Street Kings

High intensity cop dramas have long been a staple of Hollywood films, most of them set out to show that police officers are here to protect us (which most are); but, lately it seems that these types of films have shifted somewhat in their approach to cops. No longer are all police officers in the movies out to protect and serve the communities, now it seems that most movie cops are out only for themselves and a bigger piece of financial pie which they will take any way they can get it. A few years ago, one highly praised film focused on these morally challenged police officers with such explosiveness and realism that audiences couldn’t help but notice this changing trend in Hollywood’s police dramas. The film I’m referring to would be director Antoine Fuqua’s incredibly intense and suspenseful, critically acclaimed movie “Training Day”. Fast forward a little more to the present day, and we have ourselves yet another glimpse at the darker side of some police officers, in a film that at times feels like a semi-sequel to “Training Day”, the fast-paced, action-packed “Street Kings” starring Keanu Reeves and Forest Whitaker. Coincidentally, “Street Kings” is directed by David Ayer (“Harsh Times”), who wrote the screenplay to “Training Day”, which may explain the nagging sense of familiarity that this movie has to his earlier work.

“Street Kings” is the story of L.A. police detective Tom Ludlow (go figure a police drama set in L.A., say it isn’t so), whose career as a cop is one riddled with compromise and violence. As a member of a team of detectives overseen by Capt. Jack Wander (Forest Whitaker), Tom (Keanu Reeves) leads the other members in breaking disturbing cases, especially those with a higher profile that could find its way somehow onto the evening news. However, catching a break in some of these cases doesn’t always come without a price, and as Tom is finding out sometimes that price is much too high to pay.

With the success of “Training Day”, for which Denzel Washington won his first Best Actor Oscar, and the acclaim garnered from TV’s “The Shield”, movie studios are quickly catching on to the fact that audiences seem unable to get enough of these morally questionable characters that can often be viewed as anti-heroes. I personally thought “Training Day” was a very well made film and one deserving of any accolades it received, as was Denzel Washington in the lead role. The same can be said for “The Shield”, which just so happens to be one of my favorite shows on television; however, as good as both of these examples are, their successes can be viewed as testaments to how morally compromising our culture is becoming. The mere fact that we tolerate, and at times even root for, these anti-heroes that in another, simpler time would have been viewed as villains, says to me that the time for true heroes may be coming to an end, and it is a sad commentary on we as a people. Well, that’s enough of that kind of talk; it’s time to move onto the task at hand, sharing my thoughts on the recently released “Street Kings”.

The story for “Street Kings” is a melting pot of twists and turns, violence, excessive language, and corruption as far as the eye can see. Written by Kurt Wimmer (“Equilibrium”) and first-time screenwriter Jamie Moss, based on a story by James Ellroy (“L.A. Confidential”), “Street Kings” instantly hits the ground running and never lets up for more than a moment or two. The writing is sharp, although far too linear for any sort of mystery to ever be achieved, and the end result is clear from early on in the film. For writers such as Kurt Wimmer and James Ellroy to work on a movie such as this, I honestly expected more than what was presented, it feels like the idea was only partially thought through, so the execution was far too by-the-book. The movie’s fast-paced momentum may be partially to blame for the predictability of the movie, with its focus apparently on the action and mayhem, all of the twists are easily seen, not a single one is all that surprising, and the story just feels like a far too simplified version of much superior work that has previously been done.

Leading the cast we have Keanu Reeves giving his usual one-note performance, although there are a few moments where he does show some emotion, but they are few and far between. Forest Whitaker appears to be in full on crazy mode here, as he seems to constantly be yelling or angry or something, he never once plays the character in a normal fashion. I’ve definitely seen better from Forest, a little less wild-eyed crazy man would have made his character a little easier to stomach, plus I was growing tired of both his character and his tirades in a hurry. Comprising the supporting cast we have Chris Evans (“Fantastic Four”), comedian Jay Mohr, Hugh Laurie (TV’s “House”), and a surprising appearance by Cedric the Entertainer (“Man of the House”). Out of the supporting cast I must say that Cedric was the biggest shocker, I had never seen him play a serious role before, but his reserved performance earns him much more respect in my eyes as an actor than I had previously given him. Aside from Keanu Reeve’s typically flat performance and Forest Whitaker’s inexplicably crazed one, the performances ranged anywhere from decent to very good, nothing exceptional but solid nonetheless.

“Street Kings” is generally entertaining in its own non-stop, extremely violent way; however, the plot is far too simplistic for it to be a standout achievement, and overall the movie comes off as an unofficial, not to mention unworthy, sequel to the vastly superior film “Training Day”.

“Street Kings” is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality.

Sydney White

I’m just going to start off by saying that this is not the kind of movie that I would pick to watch on my own time. It was my wife’s night to pick which movie we were going to watch, and she had several from which to choose from; but when she saw that I had recently purchased “Sydney White” for her from our local video store she opted to watch it over all the other contenders. Personally, I had no opinion either way about this movie; I hadn’t heard whether it was good, bad, etc.; so, I was pretty much open to whatever the movie had to offer, I just hoped it was at least a decent movie watching experience.

“Sydney White” is the story of a young woman (Amanda Bynes) who is in her first year of college, and well, things aren’t going as smoothly as she’d planned. After trying to get into an extremely popular sorority, she has found herself ostracized by those she had tried to fit in with and is now living with seven undeniably awkward and socially inept guys in a frat house that resembles more of an old-time, rundown home than your standard college campus fare usually does. As Sydney begins to evaluate her life, which has grown somewhat more complicated due to a burgeoning romance with a modern day prince (in her eyes) named Tyler (Matt Long), and her position on the social ladder of her school, she decides to take a chance and stand up for the outcasts and show the upper echelon of the college hierarchy that being popular isn’t always about doing what is conventional or normal.

This movie, as you may have guessed already, is a modern day re-telling of the classic tale Snow White and the Seven Dwarves mixed with your typical coming-of-age comedy. Just like other comedies of this sub-genre, “Sydney White” is pretty standard stuff, without a whole lot of new ground being covered, so it’s pretty easy to be able to predict exactly what’s going to happen next and just how the story will most likely end. One difference that “Sydney White” does have from all the other entries in this grouping is the fact that it does mix in the fairy tale element of Snow White to shake the standard proceedings up just a bit. Granted you still know (or at least can make a really good educated guess) how the movie’s going to end up, but with the references to the classic tale (both subtle and obvious) the movie manages to be elevated above its merely average status, which is quite rare for this genre.

Amanda Bynes (“She’s the Man”) continues her streak of semi-offbeat comedies that manage to entertain her target audience without resorting to the crude jokes or sexual humor that tends to seep into every aspect of this genre. Amanda does another good job here, essentially playing the same character, or one very similar, to the sweet, funny, and sometimes awkward character she played in “She’s the Man”; except this time she doesn’t have to dress up like a guy for half the movie. Matt Long as her love interest Tyler Prince (hmmm, I wonder which character from the fairy tale he could be) does a good job as your standard run-of-the-mill cool guy who has the quintessential heart of gold. In this movie, Matt is given an opportunity to show that he is a fairly well-rounded actor by trying his hand at comedy after his semi-dramatic (possibly over-dramatic at times) turn in the early portions of 2007’s “Ghost Rider”. Sara Paxton, who I vaguely remember from the oh-so forgettable spoof “Superhero Movie” is adequate as the modern day queen, but she proceeds to go to no effort at all to hide the fact that she is up to no good from the moment she first appears in the movie; the least she could have done was make us try to work for the relation to the fairy tale, not just beat us over the head with the obviousness. Regarding the cast members that portrayed the seven dorks (in this case), it was nice that the guys weren’t always in your face with which one they were portraying; and in a few instances I actually had a hard time deciding who certain ones were supposed to be. Although, I bet if I would have been able to remember the various names of the dwarves in Disney’s version of the story, I wouldn’t have been as hard-pressed to figure out who was who. Lastly, it was nice to see veteran actor John Schneider playing the loving father (a role he perfected on TV’s “Smallville”) to Amanda Bynes’ character. John doesn’t appear a whole lot in the movie, but he manages to make the most out of what little he is given, and his appearances are most welcome when they occur, as they are essentially the only real dramatic aspects of the story.

Containing a decent amount of humor, some heart-warming moments, and neat references to the fairy tale on which the story is based, “Sydney White” is one of the few worthwhile efforts to come out of the sub-genre of coming-of-age comedies in the teen comedy category in quite some time. So, I would have to say that “Sydney White” is a movie that is at least worth watching once.

“Sydney White” is rated PG-13 for language and sexual references.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

Seven years ago Universal Pictures was sitting high atop a successful franchise that had re-imagined one of their classic movie monsters with the one-two punch of 1999’s “The Mummy” and 2001’s “The Mummy Returns”. Following those two CGI-intensive action/adventure films Universal opted to do a prequel starring wrestling superstar Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the titular character in “The Scorpion King”. Even though The Rock showcased an impressive screen presence, his film managed to only be a moderate hit at the box office, actually proving to be somewhat of a disappointment when compared to the box office haul of its predecessors. The seven year sabbatical that Universal took from this once lucrative franchise, most likely prompted by the lagging returns of “The Scorpion King”, prompted many critics and moviegoers to wonder whether there was even a need to have yet another installment in ‘The Mummy’ series or should the franchise be left alone to rest in peace.

“The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is set several years after the events of “The Mummy Returns”, as Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) and his wife Evelyn (Maria Bello taking over for Rachel Weisz) are living a peaceful, if not boring life free of being chased by the undead. Meanwhile, their archaeologist son Alex (Luke Ford) has discovered an expansive tomb dedicated to a despotic emperor of ancient China (Jet Li), and with his discovery, Alex is set to become just as famous, if not more so, than his parents. However, when the curse that had been placed on the dreaded emperor and his army is lifted, these once lifeless, terra-cotta soldiers are now reanimated and ready to wreak havoc on a strange new world while in search of the fabled Shangri La to attain immortality for their leader, the Dragon Emperor.

Earlier I mentioned that there were some questions that arose as to why a third Mummy film should be made, mostly this was due to the series’ perceived lack of depth and lasting appeal on the part of most critics; plus, over time audiences would most likely not care as much for further adventures after being so far removed from the characters. Now, I know you could easily make the argument that Star Wars successfully returned after an almost twenty year absence, and the same for Indiana Jones; however, there is one major difference between those two franchises and that of ‘The Mummy’, none of the characters featured in the latter are nearly as iconic as those in the former. All that aside, I for one was happy to see that another Mummy film would be coming to theaters, and I was glad to hear that Brendan Fraser would be reprising the most recognizable role of his career, that of archaeologist/adventurer Rick O’Connell. While I was excited for the release, there was some trepidation due to the fact that while enjoyable, both “The Mummy Returns” and “The Scorpion King” were not nearly as good as the first film that reinvigorated the classic monster franchise, “The Mummy”. So, with that in mind, I did wonder if this third attempt would be able to at least equal the follow-up films or possibly achieve what I believed to be impossible, and recapture the freshness, humor, and fun that made the original so enjoyable.

The story for this third entry, as written by Al Gough and Miles Millar (TV’s “Smallville”), was fairly solid throughout, but there were some weak points that surprised me. As a fan of the TV series “Smallville”, I know that Al and Miles knew how to write good character drama mixed with some action and CGI, and based on their work on the hilarious sequel “Shanghai Knights” with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson, they also know how to handle comedy as well. For some reason in the early portion of the movie, the dialogue seems awkward and lacking any sense of direction, especially between the two leads, to the point that I wondered if the movie was ever going to find its footing and get things rolling. I understand that the opening thirty minutes, at least the parts pertaining to the lives of Rick and Evey, were setup in such a way to show their discomfort with their current life of peace and quiet, as they longed for the action and adventure we had seen them experience in the previous films; however, I feel that given the experience Al and Miles bring to this film, they should have been able to make these scenes work much better and not feel so out of place with the pacing of the rest of the movie. I must point out, that during the opening thirty minutes or so of the movie, the parts not related to Rick and Evey worked very well, giving the audience a building sense of excitement in regards to what is in store when the emperor is inevitably reborn.

Even though the early parts of the movie felt uneven, once the emperor was reanimated the movie definitely finds its pace and really moves along quickly from one CGI-intensive action sequence to another. This isn’t to say that the story is completely put on the backburner in favor of more action scenes, but it does seem to take a little bit more of a back seat to the amped up CGI/martial arts heavy fight sequences than either of the previous films had allowed. One thing that didn’t take a backseat to the action was the comedy; in fact, I felt that there was maybe a little too much comedy, especially of the slapstick variety, than what had been included in the other films in the series. At times it seemed that the movie was intended as more of a comedy than an action/adventure due to the obvious attempts at slapstick, which were funny (some more so than others), but a few of the bits went too far over-the-top and felt somewhat out of place.

The acting is what you expect in a movie such as this, nothing outstanding by any means, but solid given the genre. Brendan Fraser (“The Mummy”) seems to thoroughly be enjoying himself (aside from his early scenes in the movie) once again as adventurer Rick O’Connell. Even after a seven year absence, and two previous outings, he manages to bring the character to life with such excitement and charisma that he still is a lot of fun to watch onscreen. Also returning from the previous two movies is actor John Hannah as Evelyn’s rascal of a brother, Jonathan, who just so happens to own a night club conveniently located in China. John’s involvement in the movie was a mostly welcome source of humor amidst the action packed proceedings. I know that I complained a moment ago about there being too much comedy in this entry; however, my complaint was with the more slapstick related comedy. John’s one-liners were generally well placed within the various fight scenes to break up the onslaught of action bombarding the viewers; although there were a few instances where I felt his witty commentary on the situation would have been better left unsaid. Maria Bello (“A History of Violence”) was decent as Rachel Weisz’s replacement for Evelyn, although some of her line readings seem strained, as if she were struggling to make the words sound authentic in the British accent she was forced to adopt for the character. Aside from the perceived awkwardness of her accent, Maria genuinely seemed to be having a ball, especially throughout the various action scenes. Sadly, the character of Evelyn seemed a bit marginalized compared to what Rachel was given to do with her in the previous two films, which is a shame given how good of an actress that Maria is. Another new addition to the series was actor Luke Ford as Alex O’Connell, while Luke does a good job in the role; I personally feel that he wasn’t an appropriate casting choice given that he appeared to be maybe 5 years younger than Brendan Fraser, who was supposed to be his onscreen father. Martial arts experts Jet Li (“Unleashed”) and Michelle Yeoh (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) seemed wasted in their thankless roles as the Dragon Emperor and the witch that cursed him. Basically, their casting felt like nothing more than a stunt to get more butts in the seats due to the setting of the film being in China this time around. Neither role gave either of the two all that much to do, but their inevitable confrontation was entertaining to say the least, though I do wish it could have been a little bit longer.

Lastly, we come to the extensive visual effects work done for the movie by the talented people at Rhythm and Hues Studios and Digital Domain. There were some complaints by critics that the CGI looked too fake, or not even up to the quality of most big budget films of today. Personally, I disagree with these critics almost 100%, but I must admit that early on in the movie when the emperor is being transformed into a statue, he kind of resembles animated pudding instead of mud or whatever he was supposed to be. Combine the “pudding man” effect (that’s what I’m calling it) with some horribly rendered fire that consumes him seconds later and what you have is a poorly done visual effects sequence that draws way too much attention to the CGI, to the point that most people are looking for any other flaws that can be spotted; instead of just enjoying the rest of the movie. I for one was one of those people that looked for other flaws within the CGI for a little while (truth be told, probably through the whole movie), but I normally do that in CGI intensive movies and it has never taken away from my movie experience before, and I don’t believe it did here either. Other than that weak moment in the visual effects, the remainder of the film looked great, especially the yetis; although, I do wish they would have been involved a little more in the movie, but I’m not in charge.

Overall, “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is entertaining for the most part; it does struggle to get going in the early moments of the film, but once Rick and Evelyn step back into their adventure clothes, as it were, the movie really gets going. Director Rob Cohen (“The Fast and the Furious”) injects the film with his usual fast-paced visual style that has served him well in the past and continues to do so here. While not nearly as good as “The Mummy”, this third installment in the series does come close to matching its predecessor “The Mummy Returns” and surpasses the quality of the initial spin-off “The Scorpion King”.

“The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is rated PG-13 for violence.

Batman & Robin

What happens when a film franchise starts off with a massive success, follows that up with a smaller, somewhat unfocused sequel alienating some moviegoers, then comes back with a completely different tone, actors, director, etc., all of which leaves the movie studio (Warner Brothers in this instance) believing that lighter, more family friendly fare may be the way to go? Well, in the case of the once successful Batman franchise, the end result of this chain of events is the utterly campy, ridiculously acted, slap-in-the-face to the comic book fans, excuse of a movie titled “Batman & Robin”.

“Batman & Robin” follows the Dynamic Duo (George Clooney as Batman and Chris O’Donnell as Robin) on yet another adventure as they must take on the villainous pair of Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). With Mr. Freeze attempting to freeze all of Gotham City’s population to death so that Poison Ivy can remake the city in a more Earth-friendly image, Batman and Robin, along with newcomer Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) joining the Bat-family, must work together as only a family can, in order to save Gotham City’s citizens before time runs out.

Where to begin? This is a tough one for me to determine a good starting point for my critique portion of the review, mostly because the movie is just so horrible, with very few good points, that I find myself unsure of what to criticize first. Oh well, let’s just take the plunge and see what happens.

First we have the story, written once again by screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (“Batman Forever”), which is one of the campiest, lamest one-liner ridden, with the cheesiest action scenes, little to no drama, and poorly acted, pieces of comic book garbage that I have seen come out of Hollywood since either “Superman 3” or “Howard the Duck”. The plot is the thinnest of all of the four Batman films in the franchise, leaving me to wonder if Akiva didn’t really feel all that into writing this installment and perhaps allowed a child to do most of the work for him, that’s how low the quality is for the overall story in this movie. I thought perhaps given the tone of the previous film being so much lighter than the first two movies in the series that perhaps the franchise was heading into the direction of the 60’s television series, but I held onto hope that no one wanted to see that again; apparently I was way wrong. Now, I can’t blame the writer completely for the lighter direction this franchise took with this last installment (although I can blame him for how horribly it was written); apparently Warner Brothers felt that because with “Batman Returns” audiences complained about it being so dark and twisted, that with “Batman Forever” the tone needed to be much friendlier towards children and family audiences. So, due to the success that “Batman Forever” enjoyed, which was considerably more than that of “Batman Returns”, the WB decided that the fourth installment in the series needed to go even lighter, essentially making the movie funnier, more outlandish, and almost completely devoid of any semblance of drama, basically just recycle the 60’s television series with new actors and you’ll have the movie “Batman & Robin”.

The second set of problems that I had with “Batman & Robin” is with returning director Joel Schumacher (“Batman Forever”), who took everything that I didn’t enjoy about his previous effort, “Batman Forever”, and multiplied it by ten for this movie. For instance, in the previous movie, Schumacher used a lot of neon and bright colors to lighten up the movie’s atmosphere, which felt completely out of place in a Batman film; so, in “Batman & Robin” everything is brighter and utilizes tons of neon, to the point that it feels like every scene has some sort of neon color in it. Another issue I have with the director is that once more Joel chose to leave nipples on the costumes for Batman and Robin, and once again I say to this, “No nipples on the suits! Never in the history of the comic books or even in the really good film adaptations (which would exclude Joel’s attempts) have there been nipples on the costumes, there’s just no point to having them there!” My last major gripe with Joel Schumacher’s direction was that the action scenes were so phony and cheesy that I had to roll my eyes as I watched some of the absolutely ridiculous things both the heroes and villains do in this movie. Every stunt has the feel of obvious wire work, and not very good wire work at that, and all of the fight choreography is so telegraphed that you can see what’s coming a mile away! One last thing regarding the stunts, whoever decided to have Robin’s motorcycle bust through a wall leaving a hole in the shape of the Robin symbol really should be slapped (and I’m thinking the guilty party is you, Joel Schumacher), because that is so stupid, that even kids point at that moment and laugh at how ridiculous a stunt that is.

My third and final batch of complaints must be aimed at the cast of “Batman & Robin”, all of which act as if Jim Carrey had been their acting coach, or should I say “over-acting”. Now, I understand that given the lack of a decent script and questionable direction from the writer and director respectively, that the actors didn’t have a whole lot to make do with; however, this isn’t the first time a group of actors have had to make something out of nothing, and it’s been done successfully many times over, just not in this movie. George Clooney who hadn’t done very many feature films prior to this one, wasn’t the greatest actor at this point in his career (today he is much more accomplished at his craft), and without a doubt George gives the weakest performance as Batman within this franchise. Michael Keaton knew to establish Bruce Wayne and Batman as two discernible characters, the same with Val Kilmer in “Batman Forever”, but with George there was no distinguishing between Bruce Wayne and Batman other than the costume, because he played both sides to the character the exact same way. Chris O’Donnell was good as Robin, though not as interesting as he had been in the previous movie. This time around Robin seemed more like a spoiled brat than a superhero, which made Batman seem more like a nanny than the Caped Crusader. Michael Gough portrayed Alfred once more in this installment, and provided the only true source of drama for the entire movie, but even that aspect wasn’t executed near as well as it should have been.

With “Batman & Robin” we were also introduced to several new characters, none of which come close to capturing the true essence of what made those characters so great in the comics. Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”) as Batgirl was an alright choice, she wouldn’t have been my first pick; however, she’s a decent enough actress that I thought maybe she could do a good job. Well, she wasn’t great, but that’s not completely her fault because the story arc she is given is fairly weak all across the board, but her line readings were mostly flat and uninspired. Not to mention the fact that her origin has been altered to make her Alfred’s niece instead of Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, a decision that served as just another problem, in the already far too long list, this movie had going against it. Along with Alicia we also have Uma Thurman (“Kill Bill”) as Poison Ivy. Now, I thought that Uma definitely looked the part of Poison Ivy, but the constant use of Earth inspired references throughout her dialogue began to grow tiresome, and she apparently felt that because she was playing a villain it would be the perfect opportunity for her to practice the Jim Carrey art of over-acting in every scene in hopes of getting attention, most of which fell pathetically flat. Lastly, we have Arnold Schwarzenegger (‘The Terminator’ series) as one of the worst bits of casting I have seen in a comic book inspired movie. In the comics, Mr. Freeze was a skinny man in a mechanized suit with a big freeze gun; obviously Arnold couldn’t pull off the skinny man routine due to his physique, so his resemblance to the character’s appearance was nowhere near accurate. Although, to the Casting Director’s credit, DC Comics did change the appearance of Mr. Freeze to resemble more closely that of Arnold in the movie, so maybe the choice wasn’t all that bad, to me it was just another example of how everyone associated with this movie did not take the source material seriously at all. Aside from Arnold’s obvious physical difference to the character’s initial appearance, his acting in this movie was alright, but just like Uma Thurman’s character of Poison Ivy, writer Akiva Goldsman apparently felt that including as many ice-themed one-liners into his dialogue as possible would be a good idea. Wrong, all that decision did was made his character become incredibly annoying at an even faster rate than Poison Ivy’s.

Well, you may be wondering when I will get to the good points regarding this movie, because so far it’s all been mostly negative. I do have a couple of positive things to say regarding “Batman & Robin”, first I must say that as pathetic as the story was, it did contain some decent elements in regards to trust and family issues that Batman and Robin must face, although sometimes even this was done a little too heavy-handed that it was a bit on the annoying side. Another standout achievement for the movie, was that the special effects (given that this movie is 11 years old now) were very good, especially for the numerous “ice covered” or “freezing” sequences featured throughout the movie. The last good thing I can say for this movie is this… It ends! Yes, that is probably the best aspect this movie has going for it, the fact that eventually the movie ends. On the flip side of that, is once the movie ends, you’re left with the nagging feeling of having wasted two hours of your life away that you’ll never be able to get back, other than that it’s all good though.

“Batman & Robin”, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is absolutely the worst installment in the Batman franchise that spanned from 1989 through 1997; however as pathetic as this movie is, for some reason it has the same appeal as that of the 1960’s television series and movie. The movie’s like a train wreck, you know the results are going to be horrifying, yet you can’t seem to bring yourself to look away; although, this movie does push the limits of that sentiment a few times.

“Batman & Robin” is rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality.

Batman Forever

After two successful installments in the Batman franchise, the third film, “Batman Forever”, signaled a time of change for the series, from cast and crew, to the overall tone of the movies, even to costume choices. The biggest casting change was that of Michael Keaton stepping aside, supposedly over money and age related disputes. Filling in for Michael this time around was actor Val Kilmer (“The Saint”), other new additions to the franchise were Chris O’Donnell (“Vertical Limit”), Nicole Kidman (“The Invasion”), Tommy Lee Jones (“The Fugitive”), and Jim Carrey (“Liar Liar”). The other major additional change with this third installment in the series was that of director Tim Burton shifting gears from directing the film to becoming just a Co-Producer, allowing for Joel Schumacher (“A Time to Kill”) an opportunity to try his hand at crafting a blockbuster worthy of the caped crusader.

“Batman Forever” finds Batman (Val Kilmer) up against two of the strangest members of his rogue’s gallery, Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the Riddler (Jim Carrey). With these two villains teaming up to wreak havoc on Gotham City, they may just be too much for one hero to handle. Enter young Dick Grayson (Chris O’Donnell) whose thirst for vengeance drives him to aid Batman in his ongoing war on crime and become his heroic partner, Robin.

With the first two installments in this series, “Batman” and “Batman Returns”, director Tim Burton had established an overall darker tone with a brooding hero and truly evil and twisted villains. In “Batman Forever”, director Joel Schumacher dispatches with the darker tone set in the previous movies, opting for a more family friendly atmosphere with just semi-serious undertones. The story, written by talented screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (“I, Robot”), plays too much as a light-hearted action/comedy than a dramatic-themed action film, as the movies in this series had previously been. I’ll grant that the film does contain some serious elements in regards to some of the psychological issues that Bruce Wayne is going through, and even more so with the trauma and pain of events occurring in Dick Grayson’s life and his struggle to control the rage burning within him; however, as dramatic as those elements were, they were easily overshadowed by the far too over-the-top and way too comedic portrayals of Two-Face and the Riddler.

Speaking of the cast of characters, lets talk about what went wrong with Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey’s performances, shall we. First, we have Two-Face, who is one of Batman’s most tragic villains because his evil is one born out of physical and emotional scarring mixed with a quick-temper. Harvey Dent had been Gotham City’s District Attorney, until an unfortunate attack at the hands of a mob boss left him scarred and twisted as the villainous Two-Face. Now, he must contend with a major case of split personality, where both Harvey and Two-Face are vying for control over the decisions that he makes as a person. A character this rich in history and drama would seem a prime choice for an actor of Tommy Lee Jones’ ability to really sink his teeth into; however, instead of playing the character seriously, Jones turns him into what feels like a cheap imitation of Jack Nicholson’s Joker from “Batman”. Along with Tommy’s far less-than serious portrayal, his henchman are about as brainless as you can get, I mean how does a villain of Two-Face’s supposed caliber ever successfully pull off a heist with these henchmen is beyond me, I guess that says a lot about Gotham City’s police department, doesn’t it.

Second, we have Jim Carrey’s turn as the Riddler, where we are given a front row seat to see exactly what it means to go over-the-top in a performance. In the comic books Riddler is a somewhat laughable villain, because his crimes rarely pose much of a threat to Batman or Gotham City, plus his penchant for leaving riddles that once solved give clues to where he is or what he will do next causes the character to rarely seem to succeed. In “Batman Forever”, writer Akiva Goldsman at least made Riddler a much more successful villain, granted part of his success is from his partnership with Two-Face; yet, as a villain Riddler still fails to appear all that intimidating when going up against Batman. I don’t know if Jim Carrey is to blame, or if it is a mixture of Akiva Goldsman’s writing or even Joel Schumacher’s directing, but one major complaint I have with Riddler, is that he seemed to be way too spine-less and feminine in his actions. If the character had been this kind of person to begin with in the comic books, then I could have gone along with it, but since he is not portrayed this way in the comics, I find it difficult to overlook. In fact, there are numerous instances where he physically clings far too much to Two-Face in this movie, to the point that I found it a little uncomfortable, especially for a more family friendly approach to the Batman franchise.

With my complaints regarding the two villains out of the way, I wish I could say that those were the end of my complaints about the cast; sadly, this is not the case. Taking over for Michael Keaton we have Val Kilmer, a good actor (particularly in his best performance as Doc Holiday in “Tombstone”) and one that has been in the business long enough to know how to convincingly play a character; yet, as Bruce Wayne he seems very flat and stiff in his line readings, basically giving off the vibe that he’s only in this movie for the paycheck. I will grant him that when he’s in the Batsuit, he seems much more committed to the role, and as Batman he was a very good choice to follow-up Keaton, it’s just too bad that he couldn’t bring this same level to his acting game when portraying the Bruce Wayne side of the character. Nicole Kidman was adequate as Bruce’s newest love interest Dr. Chase Meridian, but her character never gets established beyond that of a source of exposition to bring out some of Bruce’s psychological issues in this movie, and at times she seemed like she was just an updated version of Kim Basinger’s Vicki Vale character from “Batman”, just a little less developed, if that’s possible. Lastly, we have Chris O’Donnell as Dick Grayson/Robin, his character’s introduction while staying fairly true to the comics, simultaneously serves as further evidence that this franchise is becoming much lighter in tone. In the comic books, when Robin was introduced it was to boost Batman’s popularity with children so that his books would sell better; however, by introducing this teenage sidekick, Batman as a character and as a series became much lighter, almost completely removing the brooding, vengeful aspect of the hero to where he was just a slightly cranky shell of the man he once was. At least in “Batman Forever” the character of Robin was given a fairly serious backstory with a decent amount of drama and even some tragedy to drive his character’s story arc throughout the film. Chris O’Donnell, who was an unknown to me whenever this movie first was released to theaters, was a good choice for Dick Grayson/Robin; he portrayed the character’s deep-seeded anger and quest for vengeance as unfocused and volatile, which made him an interesting example of what Bruce Wayne may have been like in his younger years. His performance was very strong, and seemed to be one of the better performances in the movie, which is surprising given the amount of talent assembled in this film.

Before I continue, I must say that even though I have complained about several aspects of this movie, from its story to some members of the cast’s performance, I did find it to be a fairly entertaining, slightly above average movie; it’s just not on par with what Tim Burton had done, especially with the first movie in the series. Now that I have that little side note out of the way, I do have another complaint for the movie, which would be some of the costume choices. Lets start off with Riddler’s various wardrobe choices, in the comics he normally appears in the green suit and jacket or in a green skin-tight leotard-esque costume; however, in this movie he not only appears in those two outfits, albeit briefly, but also in a wide assortment of other variations of the costume. I’ve never been a big fan of the character in general or his costumes, but I don’t think any villain would want to spend near as much time on wardrobe changes as Jim Carrey does in this film. Along with the costume changes, I have no clue who decided that Riddler should have make-up on at all times when in costume. I have read numerous Batman comics that feature Riddler as one of the villains in the story, and never once can I recall seeing the character with such rosy cheeks, bright pink lips, and even brighter pink hair. I don’t know what the costume designers on this film were thinking, but their choices for Riddler only further cemented him as an extremely feminine character, which as I stated earlier he has never been. So, why can’t the people that make these movies just leave some things well enough alone? As if that wasn’t enough of a complaint over the costumes in this movie, the only other one I have, would have to be the biggest of all… who had the bright idea of putting nipples on the batsuit?! Never in the history of Batman comics have there been nipples on the character’s suit, or even that of Robin’s; so again why not leave well enough alone. Anyways, other than that the costumes for the characters were well made, and appeared to be ripped directly from the pages of the comic books, so aside from my complaints the costume designers did a very good job adapting them for the screen.

Well, after all that I’m sure you’re probably saying to yourself, “How can this guy possibly say that he even remotely liked this movie?” Well, I can’t explain it, but even with all the problems I still find the movie moderately entertaining (as I said earlier), and a decent entry into the franchise, although it does signal that things may be going downhill for the series as a whole. Sure the movie has problems, some bigger gripes than others, but it still does a decent job with the much lighter direction it was given, without going so light that it approaches the level of the 60’s TV series.

“Batman Forever” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Batman Returns

With the success of 1989’s “Batman”, Warner Brothers obviously saw the potential for a franchise in this darker and more serious interpretation of the Dark Knight. Wasting little time in putting a sequel in motion, director Tim Burton (“Batman”) and star Michael Keaton returned three years later to once more fight crime within Gotham City with “Batman Returns”.

“Batman Returns” follows Batman’s (Michael Keaton) continuing war on crime in and around Gotham City. After taking on the likes of the maniacal Joker, how could things possibly get any worse for Gotham and its caped crusader? When a grotesque new villain named Penguin (Danny DeVito) teams up with a sultry, feline-inspired femme fatale by the name of Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), it seems that perhaps Batman may have met his match when he discovers just what they have planned for him and his beloved Gotham City.

The previous movie, “Batman”, established a serious, obviously darker take on the title character than any of his previous incarnations outside of the comic books; but with “Batman Returns” everything seems to take a decidedly more wicked turn. The story written by Daniel Waters (“Demolition Man”) was fairly solid for the most part, serving as a decent follow-up to the blockbuster original. The action seemed bigger in scope, the set pieces much more grand, though not breaking away from the design established in the first movie, and the characters were still kept front and center, never sacrificing plot or development for the sake of another action sequence. However, this much darker story (which I liked the overall direction this movie went) felt a little out of sorts in places, for a majority of the movie the story flowed very well, but there were several parts in the middle of the film where the story seemed to lose its focus. What I’m referring to are the portions of the story revolving around Penguin’s bid for public office (a kind of interesting, although unbelievable plot point), for some reason these scenes really felt less polished, as if the writer just couldn’t figure out how to work this aspect of the character’s story arc into the big picture; therefore, leaving us with a mid-section of a movie that feels out of place, breaking the movie’s steady pace down to almost a crawl at times.

Director Tim Burton clearly knew what it took to make a good Batman movie after doing so well with his first effort, but I wonder if in his attempt to equal what he had done with the original film, did he set himself up to fail with this one. The general progression for the character and this franchise would be to up the stakes to some degree, and with “Batman Returns” this happened all across the board, just to varying degrees of success. The story as I stated already was much darker than that of the original, a natural evolution for the character, so I was completely fine with that, the problem occurs when the main character receives less attention than supporting characters. Just like in “Batman”, it appears that Bruce Wayne/Batman doesn’t get near as much time on screen as the villains he is encountering. I understand that when you have two villains instead of one, more time will need to be spent on developing them as viable threats for our hero, and also to establish them as believable characters for the audience to connect with on some level; however, when the title character feels like an afterthought, I think the focal point of the movie has been lost. By including two villains, I feel that Tim Burton and his writer, Daniel Waters, couldn’t figure out how to give equal time, or at least close it, to Batman without missing out on any development for their new characters. With this obvious problem, which was no doubt an unintended consequence of trying to be bigger and better than the previous movie, “Batman Returns” felt a little off in my opinion, and not nearly up to the standard previously established with “Batman”.

Michael Keaton continues to build on what he had done as Bruce Wayne/Batman, further establishing the discomfort Bruce has with his billionaire side as he awaits the time for darkness to fall over the city so that the Batman can once more prowl the rooftops of Gotham. This point was illustrated perfectly in the movie, when Bruce is sitting in his study by himself, not doing anything but sitting there, and the bat signal shines into the room and suddenly he comes to life. Without saying a single word, Michael Keaton was able to clearly portray exactly how the character was feeling and what it is that drives him in life. Danny DeVito (“Deck the Halls”) was an ideal choice for Penguin, his smaller stature and heavier build makes him a nearly perfect fit for the general appearance of the villain, although it appeared that more weight was needed for the character’s girth, because it is quite obvious a couple of times in the film that DeVito is wearing some sort of padding under his costume to make him look even larger. I’ve never really been all that impressed with Danny DeVito as an actor, I thought he was alright, but nothing all that great; however, as Penguin he really seemed to connect with the character, and something about his performance just worked and I was actually impressed with just how twisted and evil he was able to make the character become. Danny’s version of Penguin was much more of a threat, and definitely more grotesque, than his previous incarnation on the 60’s television series or even how he had appeared in the comic books. Michelle Pfeiffer (“Hairspray”) did an excellent job of establishing two distinct sides to her character that are as different as night and day, by playing Selina Kyle as such a weak individual who can’t defend herself and is constantly belittled by her boss (Christopher Walken), yet when she becomes Catwoman this entirely new side to her emerges, that is so much more aggressive and driven. I really liked the way the story intertwined both Selina’s story and Catwoman’s story so much that eventually she would be forced to choose which side would become dominant, because as much as she wants love and companionship, which she may have found in Bruce Wayne, her dual identity as the villainous Catwoman will prevent her from truly settling down, not to mention being a criminal puts her at odds with her lover’s alter ego.

“Batman Returns” is a fairly solid sequel, containing a decent story, with a heftier dose of action (even though there seemed to be fewer fight scenes, the scenes were much longer than what had been done previously), and more great performances from the actors involved. However, a very slow midpoint in the film, caused by a semi-interesting, yet unfocused character arc, forced the movie to lose momentum, which it struggled to get back and maintain for the remainder of the movie’s duration.

“Batman Returns” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Batman

The story of the hero known as Batman is one that many people are familiar with to some degree. As a comic book character created by Bob Kane for DC Comics, Batman has remained one of the most popular heroes throughout the years, and the same can be said, for the most part, for all of his various incarnations in both the comics and other forms of media. In the 1960’s the Caped Crusader was adapted into a weekly television series, starring Adam West (Bruce Wayne/Batman) and Burt Ward (Dick Grayson/Robin). The problem with this series, in my opinion, was that it chose to make a comedy out of Batman, everything about this series just screamed camp! I’ll admit I have watched some of the episodes, along with the movie that was released around the same time, and for some reason I actually found myself unable to look away. The only conclusion I could come up with was that the series was the equivalent of a train wreck; you know the results are going to be disastrous, yet you can’t bring yourself to look away. Sure the series was a hit, but I challenge any fan of the series to go back now, and actually watch it and see if you truly feel that it did any sort of justice to the character of Batman. Anyway, I digress, the series eventually ended; however, that would not be the end of Batman’s life on television. He would later appear in animated form on the kid-friendly “Super Friends” show, which was basically the Justice League superhero team without the name. After a few seasons on the air, “Super Friends” ended, and once again Batman was left to only appear in the comics.

Then in 1989, Warner Brothers released what would become the first of four feature films that would comprise the original Batman film franchise. In this incarnation the character appeared to be getting the treatment he rightfully deserved, gone was the camp and stupidity of the 1960’s, and in was a darker, brooding, and vengeful billionaire version of Bruce Wayne who prowls the rooftops of Gotham City in the guise of Batman

“Batman” focuses on the Batman’s (Michael Keaton) initial appearances in and around Gotham City, stopping crime whenever and wherever he finds it. For many, he is nothing more than a myth supposedly lurking in the shadows, created in an effort to deter the criminal element that plagues the city. However, when a maniacal menace by the name of Joker (Jack Nicholson) begins terrorizing Gotham, Batman is forced to come out from the shadows to confront this madman before his city is plunged into madness.

After the popularity of the 60’s TV series, Tim Burton’s dark vision of Batman was exactly what was needed to turn the Dark Knight back into the vengeful hero he was meant to be. Burton was wise enough to create a version of Batman that was dramatically strong, yet remained true enough to the hero’s legendary origins, while still adding a few tweaks for artistic license, that he was able to present a movie that would please the fanboys (and girls), and also gain great critical acclaim and commercial success. The approach of the story was different from most superhero movies of today, because here Bruce Wayne has already become Batman, and we are given his origin through a series of flashbacks. Taking the place of the traditional hero origin was the origin of the film’s villain, the Joker. Generally in superhero films both origins tend to be presented simultaneously, or at least in quick succession of each other; however, the change to that method worked out well, and I believe the film’s success when it was released, and its continued popularity today, is partially due to that somewhat unconventional approach to the storytelling. The overall story in “Batman” was very well-paced, and generally balanced in regards to the main characters. I did feel that at times perhaps Joker was getting way too much focus, and that Batman/Bruce Wayne was getting pushed aside a bit (this was possibly due to Jack Nicholson’s much broader appeal and star power over that of Michael Keaton). Vicki Vale was fleshed out a little in the story, although she never manages to become much more than the token girlfriend for Bruce Wayne in this movie, not that this is all that surprising. The action worked well within the film, never feeling forced into the proceedings to provide the obligatory fight sequences for a comic book or action movie. Basically, all of the story elements within “Batman” worked perfectly with each other to create a very entertaining movie, and beloved comic book adaptation, and at the time, it could have been viewed as a “How To” guide for making a successful superhero movie.

The cast was led by Michael Keaton, who was a source of much contention amongst fans at the time of his casting; because at that time all he had really been known for were comedic roles, and his most recent had been the title role in Tim Burton’s “Beetlejuice”. However, once trailers for the movie started appearing on TV and in movie theaters, and then the eventual release of the movie, the fans soon began supporting Michael’s portrayal, and to this day he still remains the fan favorite for many Bat-fans. Michael brought a very serious minded approach to the character of Bruce Wayne, playing him as being somewhat uncomfortable in his billionaire role, and much more at ease in the part of Batman. He also was the first to give the two characters very distinct voices to differentiate from one another, a choice that has stuck with the character throughout all of his movie incarnations since then (well, except for “Batman & Robin”, George Clooney never left ‘George Clooney’ mode). Jack Nicholson (“The Bucket List”) was the perfect choice for Joker, and at the time was the iconic version of the character that all other versions would be judged by; however, the late Heath Ledger has dethroned Nicholson with his recent portrayal of a much more menacing version of Joker in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. Jack brought a dark sense of humor and violent disposition to the character, aspects of the Joker that hadn’t been seen before except in the comic books, mixed with a little bit of wackiness, although not so much that it became cartoonish or distracting from the movie or his performance. Rounding out the main cast was Kim Basinger (“Cellular”) as Vicki Vale, her character as I stated earlier, was essentially nothing more than eye candy and a love interest for Bruce Wayne. There were a few moments where Kim was surprisingly given some important scenes in the script, therefore adding some depth to her character and her relationship with Bruce, but otherwise she was nothing more than the damsel-in-distress for the hero to save.

In the end, “Batman” was, and still is, an excellent superhero film adaptation, and at the time was responsible for resurrecting the seemingly dead comic book genre after the one-two punch of “Superman 3” and “Superman 4: The Quest for Peace” had killed it off. Boasting a very solid story that was approached seriously by all the cast and crew working on the film, Tim Burton’s “Batman” was the perfect weapon for successfully destroying the public’s misconception of Batman as being nothing more than a silly superhero for children that was the focal point of an extremely campy TV show.

“Batman” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Star Wars: The Original Trilogy

In 1977, George Lucas began crafting a series of movies that would shape the way modern cinema was made for generations to come. That series was none other than the ‘Star Wars’ saga, though he began his saga in 1977, the first movie was actually the middle chapter in a 6-part story. After the success of “Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” (then it was known only as “Star Wars”), George Lucas crafted the final 2 chapters in his epic space saga, “Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” and “Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi”. Upon completion of ‘Episode 6′, George took a hiatus from the grand universe he’d created, a hiatus that would last over 25 years, and would leave fans foaming at the mouth with anticipation. During the mid-nineties there were rumors abound that George was working on the first 3 chapters of his space saga, a rumor that was further fueled by the 1997 theatrical re-release of the original trilogy with new CGI effects and scenes added in. Finally in 1999, the time had arrived for the unveiling of the first chapter of the ‘Star Wars’ saga with, “Star Wars – Episode 1: The Phantom Menace”. Three years later he released “Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones”, and in 2005 George Lucas brought his series full circle with the much acclaimed, “Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith”. I have already reviewed the 3 films that comprise what is known as the prequel trilogy, and now it is time for me to finish my series of reviews based on the ‘Star Wars’ movies with my review of the box set of the original trilogy.

“Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” takes place approximately 16-20 years after the events of ‘Episode 3′. The galaxy is in turmoil under the iron fist rule of Emperor Palpatine and his Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Vader, who together are in complete control of the evil Empire. Their are very few heroes left in the galaxy, with almost all of the Jedi exterminated during the ‘Jedi Purge’ that was perpetrated by Darth Vader, all that remains of the former glory of the Republic is a growing group of rebels that hope to one day bring down the evil reign of the Empire. Assisting the Rebellion, led by an ambitious Princess from Alderaan, named Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), are an old man, who just so happens to be former Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi, a young farm boy from Tatooine, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and a space pirate named Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and his Wookie companion, Chewbacca. Together this rag-tag group of unlikely heroes hope to bring down the Empire’s newest weapon, the planet destroying ‘Death Star’, and the key to this mission rests in the most unlikely of places, with that of 2 droids, C-3PO and R2-D2.

“Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” picks up about 5 years after ‘Episode 4′. The ‘Death Star’ has been destroyed by Luke Skywalker, the Rebellion seemed to be on the upswing, but luck would not last forever, as the rebels have been forced to flee yet again to the ice planet of Hoth. Luke and Han have become formidable pilots for the Rebellion, though Han and Chewie are looking to leave in order to pay off a bounty on Han’s head, and Luke continues to strive to learn more about the Force, though his mentor and guide Obi-Wan Kenobi was killed at the hands of Darth Vader. For Luke to learn what he must to become a Jedi, and assist the Rebellion in overthrowing the darkness that is ruling the galaxy, Obi-Wan appears as a ‘Force Spirit’ to Luke and instructs him to seek out an old Jedi Master named Yoda who has exiled himself to a swamp planet called Dagobah. Will Luke be able to become the Jedi he is destined to be, or is it too late to hope for the galaxy?

“Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi” takes place a few months after ‘Episode 5′, as Luke, Leia, Lando, and Chewbacca are planning to free their captured comrade Han Solo from his Carbonite prison and from the clutches of the vile, sluggish-gangster, Jabba the Hutt. Once freed can Han and his friends in the Rebellion manage to destroy the currently under construction ‘Death Star 2′ that is being personally overseen by Darth Vader and his master, Emperor Palpatine. Will Luke become a true Jedi Knight, and lead the galaxy out of it’s darkness that has bound it for so long, or will he succumb to his anger, and embrace the legacy laid out by his father, Anakin Skywalker, by becoming a Dark Jedi? The fate of the galaxy hangs in the balance.

The ‘Star Wars’ saga has been by far one of the most influential film series’ ever created, and after viewing the entire 6-part saga all together, it really comes as no surprise. With groundbreaking special effects, and leading the way from film to Digital media, the ‘Star Wars’ saga has paved the way for how most of the films are created today in this modern age of cinema.

The three films listed above that comprise what has now become known as the Original trilogy still remain my absolute favorites out of the entire saga. Sure, the special effects aren’t nearly as clean or polished, or even mind-blowing as those featured in the prequels, but still considering the fact these films were made from 1977 through 1983, they’re still impressive enough on their own (of course some of them have been beefed up or completely redone over the course of the last 30 years). Aside from the special effects, what made these original three movies so special was their incredible storytelling and characters that are easy to relate to and root for throughout the course of their harrowing journey to save the galaxy from evil. It’s those kinds of qualities that have allowed this series to continue to thrive in popular culture, and for this Original trilogy to remain as beloved today, if not more so, than it was back when the movies were initially released to theaters.

The ‘Star Wars’ saga, and this Original trilogy of films within that saga, is one of those rare film series’ that actually does feature something for everyone in the family to enjoy. With it’s epic 6-part story, to it’s awe-inspiring battles and space flights, along with some comedy and romance thrown in for good measure, this series is not one to be missed, and without a doubt is one of the greatest movie series’ of all time!

“Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope” is rated PG for violence.
“Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back” is rated PG for violence.
“Star Wars – Episode 6: Return of the Jedi” is rated PG for violence.

Star Wars – Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Over 25 years after the release of “Star Wars – Episode 4: A New Hope”, George Lucas finally brings his epic saga full circle with the 2005 release of “Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith”. This film is the one that ‘Star Wars’ fans worldwide have been waiting for, the one that would end the prequel trilogy, and wrap up all of those pesky loose ends that have been hanging since 1977. Some were skeptic regarding ‘Episode 3′, after all ‘Episode’s 1 & 2′ were not as well liked by fans and were completely torn apart by movie critics, though I personally enjoyed each of them. However, much to my surprise, any skepticism regarding this final chapter in the saga was quickly dismissed when critics were actually praising ‘Episode 3′ prior to it’s theatrical debut, and when the time finally approached, you can be sure that fans were lining up around the block to see this final chapter in the ‘Star Wars’ saga, and ‘Episode 3′ did not disappoint one bit.

“Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith” begins several years after the events of ‘Episode 2′, and around the end of the Clone Wars. Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is now a full-fledged Jedi Knight and is still partnered with Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), and are both doing their best to end the increasing threat of the Separatist’s and discover the mystery behind the resurgence of the Dark Side of the Force in the galaxy. While Anakin has been trying to end the Clone Wars, his secret wife, Padme (Natalie Portman) is pregnant with Anakin’s twin children. What should be happy times for Anakin, causes great discomfort as terrible nightmares plague him constantly about the death of his beloved Padme during childbirth. This tragic thought prompts Anakin to look for solutions to his problem in unconventional places and from sources that would use his fear to their advantage. This search will test all Anakin holds dear, as his anger grows increasingly stronger, and he is pushed farther towards the Dark Side, and his destiny to become Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith.

“Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith” provides everything a ‘Star Wars’ fan could dream of, it neatly wraps up the loose ends created by the first 2 chapters in the prequel trilogy, and also those created by the original trilogy that began in 1977. With possibly the best writing and acting out of the entire prequel trilogy, it comes as no surprise that critics actually enjoyed this film, as George Lucas masterfully captures the all-to human emotion of fear, and how this motive, if properly fed and manipulated, could drive one to make drastic choices.

The performances, as I stated in the paragraph above, are the best in the prequel trilogy, especially from Hayden Christensen. Hayden was incredibly stiff throughout a large portion of ‘Episode 2′; thankfully, he was much more natural and relaxed in his performance for his second and final time playing the iconic role of a young Darth Vader rising to power. Ewan McGregor gave what is easily his best performance in this trilogy, specifically in the latter portion of the movie when he confronts Anakin over the darkness that is beginning to consume his life. I enjoyed seeing Samuel L. Jackson getting a bit more to do this time around, sure he got to do some fighting in ‘Episode 2′, but it seemed like he was given more opportunities to kick butt in this one. Rounding out the main cast members would be Natalie Portman, who seemed to be pushed to the background much more this time, which was somewhat surprising given the fact that her character plays such a pivotal role in Anakin’s decisions; and lastly, Ian McDiarmid was front and center for much of the action and pivotal moments throughout the movie as the newly christened Emperor Palpatine. McDiarmid was really given ample opportunities to show us the evil side to his character that we all know from the final installment in the series, but had yet to see in the Prequel trilogy, so it was nice to see that side come into play much more so than before.

Boasting incredible CGI effects and a surprisingly very potent, emotionally charged story, with the best acting in all of the Prequel trilogy, “Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith” is one of the best ‘Star Wars’ movies ever made, possibly rivaling the beloved favorite “Star Wars – Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back”. ‘Episode 3′ is a great movie for not only ‘Star Wars’ fans, but also general moviegoers, as there is something that will appeal to everyone in this film.

“Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith” is rated PG-13 for violence.

Star Wars – Episode II: Attack of the Clones

When George Lucas began his new `Star Wars’ prequel trilogy, chronicling the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker from Jedi Knight to Dark Lord of the Sith, many fans stood in line for days just to get tickets to the first installment, “Star Wars – Episode 1: The Phantom Menace”. Then the film was released and many fans were disillusioned by the seemingly childish story that didn’t seem to contain the epic elements from the original trilogy that they had grown up loving. Of course, with over 20 years of speculation it’s impossible to please every fan’s expectations regarding how the story of Anakin Skywalker should and will be told, plus the epic journey had to start somewhere. I personally enjoyed `Episode 1″, yes the acting was somewhat wooden and the story was aimed at a much younger audience than previous installments from the original trilogy, yet as I stated in the review for that film the story has to start somewhere and why not show the `Star Wars’ universe’s greatest villain turn from a kid that is upbeat and positive to the evil despot we all love to hate from the original trilogy. Many fans claimed that they were no longer as enamored by the series after their disappointment with `Episode 1′, but it was all talk. Because when the time arrived for `Episode 2′ to be released all the fans appeared to be back in full force and waiting in line for insanely long periods of time to be the first to snag tickets to the next installment. Was the disappointment suffered at the hands of ‘Episode 1’ carried through to this next chapter, or did George Lucas regain favor with his massive throng of fans?

“Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones” continues approximately 10 years after the events of `Episode 1′. The galaxy is in even greater turmoil, as galaxy after galaxy is leaving the Galactic Republic and joining a resistance known as the Separatists, led by the remnants of the Trade Federation. Unbeknownst to all, is the fact that two men, Sith Lords to be exact, are causing the galactic turmoil; Darth Sidious/Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid reprising his role of Supreme Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine from `Episodes 1, 5, & 6′) and Darth Tyrannus/Count Dooku (Christopher Lee). The Jedi are trying to hold together the fragile peace that currently exists in the galaxy, but it seems that peace is not going to last much longer, as assassination attempts are being made on the former Queen of Naboo, Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). To protect the young Senator, the Jedi Council assigns Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his apprentice Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), with the task of not only protecting the senator but also uncovering the mystery regarding the growing Dark Side power that the Jedi sense is overwhelming the galaxy. This assignment will take the Jedi and Senator Amidala from the deserts of Tatooine, to the lush forests of Naboo, to the advanced cloning facilities on the ocean world Kamino, and to the savage gladiatorial arenas of Geonosis, leading to the beginning of the Clone Wars.

Without a doubt “Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones” was a much better movie than “Star Wars – Episode 1: The Phantom Menace”. `Episode 2′ delivered almost exactly what fans and movie audiences wanted to see; except for the critics of course, they panned this movie just as bad as they did `Episode 1′. There was romance, comedy, drama, terrific action scenes, and breathtaking special effects, basically all the necessary components for an epic sci-fi saga, that has spanned generations.

The acting was much better, still wooden in some places, but a marked improvement, especially from Ewan McGregor. The weakest link in the cast was newcomer to the series, Hayden Christensen. His performance was a mixture of good and bad, there were numerous occasions during the first half of the film where Hayden knocks the scene out of the park, but then there are just as many scenes where he falters and comes off as incredibly annoying and whiny to the point that one would question just how the galaxy ever came to fear this powerful young man. Thankfully, by the end of the film Hayden appeared to have found his stride and maintained a very steady and sure performance that began to really mold the character into a being that would be capable of the dark acts he will commit later in life.

The story took a decidedly more mature tone in `Episode 2′, as Anakin and Padme are beginning to fall in love, but must keep the romance a secret so that Anakin may remain in the Jedi order, and at the same time Anakin’s intense anger is becoming more apparent and is beginning to cause concern among the other members of the Jedi Order, a fact Anakin is all too aware of. `Episode 2′ features several key turning points for Anakin’s character that serve to propel him towards his eventual destiny of Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith, which is what is so cool about this prequel trilogy. It’s interesting to see all the big and little events that would cause such a drastic transformation in a character.

All in all, “Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones” is an entertaining sci-fi thrill ride that never lets up. This installment perfectly propels the story of Anakin Skywalker towards his inevitable fall from Jedi grace to the Dark Side of the Force. If you were disappointed by `Episode 1′ then by all means, do not write off the entire prequel trilogy based on that one film, as `Episode 2′ will easily impress you and make you forget all about the problems you had with the first installment. A definite must see for `Star Wars’ fans and those looking for an entertaining time.

“Star Wars – Episode 2: Attack of the Clones” is rated PG for violence.