oh well, maybe it will turn out alright. But what do you think? Tell us in the comments!

The plot of “Watchmen” is set in the United States in the year 1985, in an alternate history of the world which is nearing nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America (the “Doomsday Clock” is set to 5 minutes to midnight – a symbol showing America at the brink of the abyss – a nuclear war). The story focuses on a group of superheroes, which exist in this alternate form of history as a natural phenomenon and they have been around since World War II. In this context, we have the former group of superheroes – Minutemen, who were active from 1939 to 1949, and the “current”, second generation, called The Crimebusters. It’s a common misconception that the mentioned group of heroes is actually called Watchmen, when in fact the term “Watchmen” itself refers to a completely different concept here, which I will deal with later.

What makes “Watchmen” a particularly interesting concept is the fact that it is a comic book (and a movie) about superheroes, but it is not a typical superhero comic book, and the movie is not a typical action-adventure adaptation of a comic book. It is in fact quite serious and even a somewhat depressing film. That is, at least, how I see it.

In the world of “Watchmen”, superheroes are depicted as real and ordinary people who often must confront their own ethical and personal issues. They are everyday people who struggle with the traumas and failures of life and who (with only one exception – Dr. Manhattan) actually do not possess any super powers at all. These are not characters that confront their ultimate evil opponents and honorably fight against them (at least not in the sense of comic book villains, with rare exceptions of criminals who were initially masked and are, only on the superficial level of the story, the reason why our heroes are masked). What happens, in fact, is that our heroes find themselves in this mess of a real world and often must choose the lesser of two evils.

It is because of these kind of themes that Alan Moore has become one of the most famous comic book authors, and his novel “Watchmen” so revolutionary in the world of superhero comics and comics in general. The novel’s unconventional superhero archetype, along with its use of powerful symbolism, multi-layered dialogue and metafiction makes sure it delves into the minds of readers worldwide.

Even the title “Watchmen” in itself is a concept worthy of praise, in the sense that it is so seamlessly applied when in fact it can be interpreted on several different levels, one of which is as follows.

As I mentioned earlier, it is a common misconception that our designated group of heroes is called Watchmen. There are lots of moments in the comic book (and several in the movie) where a term “Who watches the Watchmen?” is used. The term is based on the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” which quite literally means “Who will guard the guards themselves?”. What Moore is trying to convey here is actually the fact and the idea that the society and its people are, normally, being watched, controlled and administered by the government and helped function by the law – our society’s watchmen. But what he puts to the question IS the question – what happens when the government goes awry and when the so called protector of the society is corrupted? Who, then, watches the Watchmen?

Really, a great implementation and a fruitful thought, Mr. Moore.