SnowyMountain (Level 25)

It was an attempt to adapt Grant Morrison's "All Star Superman" comic book series and it sorta worked. The movie is extremely faithful to the original source material but I think the main reason why I didn't like it was because it tried too hard. It compacted as much of the storyline into a little over an hour movie and as a result, it’s a mishmash of the best parts of Morrison’s vision. Basically, it was simply glossed over too much and the movie was over too quickly. The strength of Grant Morrison's comic was that it was longer and it allowed Superman to ponder his approaching mortality. Here, he doesn't really have much time to do so; he's frentically busy fighting various villains and threats while trying to make peace with Lex and confess his love to Lois Lane for the final time. There is simply too much going on and it makes the whole concept of Superman’s impending death that much weaker. He doesn’t seem to be worrying all that much about his doom so it’s hard for the audience to be holding their breath too. The storyline is the biggest flaw of the entire movie; they needed to cut out some of the opponents that Superman had to face and have a little more dramatic time here and there with him confronting his impending death. I also disliked about the sudden big reveal of Solaris the Tyrant Sun as one of the big villains of the movie. If he was so darn important and a key piece of the plot, why is it that he wasn’t even seen before? Not even a brief foreshadowing. It’s like they forgot about Solaris entirely and then they had to hastily add him at the end in order to give Supes a credible threat to face. Other than the short storyline, the animation was brilliant. I question some of the character designs such as the Parasite who looked weirder and grosser than I expected, but for the most part I found that they did a fine job and the special effects of the animation is a treat for the eyes to watch. I found James Denton to be a lackluster Superman, he just lacked the charisma and emotion to project in his performance. And while I missed Clancy Brown voice acting for Lex Luthor, I have to admit that Anthony LaPaglia was a more than adequate replacement; I found myself enjoying his scenes with his rampant megalomania. It was a bit sad because I quite enjoyed the comic version and was looking forward to this adaption and was left rather disappointed. It was good, but it could have been a lot better and it’s far from ALL STAR. I suggest reading the original comic series collection to get a grasp on what you’re missing because I think most people will prefer the comic book version over this. RATING: 2 STARS.

I was rather disappointed with this live action show when I was a kid. It was an odd mix of cheesy special effects and melodrama. None of the actors really impressed me and the plots were on the lame side. One thing that annoyed me was that Spidey didn’t really fight any genuine super-villains and instead fought an array of mad scientists in labcoats, criminal masterminds, and sinister government agents. I kept watching and watching, waiting for the super-villains to pop up ... which they never did. I also thought it was weird as Spidey wore his webshooters and utility belt on the outside of his costume. I'm guessing that they tried to appeal to not just kids but adults as well, but it just didn't really feel like Spider-Man. Aside from the lack of compelling villains and storylines, the special effects were really weak. There was a certain awkwardness when Spidey seemed to do his wall crawling scenes—I assume due to the wire rig or whatever that they used—and he mainly did a lot of running along the tops of buildings. In addition, Spidey rarely ever used his webbing. It looked like a rope when he “shot” his webline or it was a bunch of ropes tied up into a web-like net that someone off-camera threw over his enemies. I suppose for the day and age, it was considered cutting edge but it simply didn’t capture my interest very much as a kid—I actually preferred watching the cartoons which were in my opinion, a lot neater and I could see Spider-Man beating up super-villains alongside Ice Man and Firestar. This stuff is a waste of time for me as a child and I have far more interesting ways to waste my time as an adult. If you’re after nostalgia, I suggest watching one of the Spider-Man cartoon series than this. RATING: 1 STAR.

I will freely admit that I was a bit uncertain about going to see the Amazing Spider-Man movie. First off, the costume wasn’t impressing me. I’m not so much a purist that I demand every single detail in a comic book-based movie has to be perfect, but if they do effect a change—I do demand that it has a good reason; say aesthetically. And frankly, it wasn’t. The costume looked stupid in my opinion. Clearly one of Spider-Man's superpowers is not fashion design or the ability to sew. I was also unsure as to why they were bothering to reboot the franchise. There are several reasons to do so; it’s too old, the series of movies were horrible, the writers wrote themselves into a deep, deep hole… I believed that they would simply be retreading ground that had already been covered by Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man and covered rather well. However, this movie retold Spider-Man’s story by putting him back in his high school days and while I admit that I missed Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), the inclusion of Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) was more than a perfectly acceptable replacement. In fact, I thought Gwen was a much stronger and more interesting character dynamic with her father being a police officer/captain who embraces a stern disdain for vigilantes and Spider-Man in particular. I also liked how the writers focused on Peter Parker’s parents who were barely given a mention in the first series. I was extremely uncertain as to Tobey Maguire’s replacement of Andrew Garfield; but I was pleasantly surprised as I actually thought he portrayed a much better Peter Parker. He was a lot more goofier, geekier, and much more awkward than Maguire and I found his sarcastic wit as Spider-Man to be rather funny and a new cast to the character. Maguire was able to convey being an emotional loner and suitably heroic as Spidey, but he never seemed to be a comedian. The fact that Peter never captured the robber who shot his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) was also a good plot point that it gave Peter motivation towards capturing criminals and ultimately learning how to become a hero. I also found that Sheen was a much more interesting Uncle Ben with a sense of humor as Raimi’s version never really got developed too much before he was killed off. The rest of the storyline was done well enough and the rest of the actors did an excellent job. However the rest of the special effects were only so-so in my opinion. The action scenes of Spidey included a lot more dazzling acrobatics than Raimi’s, but Spider-Man always seemed much more powerful, inhumanly flexible and nimble, and more superhuman than this version did—who appeared much more limited and human. I also felt the character design of the Lizard wasn’t quite menacing enough. The Lizard looked more strange than something scary and monstrous. Plus, I did mention this earlier that I simply did not like Spider-Man’s costume. Basically, the film is entertaining fair, but it won’t shock you or amaze you. RATING: 3 and 1/2 STARS.

I only watched a few episodes, but this series felt like only a half-hearted attempt to bring the Avengers to TV. Even though they called this the Avengers, it sure didn’t seem like it since the Big Three—Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor were conspicuously absent and instead we’re left with a group of second-stringers. The voice actors seemed competent enough, but I wasn’t particularly impressed with either them nor the storylines. Most importantly, the animation all seemed cheap and the character designs were garish at best. Almost all of the Avengers sported their regular costumes and their “battle armor” which screamed rampant commercialism and a ploy to marketing toys. Overall, it wasn’t that great a show and not at all worth watching in my opinion. If you want to watch the Avengers; then see the movie or the new Disney version, Avengers: Earth’s Mightest Heroes. Either of which was far superior to this series because frankly, I couldn’t stand it. RATING: 1/2 STAR.

Don’t get me wrong, the X-Men are a fairly decent team, but I’ve always been more of an Avengers fan so I’ve been incredibly disappointed with the limited offerings. This version is a fairly decent adaptation of the comics to the TV screen. It’s not bad, but I do question some of the character designs; the Wasp's mini-skirt outfit looks a bit goofy and some of the villains definitely could use some tinkering as well. The story arcs are definitely updated versions of the old comics even though a few of the episodes border on the simplistic to the downright odd, which I’m guessing is because they’re designed primarily for children in mind. Nevertheless, there is some adult humor here and there. One thing that I’m glad to see is that the Avengers are fully realized characters in their own right—they each of their own unique personality. But frankly, there seems to be a bit of lack of depth to many of the characters. I do like how they’re slowly expanding the team—it’s not static and that they’ve kept the Hulk as a member. Unfortunately, the show remains still predominantly for children. While I suspect that hardcore fans might enjoy this, most adults would find some of it a bit too childish. I was hoping for something more adult oriented like the recent DC Young Justice series, but this series is a fine offering and far superior to the predecessor series “Avengers: United They Stand”. The animation art looks a bit blocky. The colors are rather simplistic and the shading is rather on the bland side. I do think it could have been improved a bit. The voice actors for the most part proved to be fairly good, I thought that many of them were well chosen for their roles. Overall the series definitely has some flaws and is an excellent for children, but I’m not sure that more mature viewers would care for it. RATING: 3 STARS.

Superhero team movies are often muddled and mixed up. I think it’s because they have not one but multiple stars and trying to satisfy the demands of fans to give everybody a bit of screen time is hard and instead, often one character rises above them all and is the focal point of the whole movie. What was brilliant about the Avengers was that it uses the previous Marvel films from Iron Man 1 and 2, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger as building blocks. We get introduced to the characters, we learn how they came to be and their histories, and each movie is dedicated towards their individual screen time. Yet those movies are also introductory chapters to this finale where it all comes together. Marvel went through a lot of time, effort, and trouble to coordinate all of these movies together and it shows and we, the fans are admirably rewarded for this. I admit that I was leery of going to see the Avengers. I was willing to wait until it came out on DVD; because these days, spending money on a movie ticket is just ridiculous and I was worried that this conclusion would fall flat. Still, I kept hearing all of these rave reviews that finally, I broke down and actually spent money on a ticket. And I am glad that I did—because the Avengers wasn't good ... it was EPIC! All of the previous appearances in their own individual movie chapters enabled that this movie to be really about the Avengers as a team and their interacting with one another rather than just simply one or two members getting introduced to the audience one at a time. I suppose one of the greatest weaknesses of this film is that you need to have seen the various prequels—or at least most of them to grasp what is going on. However, I personally believe that it’s worth it but I am an unabashed superhero fan. But what I felt was the true tipping point for me was the death of Agent Coulson. Coulson has been a HUGE supporting character in so many of the previous films from Iron Man 1 and 2 as well as Thor. He was probably the only character whose death was such a huge personal impact to the various Avengers. His death, sad and tragic though it was, was what brought the team together. The story flows well and the characters all have their own individual parts to play in it; there’s nobody left simply standing off to the side and acting as background filler. The serious moments were balanced by moments of witty humor and frankly all of the actors were spectacular in their roles, particularly Loki (Tom Higgleston) who was even badder and madder than he was in Thor and Robert Downey Jr. was as irreverent and funny as ever with his portrayal of Tony Stark/Iron Man. The various battles were a special effect bonanza and all of the sequences were truly jaw dropping and masterworks of CGI. I found the Avengers to be a great superhero film, filled with style and energy and incredibly satisfying to watch. It was worth the wait. Hollywood needs to pay attention because THIS is how a superhero movie should be made. RATING: 5 STARS!!!!!

While I’m not familiar with the comic book that this film was based upon, I feel sorry that it will forever be saddled with this travesty of a movie. Not to mention that this movie barely utilizes the basic premise of the comic series itself. The plot is confusing at times and it is highly derivative of Casablanca, only sexed up with Pamela Anderson dressed in as little as possible to try and distract you from the rest of the show. The one memorable scene is at the beginning where Pamela Anderson had a dance/shower scene that brought to mind that old Flashdance movie. Other than that, this entire movie is nothing more than a vehicle for Pam and frankly, she lacks the acting ability to carry it on her own and tries to distract us from this glaring flaw with an incredibly tight bodysuit that I was amazed she was able to breathe in, much less walk in. Of course, the rest of the cast aren’t that impressive either with stilted and wooden performances. Other than that, the movie relies on machine guns and explosions and even more explosions to punctuate certain scenes. I think that it’s pretty clear that this movie was created to appeal to young males and their raging hormones with teasing glimpses of Pam. Sorry, Pam—don’t get me wrong—I like mindless violence and sex as much as the next guy—but this film was really pushing the mindlessness of it’s audience. I have far more interesting and funnier ways of destroying brain cells than watching this appalling mess of a film. RATING: 0 STARS.

I remember watching these shows when I was a kid. Of course, even back then I thought some of the stuff was a bit outré and campy. The batarangs, the batropes, the Batmobile, the Batboat and stuff were OK—but when they started naming things like batshark repellent; that bordered on the ridiculous. Not to mention how Robin would always go "Holy --- Batman!" or how Batman would always have some sort of odd gadget that he needed in his utility belt that was just right for the task he needed it for. And the less said about the Batusi dance, the better. But I always got caught up in it because Batman and Robin had to face some sort of odd deathtrap and they had to escape at the beginning of the next episode. That tended to sucker me in, ‘cause I HAD to know how Batman and Robin escaped and if they had managed to survive. Of course, they always did, but it was still a relief when I saw them make it. The primary weakness of this show was that they rather formulaic in that respect. The main thing that prevented me from losing interest was that they rotated the villains that Batman and Robin faced. So like one day, it would be the Joker, the next would be the Penguin, etc., etc. In retrospect, the whole thing was kinda stupid but when you're a kid, you can ignore stuff like that. The actors weren’t the greatest, but clearly they were playing it up towards the kids and that meant overacting and being outrageously straight-faced with the most ridiculous lines at times. I still have fond memories of Adam West (Batman) often going off on some sort of lecture on an eccentric subject or stating about the profound necessity of being a good citizen to Burt Ward (Robin). Amazingly enough, I always thought West was so sincere that I never felt the slightest bit of pomposity or outrageousness from him. And of course, I nursed a huge crush on Yvonne Craig (Batgirl) and deeply regretted the fact that she made so few appearances. The special effects were quite honestly, extremely weak in my opinion. Considering it was made, this was probably the best that they could have done, but it’s still horribly primitive. The fighting scenes looked a bit too theatrical at times, but they still were done rather well and I can’t help but smile whenever I saw those cartoonish splash screens of POW! BIF! WHAM! However no matter how much fond nostalgia that this show brings back to me, I have to say that that would be the sole reason why to watch this show. Honestly though, I wouldn't be caught dead seeing this stuff today. Unfortunately; the plotting, the actors, and even the special effects are simply too simplistic to capture the imagination of today’s kids. But I still remember tuning in at that same Bat-time, at that same Bat-channel for one more thrilling Bat-adventure. Nannannnanna—BAT MAN! RATING: 2 STARS.

Based upon the campy 60's Batman series, I had to admit that this movie had it all. Aside from Adam West and Burt Ward reprising their roles as Batman and Robin, the producers decided for a full on bonanza of super-villains; throwing in the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, and the Riddler into the mix as well as use of the infamous Batmobile but the Batchopper and the Batboat. That was huge to me when I was a kid! The only thing that could possibly have added to the appeal of this movie would have been the presence of Yvonne Craig/Batgirl. To me, this was what a superhero movie should be—something bigger, bolder, and better than the regular television episodes. I don’t ever recall seeing supervillains teaming up before this movie, but I was sold on the fact that four of Batman’s greatest villains forming an alliance majorly ramped up their evilness and the threat they presented to the Caped Crusaders. Yet somehow, all of them all together wasn’t overwhelming either. The screwy psuedo-science of the dehydration weapon aside, I thought this show was fairly entertaining. The actors were cheerfully cheesy and inherently silly, but I’m sure that all of them knew it too. It’s been at least over a decade since I last saw this film, but I can still remember Adam West frantically running around trying to dispose of an explosive in his arms and remarking to the camera, "Somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb." One of the weaknesses of this movie was the special effects. The underwater submarine scenes looked pretty fake to me even as a kid, but even the cartoonish fight scenes and the BIFF! BAM! POW! splashing over the screen still manages to hold up to the test of time to me. I’m not sure that others would agree, but I enjoyed those comic like effects. If nothing else, seeing really old fashioned FX never ceases to amaze me as to how far and advanced the stuff has developed since those days. Personally, this movie gleefully celebrates the campiness of the 1960s Batman series, but that is it’s strength as well with the straight-faced hammy statements, absurb super-science gadgetry, and Bat-themed and labeled tools and devices. It’s mindless entertainment at it’s best and Batman the Movie was pretty good. RATING: 3 STARS.

The 1989 Batman movie was a huge and fantastic revelation for me. After the Superman movies that I had watched as a kid, there hadn’t been that many superhero movies or shows that seized my attention like this movie did. Batman totally blew me away as technology and special effects had finally caught up with the movie industry that they could finally start bringing superheroes to life and actually make them look cool. What truly amazed me was the Batman Suit—he looked like a pure creature of the night and awfully damn menacing in it. The sets were lavish and highly realistic in my opinion, it looked like I had imagined Gotham City to appear; dark, gloomy, grim, gritty, and on the verge of collapse. As far as the plot goes, even though this film was actually titled Batman; in many ways it’s more of the origin and story of the Joker who has a far greater role and impact on Bruce Wayne/Batman’s history than suspected by turning him into the thug who shot Thomas and Martha Wayne in an alley when Bruce Wayne was just a kid turning him into the fearsome creature of the night known as the Batman. The plot was fairly good in my opinion with a simple, straight forward, and easy to understand story. It’s about revenge and good vs. evil. As far as the actors themselves go, I have to say that Kim Bassinger (Vicki Vale) was primarily pure eye candy. Michael Keaton on the other hand wouldn’t have been my first choice for Bruce Wayne/Batman but surprisingly he pulled it off. There was an almost lost and boy-ish quality to his Bruce Wayne that made him seem very vulnerable at times. Yet, he proved to be surprisingly good in the action sequences and his dry and sometimes sarcastic comments as Batman were rather witty. However it was Jack Nicholson (Jack Napier/Joker) who truly left me amazed and disturbed by his portrayal of the whole insane and crazy character. Even when he was being cheerful and laughing, there was such an aura of menace and insanity to him that I found myself wondering if Nicholson was really that awesome an actor and if he really WASN’T nuts. Overall, I had no complaints except for that weird "You ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" quote. It sounds kinda stupid. Otherwise, there was enough action, fight scenes, cool gadgets, and witty repartee for my tastes. I think that this was what Bob Kane intended for Batman to be and forever set the standard of what each Batman movie or show would have to meet or exceed. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

What happened? After the utterly brilliant and amazing original film, I went in with eager anticipation and was utterly taken aback with Batman Returns. I have to say that the entire film from the plot, the actors, and even the special effects were disappointing to me. I have to question just what the heck were they thinking with that whole dumping the baby sequence in the opening. I admit that I’m not that much for horror, but I also thought that there would be a lot of kids watching this stuff and it was incredibly graphic and disturbing for me—I really question how a child would react to this. Not to mention, they tried to do it with the Penguin and transforming him into some sort of bizarre animalistic predator. I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t buy it. If they had been trying to do it with Killer Croc, then I might have bought it. Penguins on the other hand are cuter and I found the scenes with his “army of penguins” to be more laughable and weird than threatening. Catwoman was handled somewhat better. Sure, her origin left me feeling somewhat underwhelmed—she is “killed” and reborn … as a cat? Michelle Pfeiffer tries but she just didn’t convince me that she was as dangerous or disturbed as Jack Nicholson did as the Joker in the previous film. Heck, they had TWO villains and neither of them together couldn’t ramp up the menace factor to Nicholson’s performance. As far as the other actors, I have to say that Michael Keaton gave a rather dismal performance. On the other hand, I have to admit that he really didn’t have that much to work with. Even though this movie was SUPPOSED to be about Batman, Burton seemed to delight more in examining and dissecting his movie creations of the Penguin and Catwoman with Batman given an almost secondary role in his own movie. Danny De Vito was a truly horrifying and disgusting creature as the Penguin. But he didn’t so much as terrify you and he grosses you out. I found him a more pitiful creature than scary. As far as special effects go, I found it disappointing with the splitting apart Batmobile to be a rather silly maneuver. None of the other effects were really amazing and I also noticed that Tim Burton seemed to REALLY favor black and white. I mean, it was EVERYWHERE! White and shades of dark black, lighter black, greyish-black, and regular black. It was just overwhelming. I mean c’mon! There are other colors in the palette than this! The plot was genuinely confusing and disjointing. I found the climax to be utterly unsatisfying as well. Batman’s suit is bulletproof yet Bruce Wayne can just rip off the mask? I think that Burton tried to be too artistic and creative when we want to see action and adventure, maybe a little sexy comedy and witty repartee like the previous film. This movie just failed on so many levels to me. RATING: 1 STAR.

Personally, I was appalled with this movie. Is this what they have reduced Batman to? A guy with these gigantic rubber nipples? At least with the previous Batman movies were dark and moody. This movie however couldn’t decide between dark and moody or humorous quips and anecdotes. Frankly, there is too much going on the storyline to keep track of all of it. We got Two Face killing off Dick Grayson’s parents and Dick becoming Robin, plus the Riddler’s elaborate scheme to drain people’s IQ, and Batman flirting with a psychologist while trying to attract her attention as plain old Bruce Wayne. No, you cannot keep everything straight and this movie doesn’t seem to even try. I will say that I did like that the fact that this movie did try to explore a bit more about Batman’s history and motivations, but like the previous versions, Batman Forever seemed to be more about his costumed supervillains rather than the big guy himself. They should have dropped one villain and maybe focused the movie on him instead of trying to make it a double act in my opinion since they were also trying to shoehorn Robin’s origin movie debut in as well. Both Tommy Lee Jones (Two Face) and Jim Carrey (Riddler) tried, but neither really failed to convince me that they were deadly super villains. Jones is simply too over the top—relying on screaming really, really loud to portray insanity. He seems to be almost sleepwalking through his role, it’s practically a copy of his previous performance as the terrorist in Under Siege. Carrey attempts to be sinister, but frankly he was more goofy than anything else prancing around like a loony made him seem gay rather than menacing. I said it in the previous film, but TWO of these guys simply can’t equal the one Jack Nicholson’s Joker in the first film. Plus, at least the Penguin and Catwoman had some adequate background story behind their motivations as villains. We’re never really given an explanation for Two Face other than “I want revenge,” and Riddler is “I want to be rich and popular. Oh and I want your brains too.” Separately, they were pretty bad but when Jones and Carrey combine forces, they start overcompensating and ascend into all new levels of sheer moronic idiocy and bad acting. Chris O’Donnell was also totally unbelievable as Robin the BOY Wonder. I’m sorry, but he’s just too old for the role. They should have made Robin a bit younger and not as an adult. Not a child but maybe a teenager at the very most. O’Donnell’s relationship with Batman didn’t feel like surrogate father and adoptive son but really creepy as they both seemed about the same age and not brotherly either. Not to mention that O’Donnell seemed to seesaw between irresponsible and immature child; supremely confident and talented athlete; and vengeful, angst-laden adult. I’ve heard of mood swings, but O’Donnell seemed more of a mood yo-yo. Frankly, Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman were the bright spot in this entire movie. Kilmer was not only a more than adequate replacement for Michael Keaton, but he was surprisingly able to portray Batman’s tortured soul along with suitable action abilities. His onscreen relationship with Kidman was a lot more believable and funnier with her over the top, throwing herself at Batman rather than Kim Bassinger or Michelle Pfeiffer whose on-screen romances with Batman seemed rather tepid and lukewarm in comparison. Unfortunately there was too little of their screen time in favor of Carrey and O'Donnell. The special effects bordered on horrible to incredibly lame. They had glow in the dark costumes and fluorescent and neon light effects for crying out loud which totally destroyed the gloomy Gotham City-scape effect that they had created in the last two films. Oh and I positively HATED the redesigned Batmobile. The real reason that they titled this Batman Forever was that it seemed that it would NEVER end. I’m told that kids loved it and I suppose that it might appeal to them, but for me—I was left unfulfilled and shocked at what they had transmogrified Batman into. Of course, silly me I thought it was the worst Batman film made. Until they made the fourth one at least. RATING: 1/2 STAR.

This movie was the ABSOLUTELY WORST of the Schumacher Batman series and while the last two films were fairly bad, this one well and truly tanked. Had they kept to the basic script of Batman vs. Mr. Freeze with the subplot of Alfred slowly dying, then it might have been a fairly decent one but they had to add all sorts of these bits and pieces that didn’t really go anywhere, didn’t add to the movie, and only increased the confusion and incoherency. There is simply too much going on; Schumacher adds in far too many characters and we get sidetracked with their personal storylines. Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) and Bane (Robert Swenson) seemed almost like an afterthought to the movie, like an attempt to build up the quotient of villainy as did the presence of Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) to boost the flagging Robin (Chris O’Donnell) and Batman (George Clooney). In addition, the vast majority of the actors were simply terrible in their roles. George Clooney simply did not come off as a tortured soul but slightly sardonic with that half smirk he has on his face. His predecessors of Val Kilmer and Michael Keaton far surpassed his performance. Uma Thurman was great to look at, but she really lacked the menace to intimidate me and combined with her ridiculous hairstyle, I just could not take her seriously. Ditto for Alicia Silverstone; she’s pretty but there wasn’t much to her appearances. Chris O’Donnell surprisingly wasn’t actually too bad in this performance unlike his previous outing. And I have to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze wasn’t completely horrible. He was actually better than the previous Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and Riddler (Jim Carrey). He wasn’t that over the top and his intimidating bulk ramps up his menace factor. What killed him was the makeup that he wore just wasn’t that convincing and the lame cold puns that he peppered his dialogue with made me wince. The special effects were a broad mix. There were bits that I thought were fairly well done, but the vast majority of them and the sets felt so damn cheap looking with the fluorescent chemicals, glowing smoke, and stupid looking icicles that I would swear that a five year old could fashion (and probably look better too). In addition, the fight sequences were some of the dumbest that I had ever seen and were clunky and clumsy that I felt embarrassed watching. The costumes were appalling as well, particularly the final versions which added bits of silver to them. I think the worst part was when they revealed the retractable ice skates in the Batman and Robin costumes and I could barely contain a groan. At least with Tim Burton, I felt that he spent a lot of effort crafting the scenery and costumes. I didn’t always applaud how they looked, but I always felt he WORKED at it. Here, it just feels like they spent as little time and effort throwing up cheap looking sets and outfits. All in all, it was a lousy movie. I felt ashamed having just watched it and I curse Schumacher for this awful flick. RATING: 0 STARS.

It’s been a long journey for superheroes to come to the animated screen. When they do, they’re often trivialized, santized, and a term that I use often, “kid-ified” in that the sharp and hard edges of superheroes are sanded off and rendered harmless and impotent. It is probably what continues their reputation as comic book superheroes are merely for children and their ilk and what we, the adult fans have to live down. While I have made biting remarks about Bruce Timm in the past and undoubtedly in the future; I will admit without reservation that his vision on Batman: TAS was definitely a change from what superheroes once were. His gothic background designs were eye opening as were his character designs of the hugely muscular, over-developed upper body was something that fans had never seen before. All and all, this series was perhaps the most faithful and best animated adaptations of the Dark Knight ever seen. And it did it by taking the character seriously; not trivializing him, not making him a joke or a Boy Scout dressed up in a funny suit, but giving him real emotions of being a tortured and driven soul. He fought, he bled, and he even got hurt. I still get chills when I remember the episode “Nothing To Fear” where Batman bellows, “I am Vengeance. I am the Night! I—AM—BATMAN!” His array of enemies weren’t one-dimensional characters but often people who had been deeply wounded psychologically such as Mr. Freeze, who I thought was one of the best reinterpretations of the character I had ever seen and were to be more pitied than despised. The voice actors for Batman: TAS were definitely spectacular at their job and the music was moody and rich. In addition, the animation was high quality as was the storytelling. It had a huge impact; influencing The New Batman & Robin Adventures, Superman: TAS, Batman Beyond, and the Justice League animated series afterwards. Which I think was one of the biggest mistakes that they did for these series as they were trying to ape and imitate the original and didn’t do it quite as well in those areas of storytelling, animation, and music just weren't quite as the same quality as Batman: TAS. They just don’t make ‘em like this anymore. Pity too otherwise I would be watching it. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

Many people seem to scorn animation as being inferior or something purely for children—my parents included. Well, to them I offer up the live action Batman movies in the 1990s and then suggest for comparison that they see Mask of the Phantasm. In my opinion, Mask of the Phantasm is one of the very best Batman films and quite frankly only Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins dares to surpass it. I will say that it is probably one of the best Batman animated films that I have seen; only the Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Subzero come close. I thought that it captured the quintessential essence of Batman; a hero who battles crime on its own shadowy terrain, a Dark Knight whose visage makes criminals cower and superstitious. I particularly liked the romantic subplot that it offers. I don’t mind the romantic distraction, but rarely is it as well done as this film does it and it only reminds me that there is also a Man inside of the Bat. The animation is superb, the voice actors were great in their roles, and the storyline is a definite cut above. There is violence here and death not to mention a bitter lesson about vengeance and its cost. Even though his motivations were begat in vengeance, Batman became something much more. He is a defender of the innocent, a protector of the helpless, and most of all; a savior. Whereas Andrea Beaumount/Phantasm never learned that. It brings to mind a Chinese quote; “He who seeks vengeance must first dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself.” It’s damn good entertainment. I’ve had people mock that it was an animated film and then watch it intently and admit that they had totally forgotten that it was a cartoon afterwards. It’s simply that good and I think will be considered a classic staple of Batman’s adventures—even if it is animation. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

It’s a pity that the live-action Batman & Robin movie of this era didn’t take a few cues from this animated movie as it was far superior and probably helped redeem Mr. Freeze as a legitimate villain compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s portrayal of the character. Sure, Arnie looked physically imposing enough, but the lame cold puns that he constantly used had me groaning while watching it. Basically, Batman & Mr. Freeze: Subzero is what the live-action movie should have been like. The animated Mr. Freeze was far superior in terms of menace; possessing a ruthless streak and was pardon the pun, incredibly cold-blooded yet he also had a bit of a sympathetic side to him as you realize that he isn’t a sadist like the Joker or someone who deliberately chose to become a villain. But what set this animated feature apart was that it had a solid storyline which dovetailed nicely from where the history of the Batman: The Animated Series left the character off and continued onto a nicely logical path which saw his return to Gotham City and thus encountering Batman as an enemy once more. I also liked how Robin was given a larger role than his previous outings in the TAS series and even Batgirl played a big role in the movie being the unfortunate damsel in distress. Otherwise, the voice actors were all tremendously talented and gave excellent performances and the animation is top notch as the character designs followed in the original TAS rather than the simpler New Batman Adventures which were pathetic in comparison. The action sequences were outstanding as well. In terms of overall quality, I have to say that Mask of the Phantasm still holds a slight edge over this film at least in the story, but the emotions that this movie stirred was even better. This was a great animated film that deserves watching. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

Although this film can’t quite match the previous animated Batman movies particularly Mask of the Phantasm, it’s still one of the finer ones in my opinion compared to the 1990s live action travesties. What I particularly liked about this movie was that it is an original story and characters; not simply rehashing what has gone on before. It struck me as one of the most intriguing ideas as we get to see Batman facing a female version of himself; yet much more dangerous with a take no prisoners mentality. Yet Batwoman also embraces utilizing his symbol, which takes on a much more personal feeling in Batman. Is it mockery or tribute? He’s not sure and I think neither are the viewers. However, the thing that impressed me the most about this movie was how the filmmakers deliberately made the identity of Batwoman into a mystery; throwing clues, creating red herrings to throw us off by introducing three women who all seem to have equal possibilities in being the Batwoman. It keeps the audience on their toes and the twist that Batwoman is actually an identity shared by all three women answers how it seems how all of them seemed to be Batwoman and yet none of them could be at the same time. It’s a great twist, one worthy of the storyteller Alan Burnett. Aside from the solid storyline, the animation wasn’t that bad. Even though the character designs are mostly from the New Batman Adventures, the lighting is much brighter and lively which is one of the biggest complaints I have about that series. I believe that that dim and dark look was an attempt to make the series more moody and dramatic but it fails and gives it a depressing air. Otherwise, the animation wasn’t quite matching the quality of the original Batman: The Animated Series but it came fairly close. The voice actors were fairly good with suitably excellent performances by Kevin Conroy returning as Batman along with Kyra Sedgwick (Batwoman). I wasn’t as happy with some of the other voice actors whom I felt was a bit weaker in their performances such as David Ogden Stiers (Penguin) and I didn’t particularly like the “Betcha Neva” theme song in the movie. Despite its flaws and weaknesses, I found this movie definitely worth watching with a strong story. If you like the Caped Crusader, it is eminently watchable. RATING: 3 STARS.

They proclaimed that this was the successor to the original Batman: The Animated Series but I was horrified at it. I only watched a few of these episodes but I thought that it was bleak and depressing. Not only that but they clearly were trying to expand the Bat-verse as it were with the inclusion of the Creeper, Superman, or Supergirl every so often in a team-up and having them crossover into each other series. The episodes were not only shorter but the storyline been radically altered with Batman seemed to have had a pole implanted up his rear with any sort of humor or empathy had been surgically removed. Sure, his previous incarnation in the Batman: TAS wasn’t Adam West, but he showed emotions. He cared, he felt sorry for people, and he actually smiled a bit. In this version, he’s like this cold, unfeeling, and condescending jerk. Nightwing acts like a complete jackass most of the time and I had no idea what Batgirl and the new Robin did except waste screen time. In addition, the quality of the animation had been severely degraded as well. The backgrounds looked simplified and cheap plus there was little to no attempts to make it appear realistic and little in the way of shading. I mean it was like the animators had forgotten to spent money for other colors than black, red, and grey. Even the occasional green color looked faded and washed out. And for some reason, they seemed to really favored red skies in Gotham. That’s right. Red. I guess that they thought that blue was too nice or something. The action sequences were simplified and sketchy in my opinion. Not to mention that I felt the alterations to the general design of a number of characters was definitely not an improvement. Commissioner Gordon looks old and not vigorous but like sickly. The Joker lost his red lips, his eyes became black, and there is subtle paleness to his entire form that gave him a strange look. Nightwing was sporting a mullet and Batman’s costume looked like it didn’t fit too well unlike the sleek appearance he sported in the previous version. About the one thing that was decent were the voice actors but that was all. The startling change from Batman: TAS and the New Adventures was horribly disappointing. It felt like someone had snuck into my home and rearranged things to make things look worse. It just didn’t feel at all consistent with the previous TAS series. I have to say that I just can’t recommend watching this inferior series over the previous and far superior TAS. RATING: 1 and 1/2 STARS.

About the only thing that this movie had going for it was the fact that Batman and Superman finally got teamed up (in their animated incarnations) but it was rather lackluster in just about everything else. Apparently, this wasn’t actually a movie but a stitched together group of cartoon episodes from the New Batman Adventures and Superman series. This probably explains the glaring weaknesses that I noticed. First, I found the character designs to be horrible. I have mentioned it before but I just did NOT like their redesign of the Joker to remove his lips and turning his eyes into pure black just made him look strange and not creepy strange. Basically, they turned the frightening clown’s face of the Joker into somebody who looks like he forgot to put on half of his makeup for the day. The rest of the characters were otherwise decent enough, though I still preferred Batman’s previous outfit as fitting him better. It’s more of a matter of style than anything, but while some might like it, I had the impression that Bruce Wayne is suffering from the recession and has to cut back on extravagances like good tailoring and is just making do with second-hand stuff. I also found that the animation was not movie quality and it unfortunately shows. I was never really impressed with the cartoon animation that the Superman and New Batman Adventures possessed; while they might be adequate, they just weren’t that outstanding. Speaking as someone who has clear and vivid memories of the original Batman: The Animated Series, I couldn’t help but feel that the quality of the animation had been severely downgraded. It felt like they were skimping on the animation to save money and their cheapness is apparent. Particularly when my expectations of quality is higher and more demanding when they give the label of “movie” in the title, this show doesn’t quite match up. The animation is decent, but nothing that will thrill or amaze you frankly. I also have to say that the omnipresent darkness for the movie didn’t really appeal to me. I’m not saying that the entire cartoon has to have bright and sunny and primary colors in every single scene, but it wouldn’t kill them either to break up the monotony of dull dark colors. It felt that they were shooting the entire movie in a gloomy studio. The voice actors were one of the few bright spots with Clancy Brown (Lex Luthor), Tim Daly (Superman), and Kevin Conroy (Batman) as being excellent in their roles but I do have to say that Mark Hamil (Joker) was truly one of the greats. Like Jack Nicholson in the 1989 Batman, he continues to define his performance as the Clown Prince of Crime, it’s just a pity that the material isn’t quite up to matching his performance. Finally, the worst part of this movie was the storyline. Frankly, the plot was transparent and feeble in how the Joker decides to kill Superman for a billion dollars. Why? He’s low on cash so he decides to earn some quick moola by killing off the most powerful being on the planet. And naturally Bats has to pursue his arch-nemesis and teams up with Supey. The interaction between these two are some of the weakest and most clumsy that I have ever seen. Plus, the whole bit of the pair figuring out each other’s identity was dumb. Superman resorts to the cheap “I peeked with X-Ray vision” and Batman sticks a tracer on Superman’s cape. Wow. I mean, that was it. In a previous version of their meeting in the comics; Superman tried that X-Ray Vision Trick and found out that Batman was so damn smart, he had already prelined his cowl with lead and Batman deduced Superman’s secret identity through sheer brainwork. Of course, Superman returned the favor by admitting that as a journalist, he had to do some deductive reasoning himself at times and figured out that Bruce Wayne was Bats. They couldn’t do something like that? I swear, it’s like the writers of this movie weren’t even trying. There are some funny moments, usually with the Joker and Harley Quinn and with Batman and Superman’s interactions but they just weren’t enough to carry the rest of the movie on it’s own. The action sequences were only moderately entertaining, even the catfight between Harley and Mercy (Lex’s female assistant) barely garnered a brief chuckle. Basically, this entire movie felt tired and a rather poor attempt to finally crossover DC’s best properties of Batman and Superman and so they could start interacting into one broader and bigger universe. I would have thought that they would tried harder, but it’s they couldn’t be bothered to actually put any time or effort into doing it, it’s sadly average; not particularly bad but not particularly good either. RATING: 2 STARS.

The Batman was like a breath of fresh air after being forced to endure the decade-long reign and stratification of Bruce Timm’s continuity from the Batman: The Animated Series, Superman, the New Batman Adventures, Batman Beyond, and the Justice League. Instead of being forced to work inside the box built by Timm, the animators and writers cheerfully busted it open by recreating, redesigning, and rewriting The Batman for a new audience and it worked. Well, for a while at least. Frankly, I enjoyed the first two seasons of the Batman the most; I felt that they had plateaued around mid-way through the third season. The introduction of Barbara Gordon/Batgirl was the start of the rapid-slide downward of the series towards it becoming kid-ified. Instead of cutting edge and gloomy, the series began to become more family-oriented and comedy-based until I wasn’t sure why they were still calling this show “The Batman” when it seemed more like “The Batman and his Super-Friends”. I also disliked the abrupt disappearance of Detective Ellen Yin from the third season as I felt she was a much stronger character than Commissioner Gordon as she was an interesting foil to Batman. Instead, we got Barbara Gordon who I felt was good, but should have been regulated to an occasional guest spot rather than a main recurring character as she just wasn’t the same level as Yin. I thought one of the strongest and most interesting points to this series was that Batman was a vigilante and wasn’t considered an ally to Gotham PD yet. Having him forced to work in the shadows, fleeing from the cops, and an enigma to the public at large was a definite change from his previous semi-official status. The character designs were definitely innovative; I enjoyed the redesign of the Joker, Mister Freeze, and the Riddler as quite interesting interpretations of the characters. The animation was also an interesting change from Bruce Timm’s style. The characters’ movements were more fluid and graceful in my opinion and more realistic. The voice actors were extremely good, particularly the villains such as the Joker (Kevin Michael Richardson) was a suitably menacing actor, shifting between playful and growling malevolence as well as Killer Croc (Ron Perlman). All and all, the series was a nice change from the previous animated incarnations of the Batman. It’s entertaining enough, although as I have stated in my opinion; the best portion was in the first two seasons and about halfway through the third but the rest of the seasons managed to keep things engaging without being too boring. RATING: 3 STARS (4 STARS!!!! for Seasons 1 & 2).

Batman vs. Dracula sounds like it should be the movie of the century. Like King Kong vs. Godzilla, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, and what not. They got the Dark Knight—a normal guy who dresses like a bat up against the actual living (or unliving) bloodsucking legend who actually is a bat. However this movie is far from the epic battle that I went in expecting to see. The animation was based on the recent “The Batman” series and is top notch with its heavily anime-based influence. The voice actors were great and there are moments of witty humor here and there. However, it’s the storyline where this movie completely falls apart. It’s not only very predictable—it’s basically the same plot from Bram Stoker’s version; even to how Dracula uses a thrall slave in the Penguin àla Renfield and Dracula kidnapping Batman’s girlfriend. And while Batman is just too physically outmatched against Dracula, I found that his whole techno-gadgetry was a bit much in being to out-tech Dracula to victory. It just felt a little disappointing that Bats had to resort to such measures to defeat old Vlad. I wasn’t expecting Batman to be able to win against Dracula physically, but I wasn’t expecting him to thrash Bats around like he was an amateur and give a much better accounting of himself. If the producers wanted to have been a lot bolder, they could have actually had Bats being forced to turn himself into a vampire like in the Elseworlds Batman: Red Rain to fight Dracula on an even field. Maybe even have the ending where Bats is considering staying a vampire permanently due to the strength and power he would possess and being able to protect and defend Gotham forever with a vampire’s immortality before finally deciding to have his vampirism cured. But they chickened out and went for the almost standard Dracula story with a bit of Batman stuck in the role of Johnathan Harker and Vicki Vale standing in for Mina Harker. No, this movie isn’t the epic spectacle that I was expecting and you shouldn’t either. RATING: 1 STAR.

It’s clear that the filmmakers realized that another failure of the Batman movie would not be tolerated and so they crafted this film with great care. The results speak for themselves as this was easily the best Batman live action film since Michael Keaton first donned the cowl back in 1989, this movie was a reboot of the entire series and injected some badly needed blood into the hemorrhaging movie franchise that I personally lay the blame with Joel Schumacher. Batman Begins does it by taking the character seriously and by exploring Bruce Wayne’s childhood beginning with his fascination and fear of bats when he fell into a cavern and was scared to death by them—to the death of his parents that ultimately drove him into the becoming the Batman. It also showed how he began developing and evolving into the mythic legend known as the Batman with a fantastic storyline and plot. Perhaps the most creative bits that this film added however was the Tumbler and the gliding capabilities of the new Batsuit. I have to say that the entire gallery of actors in the movie were superb and I was deeply impressed with Christian Bale who portrayed Batman, Michael Caine as Alfred, and Liam Neeson as Ra’s al Ghul the most. One of the few complaints, is that I thought Bale’s voice as Batman sounded a bit more hoarse and a bit difficult to understand than menacing but that’s minor. The special effects were outstanding, ingenious, and remarkably inventive. I particularly was enthralled with the Tumbler ploughing through cop cars and leaping from rooftops not to mention how Batman summons a swarm of bats with an electronic signaling device. There are no goofy villains, campy bat-gadgets, and ridiculous death traps. No, this was Batman at his core. Human, yes—but something much more. Batman is back, badder and better than he ever was before. Thank God, they finally got it right. RATING: 4 and 1/2 STARS!!!!

I found this TV series as being boldly innovative and yet ridiculously campy. It’s like they decided to animate the 1960s Adam West Batman who was like an oversized Boy Scout with a fixation of carrying odd Bat-gadget in his utility belt that was perfectly suited for whatever opponent or situation or fix he was in. How he managed to fit everything in that belt was another mystery. Some might believe that this was a great series, but frankly I think was sophomoric. It was this sort of one-dimensional and unbelievable garbage that nearly destroyed Batman—why would the studios think to resurrect it? There are other ways to make Batman kid friendly without making him a cheesy goofball. On the other hand, I had to admit that I did applaud how the animators decided to go with teaming Batman up with the lesser known heroes of the DC Universe. Blue Beetle, Green Arrow, the Metal Men, and Plastic Man were either ignored or greatly underutilized characters in the previous series over such heavily over-utilized Wonder Woman and Superman as they usually do. In addition, they chose mainly the lesser known villains for Batman to face as well, which I think helped broaden the DC-verse. Overall however, this show had little to redeem itself. The animation was deliberately retro, to parody the era that this series was intended to be a homage to. But it simply didn’t impress me with it’s blockiness, thick lines, and otherwise limited color palette. Also, the voice actors were dull, dry, and deliberately ironic in their lines. I doubt that this series would be entertaining for anyone over 5 years old. It’s that stupid. It’s tragic because the few positives simply could not rescue the concept that this show gleefully celebrated the goofy wackiness of the Silver Age of Batman, which was an era that I thought was better left forgotten. I could see a single episode dedicated towards this period—but not an entire series. RATING: 2 STARS.

This is a collection of animated stories featuring Batman with a rather strong anime influence, which makes sense considering that each story segment was done by a separate Japanese anime production company. But there is an appalling lack of cohesion and we get so many different and disjointed interpretations of Batman himself. The first (and in my opinion, the best) story segment was “Have I Got a Story For You” was an interesting look at how a group of kids saw Gotham City’s extraordinary and enigmatic protector and each got three very different viewpoints that they interpreted. One saw him as a strange creature of the night; another as a high-tech warrior; and the third as a supernatural shadowy demon. However, I also felt that the animation was one of the poorer and least well done of the sextet of animation shorts as well. This introduction basically felt like a summary of the whole movie; a bunch of writers have come and presented to each of us their own separate views of Batman and they don’t really fit with one another all too well. I think that each story might stand better on its own because none of the stories seem to mesh too well with the others; even the basic visual medium and character designs are different from each story to each story. We are barraged with an anthology of stories that all seem to feature Batman and his adventures but it gets simply a bit too repetitive and confusing about halfway through this movie. Probably because we have a hard time believing that this is one separate character and not six separate ones as they seem so all over the map and so different at times. Even though DC claimed that it was six interlocking stories, I didn’t get that impression. The connection between each story is so vague and so tenuous, that there didn’t seem to be any kind of connecting thread to them at all. Unlike the Green Lantern: Emerald Knights anthology, this movie lacked an interlocking theme and the different animation styles also didn’t help either. Or they should have broken it up with a more humorous or comedic piece in the middle. Like in Emerald Knights, they should have had a few stories that didn’t deliberately focus solely on Batman but rather the world he inhabits or Gotham City itself. One of those short stories, “Cross Fire” did just that by focusing on a pair of Gotham City cops who discuss whether or not Batman really helps or hurts Gotham and he’s not present until the very end. But that’s the only one. I thought that they should have had something maybe one story segment about the Joker since he was going to be in the Dark Knight movie, maybe as simple foreshadowing at the very least. Instead, we get story after story about Batman. We get one where he is field testing a high-tech magnetic shield and yet another which shows us his training to ignore pain; and in between he also fights a fear inducing psychopath and a master assassin. And the last two don’t really have any sort of drama or character development in my opinion and are simply there to make Batman look as sleek and badass as possible and they did have some of the better animation pieces compared to the rest. Gotham Knight is a celebration of Batman but it’s simply too wildly interpretative in my opinion. As I mentioned before some of the stories are very good in quality while others are sadly lacking; some of them are wildly imaginative of Batman; others are exceptionally excellent in terms of animation and special effects. But none of them have all of those qualities all together. To me, I felt that I was left to decide how each segment was going to let me down. One of the few unifying themes was that they actually decided to have the same voice actor, Kevin Conroy as Batman throughout the separate story segments. Thankfully because even they must have thought it would be just too confusing for the viewers; but also Conroy continues to be one of the best voices of Batman that I have heard and his portrayal continues to be excellent. But I simply could not stand the shoddy unevenness of this film. It’s just too all over the map for my tastes, it just felt as though DC wasn’t really trying to make a good Batman feature but felt obligated to try and boost awareness of the forthcoming Dark Knight film. RATING: 1 STAR.

Personally, I thought that the Red Hood was a terrible concept in the comics and it shows even in the animated version. Dick Grayson suffered from the fact that he was effectively trapped as the kid sidekick of Batman. He lasted for many years but eventually, the editors decided that he had to "grow" up so to speak. They evolved him into Nightwing, a character of his own right and created a new Robin in the form of Jason Todd. But it seemed like nobody really liked Jason so they had the Joker kill him off. That was one of the most powerful and epic scenes in comic book history; I was a kid at the time but I still remember the scene of Batman cradling Todd’s body and truly kicked up the Joker’s reputation. He wasn’t a clown or a goofball anymore. Todd remained deceased for many years and then in a fit of writer stupidity, they decided to resurrect him. A part of Batman’s history, a vital piece to his mythos was altered which seems like it invalidates DECADES of comic book stories that they have based on this event. Not only that but I hated the Red Hood storyline as he quickly seemed to devolve into not a real super criminal or menace, but a spoiled kid who was throwing a tantrum and trying to get daddy's (Batman) attention. Like so many comic adaptation Batman: Under The Red Hood suffers from a compacted plot. The dramatic build-up and the mystery of who the enigmatic character was is totally missing. Plus, the third Robin (Tim Drake) is conspicuously absent and other characters like Ra's Al Ghul are acting distinctly out of character with his decision to resurrect Jason. In a way, I can understand it as they couldn’t use the insane Superboy-Prime punching the universal walls and causing a space-time ripple that resurrected Todd (the dumbest comic book-physics explanations I ever heard by the way). I actually thought using Al Ghul wasn’t a terrible idea (in fact it was the better than the comic book version); but I thought it would have been better had Al Ghul had used Todd in a complicated revenge scheme such as resurrecting him and THEN brainwashing him to use him against Batman. Although it does suffer from a lousy plot, there are some of the scenes that were not bad such as the Red Hood's confrontation against the Joker where he reenacts his beating on the Joker and Batman's revelation that he desperately wanted to kill the Joker but fights to save his life because he fears what he could become if he ever gave into that temptation. Otherwise, the animation is excellent and the voice actors definitely deliver particularly John DiMaggio as the Joker but this movie suffers from a shoddy concept that I still can't believe. The movie delights in physical action stunts, explosions, as well as witty one-liners which is a vain attempt to distract us from the lack of a decent plotline. With all of his weaponry and ability, I found myself frowning when the Red Hood manipulates Black Mask into breaking out the Joker from Arkham Asylum. Why? Why did he need to do that? He was busy? He was lazy? I found myself enjoying the mindless bits as well as the aforementioned scenes of the Joker getting crowbarred and Batman barring his soul, but the rest of the movie simply doesn’t follow through. It’s a weak film and a letdown from such previous Batman animated films like Mask of the Phantasm and Subzero which I suggest you see if you want an animated Batman movie done right instead of this mess. RATING: 2 STARS.

This was a fairly straight forward adaptation of the classic Frank Miller "Batman: Year One" to movie format. Frankly, it was one of the best and most faithful DC adaptations that I've seen yet and it didn't deviate too much from the original source material. It didn't try to improve on it, didn't try to add details, or alter things; which was smart as sometimes these adaptations don't work out too well. The animation was extremely well done and the characters looked real—which aided in the plot itself was well grounded in realism. There were no flashy superpowers, no strange aliens, and no eccentric and bizarre supervillains. This was almost a pure crime drama—if you discount the fact that one of the characters dresses up in as a flying rodent—you might mistake this for the real world. I loved that the director took care to maintain the story parallels between Jim Gordon and the Batman; with both of them struggling to find themselves in Gotham City. It’s easier to see how such an alliance and a friendship have developed between such two different characters as an officer of the law and a vigilante. Batman is particularly fascinating as we see him as a newbie, someone who has the training but hasn’t quite made the transition towards using those skills in the “real world”. All too often, Batman is a total infallible badass. Here, he is far more mortal and imperfect where he makes mistakes and lapses of judgment. The one complaint that I had was with the actor who did Batman's voice. It was like all he knew was one tone, it was deep and masculine enough; but he barely seemed to react when he was talking normally or just been shot. Basically I got the impression that he was more or less just reading lines off the page. Jim Gordon's narration on the other hand was much more emotional and human—I could feel the doubts, the fears, and even the anger he had during his scenes that I just couldn't get from Batman. Overall, the rest of the film holds up on its own. It's a definitive look at how Batman began and how he emerged as a hero and crimefighter. Definitely worth watching. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

Ben 10 was a great cartoon series that I think appeals to all ages. Even though it’s geared for children causing me to ignore it for most of it’s run, I found myself watching an episode on TV as I couldn’t find anything better on and then watching the next episode with some interest. The concept seems ridiculous, but it is a fresh and exciting retake on an old and proven concept. Much like Billy Batson of Captain Marvel and Shazam! fame, a young boy is granted incredible powers and abilities. But Ben transforms into a multitude of aliens with different bodies, powers, and attributes with super-alien science rather than magic. What I truly enjoyed about the series was that Ben Tennyson is clearly a kid; he’s a cocky smart aleck whom ordinarily, would be the LAST person you would want to have given an item of incredible destructive power. And he proves it. Repeatedly. He shows abominable judgment, he abuses it for his own amusement, and shows very little control over it. And yet … Ben 10 is much more than that. Despite all of his failings, he demonstrates that he is honest and noble and kind and resourceful when the chips are down. Yeah, he’s a kid—but he’s also clearly a hero. His supporting cast is no less stellar; the annoyingly bossy cousin and a kindly but eccentric grandfather. Even the villains that he faces are pretty good as well, having a certain level of menace and evilness to them. The voice actors are terrific in their roles; extremely believable, realistic, and personable. The animation is pretty good and the cast of aliens that Ben transforms into and faces are all extremely well-thought out and terrific. But what truly makes this cartoon series stand out is the storyline which has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. For me, I thought it was a Ten out of Ten. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

Like so many sequels, this one was definitely not in the same caliber of the original. I personally liked the first Ben 10 animated series the best while this one felt a bit uninspired and forced to me. The main issue that I had was that Ben 10 was very much a kid in the first series; an immature arrogant brat but a likeable one who every now and then, showed his inner qualities as a true hero. He grew up and grew kinda boring in the sequels in my opinion. Alien Force also suffers from the fact that the quality of the storylines and animation seem to definitely go downhill from the first series. As I mentioned earlier, Ben seemed to grow up in the later series—but he also became a bit boring, lacking the same enthusiasm and vigor that I so enjoyed seeing in him in the first series. In addition, I didn’t like the group of aliens that he turned into as much as the first batch. I didn't think that they put as much thought or care into the creation of this grouping of aliens. In addition, the sudden revelation that Ben (and his cousin Gwen) were part-alien felt like a weird twist to me and one not that well thought out as well. The addition of the other Plumber kids were hybrids felt like a dumb and fairly odd direction in the storylines too. Ultimately, this series caused me to stop watching the show entirely. RATING: 2 and 1/2 STARS.

I admit that I missed this rather unique gem when it was playing regularly. On the first glance, it looks fairly stupid—a gigantic clunker of a robot accompanied by his sidekick which was another robot only built to resemble a child. However, I later caught a few reruns and was suitably impressed, particularly when I discovered that it was the brainchild of Frank Miller, the same guy who did “The Dark Knight Returns”. While it seems designed to appeal to children, there is a bit of not-so-subtle humor laced in the episodes that will tickle the fancy of adults as well from over-the-top greedy capitalistic morons in charge of running mega-corporations, to the in-your-face patriotic drivel being spouted by the Big Guy, and a boy robot who is charmingly innocently naïve and a 21st Century version of Pinocchio. Oh and the talking monkey! The talking monkey is one of the wittiest and smartest members around—a fact that she is constantly despairing of. What’s more, the storylines were truly great and exciting. Oftentimes they reflected a life lesson to Rusty; but there was also a complex storyline that carried over the entire season run of this show. I was genuinely surprised at the number of creepy villains, truly gross looking beasties, and strange plots that the writers came up with that the network let them get away with. Many of the episodes were self-contained, but they also advanced the back story as well. The actors were superb in their roles and made characters who were surprisingly realistic and charming from Pamela Adlon as Rusty, the over-the-top patriotic quoting Johnathan Cook as the voice of the Big Guy, and Jim Hanks as the often exasperated Lt. Dwayne Hunter who was secretly the human pilot of the Big Guy. I do have give a big shout out to the few performances of the great Tim Curry and his villainous Dr. Neugog—who was also one of the freakiest villains I have ever seen and I personally amazed that the networks let it through. The animation was excellent with it’s heavily detailed and realistic-looking sets and strange machines that brought to mind bits of the Matrix movies. It’s a shame that this series was cancelled before it’s time as it was one of the truly bizarre and intriguing shows that I have seen. It may not be entirely suitable for kids, but I think adults will get a kick out of it. RATING: 4 STARS!!!!

I remember watching this series as a kid and grinning at the theme song which still manages to resonate in my brain. Amazing that I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch the other day yet I can still sing (off key) the lyrics to this show. The series was an odd fusion of Japanese Super Sentai Teams that most Americans now known as the “Power Rangers” and the “Six Million Dollar Man” where a rather unique, interracial family with several adopted children become enhanced with special bionics and subsequently become superheroes facing some of the weirdest looking group of super villains I can remember. The episodes were I remember a mixture of fairly decent to fairly stupid plots. I also found myself grimacing whenever the Bennett family used their code names with very little actual thought going into them. I mean Bionic-1? Mother-1? And let us not forget Sport-1, Rock-1, and Karate-1. Of course, it wasn’t as though they used all that much thought for the villain aliases either—Glove, Mechanic, Chopper, and Klunk. The voice actors weren’t that outstanding or memorable, I dimly remember that the villains tended to have really annoying vocal mannerisms. What I think really stood out for this show was the animation which was supremely high-quality stuff for this day and age. In fact, it still is superior to some stuff that I have seen produced lately. The special effects were particularly good, which was the primary reason why I was captivated by this series. Unlike some older children shows which I think would be hard pressed to show in reruns to kids today, I think that this series could actually capture their attention as most of the shows’ issues and family values are still relevant to this day. I have some fond nostalgic memories of the series but sadly, I fear most adults wouldn’t think too much of the plots. RATING: 3 STARS.

I’m always gladdened to learn when they attempt to bring minority superheroes to the big screen. And they don’t come any bigger than the King of Wakanda. For far too long, he’s been reduced to second stringer status; a guest spot in the Fantastic Four or a cameo in the Avengers. But I am afraid that this was one of the worst adaptations Marvel has developed and quite frankly, he deserves a lot better. Of all of the Black Panther comic book series, I did think that they chose right in selecting Reginald Hudlin’s version which focused more of Wakanda and how it evolved as an African nation with it’s King. I was a bigger fan of Christopher Priest’s version, but that one was a bit more centered in the regular Marvel-verse and I think crossed over too much with various other superheroes that would have detracted from the Black Panther as the focus. In addition, Hudlin had a much better origin story and the various political factors were a lot more interesting. And basically, one got the feeling that hey, "this guy may dress up a cat costume, but he’s NOT a superhero". Not really. That isn’t really a costume; it’s more like a ceremonial or traditional tribal wear. The storyline is actually fairly decent, but I believe that they tried to Marvel-ize it a bit too much but adding in additional scenes to interweave the Black Panther more tightly to the rest of the Marvel-verse like Storm and the X-Men that don’t really seem to do anything and are simply filler space. However the biggest complaint that I have is the animation (and I use the word loosely). I am uncertain why they chose to develop this series as a motion comic, I suppose it’s cheaper than regular animation but it’s just not that great in my opinion. Maybe thirty years ago, it might have been a viable artform but quite frankly I wasn’t thrilled with it. Basically all motion comics is that takes a static shot of a scene and then adds panning, zooming, and making objects or people jittery to give the “illusion” of movement. And it is a weak illusion at best. It reminded me of 3-D hype that all of the blockbuster movies are doing. I kinda of remember 3-D as a fad when I was a young kid and I just don’t know why they decided to bring it back now that I am an adult. I tried watching a 3-D movie and thought it was fairly stupid. First, only a SMALL segment of the movie is actually in 3-D which left me thinking that I had been so totally ripped off by the box office. After the segment though, I was actually grateful that it was such a brief period because the glasses gave me one hell of a headache that lasted for most of the film. Motion comics gave me the same feeling. It’s somewhat like a comic book, but not really. It’s also somewhat like an animated cartoon, but isn’t. And the special effects of energy blasts, sparks, etc. are really feeble looking. After the first five minute of watching this, I was grimacing and simply sat and endured watching the rest of the episodes out of masochist determination. I sure hope that this isn’t the next logical step for comics as some proclaim because quite frankly, I preferred the primitive paper comics over this. For the most part, I felt that the voice actors weren’t bad in their roles and I actually thought that the musical accompaniment felt more African and tribal sounding which fit in the theme of the show. But I think that the various comic companies need to drop this Motion Comic crap and focus on actually creating actual animated cartoons. RATING: 2 STARS.

This was one of the slickest adaptations of a comic book hero to the silver screen and helped redefine Blade in the Marvel-verse as a complete badass. The movie is pure frentic energy and horrifying spectacular special effects. To be honest, Wesley Snipes (Blade) is rather one-dimensional character, coming off a gruff warrior who doesn't really have any kind of a life outside of hunting and killing vampires. Still, he makes up for it with sheer martial artistry and as an action hero who lets his actions define him rather than teary-eyed speeches. On the other hand, Kris Kristofferson (Whistler) comes off an older, wiser, and more sympathetic character and Stephen Dorff (Deacon Frost) helps sell the film as an evil villainous mastermind. Blade delivered enough action, comedic one-liners, and visual effects for the audience. I personally enjoyed it as a dark ride in the vampire side. RATING: 3 and 1/2 STARS.

Wesley Snipes is back in his signature role of Blade and I think he’s even better than he was before. Snipes seems to slip onto the role with greater familiarity and ease than his previous outing. I will admit that the plot for this sequel was better than the original with a new race of vampires known as “Reapers” who prey on vampires who are forced to turn to their boogeyman as a means of countering this new evolved strain. One of the few points that I genuinely disliked was the resurrection of Whistler (Kris Kristofferson). I loved his character in the first film and the emotional impact of his death was enormous so that bringing him back just seemed rather cheap in my opinion. Still, having him back in his role as Whistler was a delight with his sarcastic one-liners. The other actors weren’t quite up to the same standards of Snipes and Kristofferson, being almost filler material. The special effects in this movie has definitely stepped up; the entire movie is one long montage of bloody fight scenes and mayhem, gory special effects, and loud heavy metal music accompanying them. The Reapers are also a lot creepier than their vampire counterparts and it looks like the scenery was definitely improved as it appears more gothic and shadowy than the original movie which seemed artificial at times. However, the ending definitely fell short of my expectations. It started off with great energy, vigor, and kinetic excitement but it drained away and left me feeling somewhat dissatisfied with the subplot of Blade being attracted to a vampire and the vamps betraying Blade and his team was almost laughably predictable. As far as sequels go, Blade II was surprisingly good and riveting for the most part. It tries but sadly, doesn’t quite surpass the original but it’s pretty entertaining. RATING: 3 and 1/2 STARS.

Of all of the Blade films; Trinity was an utter disappointment to me. It’s a bit sad but the franchise was definitely showing it’s age with this film. The whole concept of the film didn’t really seem to make much sense and the story felt disjointed. The addition of a bunch of new characters including Abigail Whistler (Jessica Biel) and Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds) who did nothing to enhance the plot, it just added to the confusion. In addition, neither of the actors truly impressed me with their renditions of vampire hunters. All Reynolds has in this film was a potty mouth and an array of jokes that left me wondering if he was a frustrated comic instead of a vampire hunter. I will admit that at times, he had me chuckling but a great many of his zingers just fell flat to me. And Abigail—the idea of someone who listens to an ipod while in combat just seems like a really stupid idea—just how is she supposed to hear when she’s got music blasting away in her eardrums? One of the few actors who should have been included in this film was Kris Kristofferson who instead dies in the very beginning instead of say midway or at the very conclusion. His death was a real weakness towards the drama—not to mention the sudden revelation of his daughter who Blade never knew about. While I could buy the fact that there were other vampire hunters out there—that Whistler had a daughter that Blade didn’t know about was a major plot hole I didn’t accept. If she had been something like another hunter he had trained, then I could have bought it or maybe the orphaned daughter of a friend. I suspect that they originally wrote her as Rachel Van Helsing from the Marvel Comics but adapted her to better fit in their movie-verse. As far as special effects go, the film was adequate but frankly, it didn’t really capture the same sort of dark, bloody, and gory effects of the first or second Blade possessed. Even Dracula wasn’t as horrifying and scary as the Reapers were. He reminded me more of the Predator from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s films. A lot of the action sequences seemed to lack the artful orchestrated choreography from the previous films and were a chaotic mess. The vampire-like dogs were more stupid than anything else and even the new vampire death sequences were rather lame. The whole explosion of light as the scene of their skeletons becoming visible before they disintegrated quickly made me think of those old cartoons where a character gets electrocuted. In many ways, Blade Trinity didn’t feel like it was about Blade but more like his sidekicks and the addition of Dracula just felt like a damn cliché and he wasn’t even half as intimidating as Nomak or gleefully evil as Deacon Frost were. The film tries to match up with it’s predecessors but it just doesn’t and falls flat in my opinion and a pathetic end to the trilogy and a great character who deserved better. RATING: 1 and 1/2 STARS.

Years before Ben Affleck left me entirely disappointed with his portrayal of a blind superhero, Rutger Hauer left an indelible impression that being blind was less than of a handicap than one might think. Blind Fury was an Americanized version of the acclaimed Japanese blind swordsmaster Zatoichi; and starred Rutger Hauer who was surprisingly believable as a blind person—and a helluva lot more badass than Affleck’s Daredevil. The storyline was surprisingly believable with the how and why of Nick Parker (Rutger Hauer) was blinded and becoming involved in trying to help an old Army buddy against a greedy and corrupt businessman MacCready (Noble Willingham) who seeks to exploit his friend’s chemistry expertise to concoct illegal drugs by kidnapping his friend’s ex-wife and son. To be brutally honest, the rest of the actors aside from Hauer was decent to subpar but Hauer was able to carry the rest with his excellent performance. The special effects were rather limited, considering the era which it was made but they did have some bloody scenes with Hauer slicing and dicing people with the brutal efficiency of a chop-o-matic; including one where he literally chopped off a guy’s hand; but I’m guessing that the filmmakers tried to limit the violence and gore with no arterial blood sprays like Quentin Taratino’s Kill Bill Vol. 1 but when I was a kid, you just didn’t see stuff like that. I enjoyed it immensely when I was a kid and I expect even adults can too. There were some pretty good one-liners in the movie that had me chuckling and is a solid action movie and this was Hauer’s best films in my opinion. RATING: 3 and 1/2 STARS.

Frankly the movie wasn’t that great in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, it was a brilliant concept of fusing comedy into a horror film and I did like how instead of the female being monster bait that she was the one saving the men. However, the main weakness is that this movie went a bit too far with the cheap jokes and turned it into a campy farce rather than a witty comedy. It was sadly average with moments of vague amusement accompanied with moments that were groan inducing. The fact is that none of the actors were truly great in their roles. Sure Kristy Swanson (Buffy) was great to look at but she didn’t really bring much else to the role. And I assume Luke Perry (Pike) was chosen merely because he’s a cute face and they thought that the females in the audiences would swoon over him. Donald Sutherland (Merrick) barely manages to induce any sort of emotion when he’s interacting with Swanson in my opinion. I suppose he’s trying to come off as terse and strict, but it’s just not working. Ruter Hauer (Lothos) wasn’t bad and he’s actually kind of funny at times but Paul Reubens (Amilyn) was just so obnoxious as his vampire minion, even in his over-the-top death scene that he drags Hauer down with him in their scenes together. I was wondering why Hauer just didn’t stake Reubens himself about halfway through the movie. The storyline is mediocre and frankly a little bit predictable here and there. The special effects weren’t all that wonderful either and looked rather cheap. The vampires costumes/makeup looked fairly pathetic with the exception of Lothos who had one of the better outfits and didn’t look like he was smothered in white pancake. It just doesn’t have enough terrifying moments to rate this movie as a horror film but I just wasn’t so entertained that I can call this film a comedy either. I watched it once and that was enough for me. I think that was the reason why I avoided watching the adaptation of the television series for so long because I couldn’t believe a decent TV series could have been spawned from such banal mediocrity. Surprisingly, I thought the TV series was a lot better than the movie. Who knew? Usually, these adaptations really suck (er ... no vampire pun intended). All I can recommend is that given a choice, watch the TV series instead of this movie, alas. RATING: 2 and 1/2 STARS.

I really wanted to like this movie and I usually enjoy whatever Chow Yun-Fat comes out in. But I was less than thrilled with this movie. Basically, the storyline feels incredibly derivative and not very original. There were plot holes big enough to drive through with a train, which is suitable since this movie felt like a gigantic train wreck as well. Usually, Chow Yun-Fat (the Monk With No Name) is a fairly charismatic person on film, he was less than stellar in this performance. Frankly, his character feels rather one-dimensional with his performance as a benevolent, wise Buddha-like pacifist. Not that any of the other actors really seemed that like they were doing a great job either. Seann William Scott (Kar) was a rather obnoxious jerk throughout the film, Jamie King (Jade) was just a pretty face without much else, and the less said about the stereotypical evil Nazis the better. The one saving face for this film would be the dazzling special effects and the sole reason why anyone should see this film. Chow Yun-Fat's redeemed himself somewhat with his martial arts wizardry performing amazing acrobatics, dodging bullets in slow motion, running on ropes, and defying gravity at will. However there are also significant flaws as well. I felt that the filmmakers were being cheap in some scenes because it looked like they had ineffective lighting. This film was obviously an attempt to duplicate the hyperkinetic energy of Hong Kong Kung Fu films but it’s definitely lacking in certain areas. Even the fight scenes aren’t as elaborate or inventive choreographed ballet of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Iron Monkey even though they might be a cut above most American movies. For cool martial art fighting, I’m able to forgive quite a bit but even I couldn’t suspend my disbelief at the pathetic plot and characters and I doubt neither will you. RATING: 1 STAR.

The 1970s were not kind to superheroes and the Captain America film was the kind of travesty that simply affirms that. Again, I think that the writers wrote in whatever that they felt like as long as they had a character with the Captain America name thrown in. The transparent plexiglass shield was one thing, the hideous costume was another, but the souped-up motorcycle with a hang-glider attachment? I saw it as a kid and I was left wondering just what the hell they were thinking. All and all, the actor wasn't that inspiring, the plot was stupid, and the special effects? Forget it. I thought it was a torture that would never end, at least until the sequel... RATING: 0 STARS.

The only reason why I watched it was because it was on TV as a double-feature of Captain America I and II back to back. The first one was horrible, but the sequel was actually almost as bad. I can't remember it too well, but I think that they improved things with a slightly better costume—although he was still wearing that stupid motorcycle helmet and was carrying the same ridiculous transparent shield thing. Again, the actor didn't impress me and there wasn't much of a plot either. I was left feeling that I had totally wasted my time watching it. RATING: 0 STARS.

Far and away the best Captain America movie made. It was a great film that really took Cap back to his roots with World War II and his origins unlike all of the previous movies which focuses more on his modern day career. I particularly liked the care that Dr. Erskine took with recruiting and selecting Steve Rogers showing that it was his intelligence and courage that was more important than the physical. I also loved how they had Howard Stark (Tony Stark's father) have a supporting role in the story and helped cement this movie as merely a chapter in the entire Marvel Movie-verse. And the effects! The shield slinging of Cap was like he always appeared in the comics! Not that lame transparent frisbee thing that they had in the previous movies. Still as villains go, the Red Skull couldn't quite manage the same level of sinister evil as other movie villains or Hitler; maybe it's cause I had a hard time believing in having a red skinned bald guy with no nose as a potent threat. They needed to improve the horrifying effect aspect of the Skull, he just wasn't up there as terrifying villains. He needed to look more like a living skull rather than just a guy with a weird facial condition. All and all, the movie wasn't quite up to the level of Iron Man or the Incredible Hulk, but it surpassed Thor by quite a bit. I can see how the Avengers definitely picking up where this movie left off. RATING: 3 and 1/2 STARS.

I watched a few episodes of this series back in the day; mainly because there wasn’t anything better on. It’s an interesting take on conservation, environmentalism, and the need for recycling. I thought it was a fairly well done series that focused on these problems and did so in a way to attract youngsters without boring them. The underlying theme of course; was moderation and using environmentally-friendly methods to help the planet via a pan-ethnic group of teenagers and their adult “sidekick”, Captain Planet. In essence, it’s not a particularly outstanding cartoon series, but it is a responsible one and provides a good message. I found that the villains were more caricatures and walking clichés, with such obvious names as Looten Plunder, Hoggish Greedly, Sly Sludge, and Dr. Blight; but probably kids wouldn’t see that. I also found many of the plots to be on the thin side, but again they did concentrate on their message and it’s tough trying to be extraordinarily original with those kinds of limitations and again, this is primarily for children so they can get away with stuff like that. I’d be much more critical otherwise. As far as the animation goes, it was adequate but I thought that they could have improved the quality and things like certain action sequences and the special effects were somewhat limited. The opening introductory sequence had I thought; the very best appearance of the good Captain with lightning comes crashing down and he literally explodes out of the earth and you could see roots and stuff out of his body even as he begins to form. They actually took the time to give him individual strands of hair that moved and swayed as he blasted through the air, heightening the drama. However, they rarely seemed to bother with minor little details like that with the regular episodes where he (and the other characters) was given “helmet hair” that didn’t budge an inch. The character designs were fine otherwise and I have to say that I did enjoy hearing the voice actors and actually recognizing a bunch of them like Levar Burton (Kwame) and Whoppi Goldberg (Gaia). It's adequate fair for children, but don't expect adults to be captivated by it. RATING: 3 STARS.