The Exorcist Review

 

            I’ve been waiting for the right time to watch this one. Be it that it is October, I decided it was time to watch this classic. Doing some background, it has the notoriety of being “The Scariest Movie Ever”. I’ll talk about that but just to state it bluntly, it’s probably one of my favorite films I have seen. Something about great films being adapted from books always makes it seem that it depends on the substance of the book to make the film grand. Just this once I won’t be talking about the story but ostensibly talk about the best things that I can think of in the film. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

2.      The Iraq Scene

            This is probably one of the best first halves in the movie that I have seen in any film that I watched. With any newcomer that is watching for the first time and being confused why it takes place in Iraq, all I can say that it’s called “Set-Up”. Father Merrin played by Max von Sydow is part of an excavation, a boy tells him that his group dug up something. Merrin goes to the specific location and finds some odd relics. What he digs out further is a head of the demon named Pazuzu. Now, it’s name is never uttered in the movie and it’s the wisest move since it’s a silly sounding name. The sequel did it and the less I say about that one, the better.

            Near the end as he leaves the country, he visits an old temple. He looks around and a shadow appears and it’s a statue of the demon. I love the succeeding shots, such as the dogs fighting and a wild west looking shot of the Father looking at the statue. It communicates to us with no dialogue that Merrin has faced the demon. And the obvious that the devil makes men turn against each other.

            I love this act due to the overall foreboding vibe. With the Muslim prayer chants telling us that evil is universal, and it’s not just limited to Christianity or Catholicism. It’s everywhere. One thing that I had to look up was the actor’s age.  Max Von Sydow was in his forties when The Exorcist was being filmed. They put layers of makeup to make him look really aged. He looks like himself years later when he appeared in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

3.      Father Karras

            One would think that the film would be focusing on the young girl Reagan played by Linda Blair. But her situation is just the framing story. The real main character is Father Damien Karras played by Jason Miller. He’s the most conflicted person of faith I have seen. He has trouble with himself losing his faith and asks his superior to transfer. Compounding this he is briefly living with his mother who he wants to relocate to somewhere better.

            He isn’t the typical good priest. He smokes, drinks and really doubts Reagan’s mom Chris when she asks if he can do an exorcism. Karras explains to her that there haven’t been any events since the idea of mental health has been what he believes what causes the exorcisms that happened in the past.

            His character is so dynamic that when talking about this concept in literary terms called the hero’s journey, Karras fits the bill. Meaning that his character is in a bad position. He gets a call to help but he rejects it. Eventually he relents and joins his associate Father Merrin to rescue Reagan from the demon. Unfortunately, he dies and I honestly didn’t want that to happen to him. But I can understand that it fit his overall redemption that the film was aiming for.

4.      The Demon

            As I mentioned earlier, the demon has a name but the movie doesn’t announce it. Additionally, it’s established that Merrin has squared off against the demon in his younger years. It was voiced by actress Mercedes McCambridge. For as much as it is just a voice, her performance gives the demon credence to being a legitimate threat. I’m glad that there wasn’t any shot or just dialogue to explain how it made it to Georgetown but that it appeared in the house. Well, we do hear that Reagan has been playing with a Ouija board and made an imaginary friend.

            It proves to be a worthy antagonist to Karras. When Miller’s character first meets Reagan, he thinks that it’s just the girl acting up. The demon says that it is the devil. Karras goads into making the straps that is clamping on Reagan’s wrists to go away. It says that’s no fun and pukes on Karras.

            I think the best moment is when Karras goes back into Reagan’s room he sees Merrin dead and seeing his mother in the bed. The demon giggles which prompts Karras to punch the demon and make it possess him. I think one of the ways the demon does to make it seem scary is to make illusions. With illusions the demon twists Reagan’s head to face the other side and to voice Damien’s mom.

5.      The Subjectivity of Being Scared

Now, with it bearing the notoriety and title of “Scariest Movie Ever Made”, I believe that the real terror isn’t so much of the exorcism. It’s not knowing what was wrong with Reagan before her mother called Damien for help. Chris takes Reagan to the hospital and the one moment where she’s in the examination room shows just how much it looks like a procedural. With Reagan having her blood drawn and to have scans of her brain being taken which causes her pain.

            It’s one thing to be immediately scared with not knowing what’s wrong with your child and with yourself. And I feel that the scenes with Chris experiencing the demon’s illusions and power are indeed frightening. But I feel that the real horror comes with not originally knowing and telling the professionals what happened. Only to be blown off and say that it’s a mental psychosis.

            When it came out, a load of people were actually genuinely frightened of the movie. Some had to be escorted out of the theater and some puked. I think it was a case of just not being prepared or exposed to what was going on that had people off their rocker. More so with the hype that may have got the movie to get the title that it got at the time.

            Does it still apply now? I don’t think so. I do think that there are other movies that are frightening but are just tame in horror movie standard. Even a movie that has war in it can have horror elements and make it scary. I think as a genre, one has to look at the whole slate and pick which ones that generally did scare them and the others that made them startled or made them anxious.

6.      Overall

When it came out in 1974, no one would think it would be nominated with so many awards including Best Picture. It’s a massive feat to have a horror movie be nominated and be in the same category as one of the best films to come out. I think when more films come out that deal with exorcisms that aren’t as successful as The Exorcist. It can at least be attributed with one glaring thing. It’s not so much of the event, but more on the human drama investment with the characters that make the event gripping. We go in expecting an exorcism, but the real crux is the person doing it as a way to find his faith and be redeemed.

 

The Exorcist gets a five out of five. 

Halloween (1978) Review

It’s the 1970s now, cinema has changed drastically. When the medium had started to die down from popularity, studios started to lose money. Many businesses with no movie making background started to buy movie studios. To regenerate profit, studios started to hire young ambitious filmmakers to bring in more money. So what does Halloween from 1978 have to do with that?

I can say that it’s probably one of the best independent slasher films I have seen from the 70s. It was made with 300,000 dollars and grossed 40 million dollars. Directed by John Carpenter, who I will talk about his other film next week, introduces the moviegoing audience to Michael Myers. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

So the film starts in the fictional Haddonfield, Illinois in 1963. We see a one take point of view shot of someone killing a girl. We later learned that the killer is a kid. Michael appears with his parents that aren’t shocked, they’re like “Oh boy, again with this?” 15 years later, his psychiatrist Dr. Loomis played by Donald Pleasance arrives with the sanitarium’s nurse and notices the asylum’s inmates are wandering by the gate. The nurse is attacked by one of the patients and gets out of the car. Michael takes it to go back to Haddonfield.

Most of the film takes place on, well, Halloween. We follow the main character Laurie Strode being herself and hanging with her friends. Later in the night, she babysits as well as her friends but, I shouldn’t really explain since you know what’s going to happen. In between that, Dr. Loomis goes to Haddonfield to find and stop Michael.

2.      Michael Myers

This is probably one of the most intimidating villains and killers in film. It’s unique to have the film start in his point of view. More so with Dr. Loomis explaining to the local sheriff what Michael’s life was when he was in the sanitarium. The idea of someone being “Pure Evil” sounds about right to describe him, since he just kills with no remorse.

He doesn’t even speak any lines, he just breathes really deeply. I think the best scene or shot that really capture the essence of Myers is when he kills Paul the boyfriend. Michael kills him and has his body raised so high that Paul’s feet doesn’t touch the floor. Michael just takes a step back and tilts his head left and right to really admire his work. With no lines and just having it played completely straight, this is the most terrifying killer I have seen.

One tidbit that isn’t talked about is his mask. Few people know that his mask is the face of William Shatner from the classic Star Trek television show. It’s painted white and I always wanted to know if John Carpenter had other ideas for the mask or just picked it since it’s something that’s different.

3.      Laurie Strode

Played by Jamie Lee Curtis, she is the best normal character in the movie. She’s down to earth in comparison with her ditsy friends. Like Laurie is the opposite and gets teased by her friends when she spots Michael. She’s a good example of the final girl trope that appears in horror or slasher films. 

A trope is something that happens in a film. For instance, in a superhero film, the main superhero has a final battle with the villain. Its what’s expected with a movie since by nature they must follow the genre formula. Which leads to why this movie is so good.

One more thing is that she goes through a character arc. Meaning she changes when we see her in the beginning through the end. She thinks she’s seeing a figure but it turns out it is Michael Myers. She ultimately tries to escape but manages to stab and stop him from killing her.

4.      What Made it Good

If you have a movie with totally unlikeable characters getting killed, one would be glad that they’re dead and not really caring about the characters or be invested in the movie. A good film like Halloween has a good protagonist where you care. The moment when Laurie is in danger made me scared since I didn’t want her to die from Michael. The moment where she hides in the closet and Myers smashing the openers prompts her to stop him. She uses wire hangars to stab him which makes her character so much more likable. It makes her brave and not afraid of Myers.

Also, the overall myth of Michael is just short and to the point. We don’t have Michael explain his motive and what I said earlier, Loomis sums up Myer’s whole problem. If we had to delve even more deeper it would’ve just ruined just how Michael is just an enigma.

5.      Legacy or the sequels, reboots and, retcons

Just to get this out of the way, John Carpenter originally wanted the series to be an anthology series. After the first sequel, the third one didn’t have Michael, instead a corporate Halloween company kills kids with their costumes. While it’s one movie that I might look at next year, people hated it since it didn’t have Michael Myers.

Throughout the late eighties and the nineties, the Halloween franchise went back to Michael to be the main killer. The sequels tied Michael to a cult but it didn’t go anywhere and bombed. The first instance of the retcon is in Halloween H20: 20 Years Later, where the film acts like a follow up with the first two movies. It ended with Halloween Resurrection, the only thing I got to say is Busta Rhymes, really? The series was remade by movie director and musician Rob Zombie, the first one was just okay. He instilled a grindhouse, white trash version of Michael Myers. The sequel just sucked.

In 2018, another Halloween film just titled Halloween (2018) is the second retcon, but this time acts as a sequel to the first Halloween. It was pretty enjoyable and it kicked off a new series that is supposed to continue next year and end in the following.

6.      Overall

This is one of the most enjoyable and fun horror movies that I have seen. It’s packed with so much suspense and the music really amps up the anxiety levels. John Carpenter really outdid himself and some consider this movie to be his best. I feel that everyone should watch it on October 31^st, as a traditional movie.

Halloween (1978) gets a five out of five. 

Rosemary's Baby Review

      As the week of spotlighting two 1960s horror movies wraps up, I picked Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby to close out the week and transition into the 1970s. I say that because the film deals with the idea of the supernatural in terms of belief. Based on a novel by Ira Levin and Polanski doing the extra effort of writing and directing the film, some consider his adaptation one of the best to translate the book to film. This is the first movie I have seen of Roman Polanski. Just to get it out of the way, I won’t be talking about his personal life since we’ll be judging his work as such. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

The film is about a young couple moving into a new apartment in New York City. Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse played by Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes respectively find the right apartment and adjust. While touring, Rosemary finds a letter from the prior tenant but blows it off. As they adjust, old neighbors come to introduce themselves, I’ll talk about them after this.

Guy is an aspiring actor and somehow got a prestigious part for a play after the first actor went blind. They celebrate with the Castavets and the couple decide to make a baby. Rosemary has a surreal dream and notices that the dream is a nightmare. She wakes up and sees scratches from Guy but ignore it.

The entire film focuses on Rosemary slowly becoming paranoid about her pregnancy. Since she believes that people are trying to kill or harm the baby. I’ll sprinkle in more on the third half in the movie since I feel that it really is the best moments that has the dread.

2.      The Castavets

The Castavets are quite possibly one of the most unassuming but nosey neighbors I have seen in any film. When the Woodhouse’s move in, Mrs. Castavet snoops around the house and noticing that their furniture is expensive. It gets to a point that Rosemary becomes annoyed by them since they keep coming in. When Rosemary get’s pregnant, they give her herbal drinks and feed her desserts which dramatically change her.

I feel that somehow this decade had it where the villains where the unassuming and perfectly normal people. Albeit, the small detail was that something was off about them. Using Norman Bates from Psycho, he came off as socially maladjusted with an odd habit and a mental deterioration. Here though, they come off as very inquisitive and manipulative to the new couple. We’re never shown the scene where Guy made the deal with the devil with the old couple, but it becomes apparent just how much it inadvertently affects Rosemary.

3.      The Degeneration of Rosemary

Throughout the whole movie, Rosemary goes through a transformation when she is pregnant. She starts of with having a pig tail haircut to having a new hairstyle called “Vidal Sassoon”, which her husband and friend Hutch find odd. I feel that it contributes with the subtle manipulation by the Castavets. For instance, there’s a shot where Rosemary is walking in their apartment and as she’s walking, the light bearing down on her face makes her look like a skeleton.

Another instance of where Rosemary is slowly getting paranoid is her having no trust with anyone looking after her. She starts taking herbal drinks from the Castavets which cause her pain in the stomach. More so when her obstetrician Dr. Sapirstein tells her to not read or take pills. It makes her aware that he is in cahoots with the Castavets. I feel that the main horror is the lack of control one has. Especially if a woman being pregnant, where the baby is priority number one. Although, near the end is how I feel is the real horror.  

4.      What We Don’t See

I think the main highlight in the movie is Rosemary seeing the Satanic coven with the baby. Rosemary carries a knife intending to kill them all. Only to be told to look at her baby. She looks at the crib, but we never cut to one shot or a brief look at the baby. We only see her face turned to shocked with horror. It works so well in its execution.

If we even had a look at what the baby was, I think it would have derailed the whole movie. Since either the baby is a perfectly normal or a demonic Cthulu looking one, we are never shown how he looks, and I feel it’s the most underutilized method to making a horror movie. It works because we’re fixed on Rosemary’s horrific expression and everybody else’s satisfaction with how the baby turned out.

The real creepiness is her rocking the baby gently. Since, its her own motherly nature to look after her baby. Knowing that he is the son of the devil. I haven’t read the book and I can only imagine how the author wrote that scene when it happened.

5.      Overall

This is one of the best Polanski film he has made. Additionally, one of the best horror movies from the 60s. While it’s never had moments where there’s an impending doom or anything as such. It has the unnerving dread that something is very wrong and lack of control to really drive the point to feel nervous and sorry for Rosemary. It’s one of the best horror movies to come out of that time and I feel it still holds up now.

Rosemary’s Baby gets a four out of five. 

Psycho (1960) Review

    This week we begin to look at the 1960s in horror. Two movies changed the genre, none so more than Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. It could be considered one of the first slasher films since many believed that Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre were the first examples of the sub-genre. What many people don’t know is that the film is based on a novel by Robert Bloch. Psycho is considered one of Hitchcock’s best since, to be frank, most of his films are considered great.

    One more thing to keep in mind is that Hitchcock made the film due to him being frustrated with the drama of making his other higher budgeted films. While they weren’t bad, hell they’re considered masterpieces. He decided to make it low budgeted, which explains the black and white. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

Since I haven’t had the chance to read the novel, I’ll be just taking the assumption that the movie takes some liberties in its plot. Regardless, it starts with the main character Marion Crane played by Janet Leigh. She is seeing her lover Sam and wants to marry him. What stops them is the debts that Sam inherited from his Dad and previous marriage. Marion works at the real estate office and is being flirted by a client. Who for some reason carries 40,000 dollars to purchase a house. She is instructed by her boss to put it in the bank to keep it safe.

Marion lies about having a headache and takes the money with her. As she is driving, she sees her boss who looks back at her. Marion begins to worry that her boss suspects she stole the money. She thinks the words that her boss will says and continues to drive. She pulls over the road to sleep. She is woken up by a highway patrolman who suspects something is off about her. Marion leaves and enters a dealership to trade in her car. The cop follows her. As she leaves, she once again thinks what the salesman and cop are saying about her.

She pulls over to a motel by the highway called Bates Motel. She honks at the house overlooking the hotel for help and a man named Norman helps her. He picks her room to stay and invites her to have some dinner. She finds out who Norman is and he reveals that he lives with his mother. After the conversation ended, Marion goes to her room. Norman looks at her through a peep hole. As the woman is showering, someone murders her.

This is the first time that a main character is killed off in any movie. One would think that the movie would be over since, the character that we were following is now dead. The second half is focused on investigating who killed Marion.

2.      Norman Bates

Norman is one of the most interesting and scariest characters in 20^th Century film. One would have a preconceived notion that someone being scary would look repulsive or demented. Here, he looks normal. Played by Anthony Perkins, he manages to be unassuming and soft spoken. There’s one shot when he is talking to Marion, just above him is a taxidermized owl leering. I feel that it’s a very subtle way to show that he is a predator, but just his personality is enough to convince us that he’s innocent.

He isn’t. During the second half of the film, he is being investigated and he lies about the whereabouts of Marion. I’ll elaborate more on what happens to him since I really don’t want to pack in the twist he is connected to. What I will say is that he was involved in the sequels but, I feel that the nuance that Anthony Perkins had in the first one is sort of gone since everybody knows who he really is. I haven’t seen the sequels but just the fact that the first one is universally beloved, makes all the sequels inferior.

3.      The Toilet

This seems as a stretch to talk about this. You could think and ask, “Why am I talking about a toilet?” Well, for some trivia about film history you never thought you would know, this film is the first film to have a shot of a toilet. As well as it flushing. Yes, you read that right. Back then before 1968, there was a censorship board mostly known as the Hays Code. It was a very overt censorship board that did not want anything sexual or deviant to be portrayed on screen. Not even have a toilet being flushed or shown flushing since it was considered a big no-no.

I thought it should be warranted a topic of discussion since, Marion used the toilet to get rid of the total amount of money she spent. Attempting to erase her crime she just committed.

4.      The Last Act

Now, this is probably one of the best third acts in film. As you probably seen from the poster above the blog, Hitchcock made it explicitly clear that no theater will allow anyone to go in to watch the movie if they arrive late. Some may call it petty, but some audience members would be completely lost at what exactly is happening. What happens is that Sam and Marion’s sister Lila meet a private investigator who has been assigned to find Marion.

The P.I’s name is Arbogast and he is promptly killed by the same killer in the Bates house above the motel. So Sam and Lila go to the motel to figure out who killed Marion. Sam distracts Norman as Lila goes into the Bates’ house. Norman knocks out Sam and tries to find Lila. She is in the basement and sees Norman’s mom. She realizes that the Mom is dead and behind her is Norman dressed in his mother’s clothes.

This is one of the best twists in cinema. We were led to believe that Norman’s mom was responsible for the killings. Although, when Sam and Lila meet with the sheriff, he tells them that his mother has been dead. I can imagine that no one in the audience expected that Norman would be the killer and see him in women’s clothing. In the end, Sam, Lila and the sheriff meet with the psychologist and hear his explanation of what’s happening to Norman.

5.      Overall

Psycho is probably one of the best horror movies and best adaptation. What truly makes it such is that it’s a total gamechanger. The film really gambled on the idea of killing a main character and having such a unique plot twist. And Hitchcock achieved with it with some of his connections with television. I feel that what is lost when aspiring horror directors watch Psycho is the slow approach and the paranoia that is imbued in the film. One last thing, do NOT watch the remake from the late 90s with Vince Vaughn, it’s a shot by shot remake that is probably one of the worst remakes ever.

Psycho gets a five out of five. 

Underrated Gems: Drag Me to Hell

It's obvious to no one that today is the first day of October. The whole month will be dedicated to two select horror movies from the 60s to the 90s. With Halloween being dedicated to one from the 2010s. Now, we kick off this exploration with this little gem from the early 2000s. From Sam Raimi who directed the widely regarded Evil Dead and Spider-Man trilogies comes Drag Me to Hell an original underrated film that deserves your attention. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

The film starts with a Mexican family arriving to a house of a medium to help their son. The family say that he hears and sees demons. Compounding the issue is that the family say that the son stole jewelry from gypsies. The medium Shaun San Dena invites them to come and she begins with the séance. The demon pushes everyone including the boy who falls from the second floor to the main floor. Cracks appear from the floor and the family and medium see the boy being dragged down.

Years later, we follow the main protagonist Christine played by Alison Lohman who is working at a bank. We see that she wants the Assistant Manager position but has competition who wants to have that position as well. Her boss Mr. Jacks tells her that she must show that she deserves the position. From there, Mrs. Ganush asks Christine for help since she asks for an extension to have her house from being taken away. Christine denies her an extension which prompts Ganush to plead to the young banker to help her but gets escorted out.

As Christine leaves, Ganush curses Christine with a demon to torment her. She does so by removing a button from her jacket as part of the curse.  Throughout the movie, Christine visits a fortune teller Rahm Jas played by Dileep Rao to see if the demon can be expelled. In the middle of that, the demon terrorizes Christine by creating noises that she only hears. By levitating her and throwing her around her house. And making her nose bleed by spewing tons of blood.

She ultimately decides to take matters in her own hands by trying to pass off her curse to someone else. Rahm tells her that its possible to pass it down to someone. She decided to pass it down to her coworker who wanted the prestigious title at the bank. She changes her mind and goes straight to Ganush’s grave and shove the button down her throat. Thinking that she completed the transfer, Christine visits her boyfriend played by Justin Long at the train station to go out of town. He reveals that he had the cursed button, which causes Christine to fall in the train tracks. Her boyfriend watches in horror as she sees Christine being grabbed by various demons to hell.

2.      The Raimi Touch

It’s no secret that Sam Raimi has a unique touch of directing horror. He makes good use of the quick zoom ins and quick edits of shots. Here, it’s ostensibly Raimi’s film. One of the motifs that I noticed is the use of the Dutch Angle. This camera trick is when the camera slightly tilts one way, and its when a character is experiencing something weird. It happens when the demon comes to terrorize Christine at her house and boyfriend’s parent’s house.

One thing is that this film balances being a horror and a comedic movie. Since the comedy comes from the acts that Christine goes through. Parts of it is hilarious due to the outrageousness of it. For instance, in one scene where Christine goes to her shed, a demon who appears as Ganush scares her. The demon forces its entire arm into Christine’s mouth. Which prompts the woman to cut a rope which has an anvil to crash down on the demon, whose eyes and brain matter splatter to Christine.

I think its one thing where the tone shifts aren’t sharply contrasting where it feels like whiplash. The film does it so wonderfully that it builds the dread and offset it with comedic timing of the situation. I feel that it may alienate some people with that since they want to see a straight up horror movie. To the purists though, it’s exactly what they expect with Sam Raimi.

3.      Justification of Watching Someone Going Through Hell For Our Enjoyment

It’s one thing where we someone gets put through the ringer and we usually get enjoyment and laugh at their expense. Honestly, Christine had it coming throughout the entire movie. She put her own pride instead of helping Mrs. Ganush with her financial problems. As well as admitting that she could’ve helped the old woman.

Also, it’s one thing to feel sympathy for her since she has been cursed. Though, it made clear in my understanding that she’s unlikeable. She constantly lies throughout the movie which doesn’t really help her case. More so when she pleads for help. Like when she goes to the pawn shop and advocate for more money. And when she goes to see Mrs. Ganush to try to help her. Unbeknownst to her that she died. Which makes her attempt to help her all but futile.

I think the biggest takeaway is just the comeuppance that she suffers through. I feel its more of a fable since Christine’s pride of getting a job position swayed her to not help the old lady caused Christine’s problems throughout the film. Like I mentioned earlier, she could have helped her but she wanted the title since she felt she deserved it.

4.      Overall

Is this considered one of Sam Raimi’s best movies. Yes, since for a while in the 2000s he was busy making Spider-Man films for Sony. I think Drag Me to Hell was a statement by Sam Raimi to still flex his chops and say that he still has his horror genes. I have yet to watch his Evil Dead series but this one always gets the backburner for horror movies in the 2000s. So check it out if you want to watch something different.

Drag Me to Hell gets a four out of five. 

Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero Review

 

Out of all the Batman films that have come out during my entire lifetime, this is the first movie that I saw when I was a child. I feel it’s more poetic since this is the last entry for the Bat-centric month of September. I remember my parents and I were in the local Blockbuster and the cover caught my eye. I enjoyed it since it had both Batman and Robin. As well as being entertaining.

Now, 20 some years later, I think it’s a weak follow up after Mask of the Phantasm. It barely reaches feature length. Meaning that its an hour and 10 minutes long. I think its interesting that it was supposed to be a tie-in with the live-action film Batman and Robin. To put it bluntly, Warner Bros. delayed SubZero since they probably didn’t want the film to be associated with the stinker. Both films had the villain Mr. Freeze and Batgirl but the animated one was way more mature than the George Clooney one. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

The film is fairly simple, Mr. Freeze is living quietly in the arctic with an Inuit boy and his wife Nora, I'll elaborate on her. A submarine crashes into the abode and causes Freeze to kill those aboard the sub.

Meanwhile in Gotham, Freeze finds his old associate Gregory Belson who bargains with him to help cure his wife. They both research that the wife has a rare blood type and finds that Barbara Gordon, Batgirl, has the same blood Freeze's wife has. I kind of found it odd during the moment Belson and Freeze were finding blood donors, Barbara just so happened to be the same height and have the same blood as Nora.

As Barbara and Dick Grayson, Robin, are out at a club, Mr. Freeze crashes the party and kidnaps Barbara. Batman and Robin mount a rescue mission and attempt to stop Mr. Freeze. I feel that the film should have been in the animated series as a two-part episode. Since the stakes are high but not something that involves Gotham.

There’s only so much to talk about the plot since it lacks the levity of what Phantasm had.

2.      Mr. Freeze

Aside from the Joker, the villain Mr. Freeze had his entire origin rewritten in the animated series and has been considered one of the best Batman villains. In the comics prior, he appeared as an atypical zany villain that was part of Batman’s rogues who wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously. When the animated series came out, showrunners Paul Dini and Bruce Timm changed the character's origins drastically. Which can still be seen in different medium such as video games and in the stinker Batman and Robin.

Freeze was a scientist who had a wife named Nora who was suffering from a disease. He cryogenically frozen her until he found a cure. He was turned into the villain when a shady humanitarian pushed him into chemicals which made him only survive in the bitter cold. While he never craved domination, he only resorted to extreme acts of violence to find a cure for his wife. He appeared in three episodes in Batman: The Animated Series and in one episode in the spinoff Batman Beyond.

He demonstrates the violence, but he isn’t alone in the movie. As I mentioned before, Gregory Belson was an associate for Freeze. He assists with helping him when the villain tempts Belson with a clump of gold. It’s established that Belson was in financial hole that he takes the gold and helps Freeze.

3.      Bad CGI

I know that the film was released in ’98, but I feel that the use of CGI was really forced. I find it hard to believe that Disney, who pioneered CG with computer animation made the use of computer imagery and traditional animation coalesce. Although, it looks half-assed and inconsistent in this one. For instance, the beginning has the submarine be CGI including the arctic environment. When it breaches Freeze’s home there’s a shot where the top of submarine is a matte painting.  

Now, I can understand that the budget isn’t in the millions, but I don’t understand the insistence of implementing CGI. I would’ve liked it if it had played it straight with just having it be traditionally animated. I think the worst example is when the dynamic duo are about to takeoff to rescue Barbara. The Batplane looks okay, but why is Alfred CG’d? When he appears, he looks stiff. I wonder if they tried to animate him traditionally, but it didn’t look quite right. That’s just my theory.

Overall

            As a direct to video movie, its okay. Most of the complaints I have are just mainly on the visual aesthetics. Such as the film having a 1940s vibe but clashing with the 90s. I would’ve wanted to be just as good as Mask of the Phantasm. Though I can see why it was originally supposed to be a tie-in with a lesser movie. It’s a good Batman movie but not one of the best.

            Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero gets a 3 out of 5.

State From The Top #3

     Howdy everyone, it's that time again to let you guys know what I'm planning to do for October. A thought occurred that the holiday called Halloween is on the last day of that month. So, I thought, why not review some horror movies. Not just basic horror movies, but the ones that redefined the genre and are beloved. 

    So here's the plan. I am going to do the unthinkable and do two reviews in one week. Now, I'll do an Underrated Gems in the first day of October, but I have yet to pick which one exactly to talk about. I plan to do it where each week will consist of a decade. The second week will be about the 60s and continuing to the 90s. With the last day being dedicated to one for the 2000s.

    This might be a challenging endeavor for me since I'm going to inundate myself with so much horror that I'll be numb to any startling thing. If anything were to happen such as a change in schedule, you'll be the first to hear it. With that, here's the schedule

October 1st- Underrated Gems: Drag Me to Hell

October 5th- Psycho

October 9th- Rosemary's Baby

October 12th- Halloween

October 16th- The Exorcist

October 19th- The Thing

October 23rd- A Nightmare on Elm Street

October 26th- Jacob's Ladder

October 30th- Scream

October 31st- Hereditary

Underrated Gems: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

 

            So when creating the Bat-month schedule, I initially forgot that the month had one more week. With that, you guys are getting two Batman animated films that I watched growing up. For now, I will talk about the caped crusader’s first animated film Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

            To give a short background on this movie, I have to talk about the animated series the movie is based around. Batman: The Animated Series is considered by many to be one of the best animated series ever. It resembled the old Superman shorts from Paramount and Fleischer Animation Studios. By giving Batman a noir and art deco feel in Gotham City. It felt very mature without it feeling adult. It’s surprising that it was geared towards kids, such as myself when I saw it syndicated on Cartoon Network.

1.      Story

The film mirrors the series since it feels like an extended episode. So the film starts off as Batman breaks a gangster meeting. One of them escapes and encounters a new vigilante, The Phantasm. While never named in the movie, it kills the gangsters one by one. Leaving many including the police to believe that Batman is responsible. Thankfully, another subplot deals with Bruce Wayne’s youth when he was dating via flashback.

The use of the flashbacks shows how Bruce wanted to maintain a normal life and being a vigilante. We see a very personal look on Bruce that we’ve never seen so far during the Tim Burton films that came out earlier. Kevin Conroy voices and he does a great job playing Bruce Wayne. This is probably the most emotional we've seen Bruce in any Batman film. Until he gets triggered by Superman when he says his mother's name. 

What I didn’t like was how Batman’s main villain, The Joker, was used. Mind you, Mark Hamill voices the clown prince of crime so perfectly. I felt it was too convenient that he was the bodyguard for the gangsters that were hustling Andrea’s father. No joke, there's a scene where Batman took a photo from Andrea's apartment, he notices one of the gangsters looking like The Joker by drawing a smile.  I feel that it is my main complaint, I would’ve want it where Batman is going against the new vigilante without being hold back by an established villain.

2.      Bruce and Andrea

While the best moments include Batman. The scenes that have Bruce and Andrea are just tragic. It feels refreshing to see Bruce Wayne be happy. I feel that in a sense of fate either a thunderstorm or a swarm of bats always have to knock the couple from being realized. Aside from that, when they are their alter-egos, they are near similar.

 For Batman, the reason he fights crime is that he doesn’t want to see another young boy lose his parents as he did. For Andrea, she dons the costume to kill the gangsters who murdered her father. The scene where Bruce finally dons the batsuit shocks his butler Alfred in horror, as he looks nearly like the Phantasm. As I mentioned, it would’ve been better if they both met more than once. 

3.      Why did it bomb?

To say that Walt Disney animated films dominated the nineties is massively an understatement. Warner Bros. animated films struggled severely in making a profit. The movies they released were mixed in terms of reception. Both Mask of the Phantasm and The Iron Giant are beloved by many but, were marketed so poorly that they bombed financially. Warner tried to match Disney’s princess formula with Quest for Camelot  and Thumbelina but failed miserably.

            Lastly, it was requested that at the last minute Warner wanted the film to be released in theaters. Which is another reason why it bombed. I feel that it should not have been marketed to kids. At least to a teenage or young adult audience. Hell, it opened with the Warner Family Entertainment logo with Bugs Bunny. Talk about a tone shift times ten.

4.      Overall

With that being said, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is probably the best Batman film in animation and live action. It manages to show a personal Bruce Wayne being tortured with a life he wants to have but can't. It’s an animated film that deserves to be watched and is a great companion piece to the DC Animated Universe.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm gets a four out of five.

The Dark Knight Rises Review

 

I always felt that the series was originally going to be a two-part saga. It felt obligatory to Christopher Nolan that he at least make a final entry, just to have a trilogy under his belt and rake in more cash for Warner. I consider this one to be the weakest of the bunch. Mind you it’s not bad or a slog. Although, it was always a hurdle to try to outdo The Dark Knight, especially have a villain that can make an impact just like the Joker. With that The Dark Knight Rises is a good conclusion to a trilogy that is considered the best. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

The film takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. Commissioner Gordon instates a law called the Dent act which imprisons all criminals without hearing to jail. Amid that, a domestic terrorist with connections to the League of Shadows named Bane invades Gotham City to “liberate” it from the affluent. Unbeknownst to the civilians, he brings a bomb that will destroy the city.

            Meanwhile, earlier Selina Kyle steals fingerprints from Bruce Wayne in exchange for an expunge system to wipe her criminal record. The fingerprints were used in connection with Bane to blow up parts of the city and to not let any civilian to leave.

            Between the three of the films, this one was very plot heavy. Extremely interconnected due to Bane and having to know who exactly the League of Shadows are. Though I feel that it is a downgrade with what happened in the last one as Joker just subverting everything and being unpredictable. That’s what I think is missing, the unpredictability and a villain who actually puts Batman through the ringer. Bane does so but, well I’ll elaborate it.

2.      Bane

The entire marketing showed Bane being a formidable villain. It was a near impossible job to outdo Joker. Tom Hardy does a good job portraying the villain. They somehow made his iconic mask which in the comics is a luchador-esque mask into a breathing apparatus. For most of the film, he looked as he commanded his own army.

My favorite scene of him includes his first fight with Batman. The fighting is very gritty with no music playing. Batman tries everything but he couldn’t beat Bane. I was not expecting the scene of Bane breaking Batman’s back to ever make its way into the silver screen. They did it and, it looks silly. I think it works in the comics since, the villain was juiced up with a drug called venom, which is how he got his ungodly strength. But when you have a series grounded in reality, I just couldn’t buy a very buff man picking up another man and breaking his back.

I might as well include the character Miranda Tate in Bane’s tab since she goes by the name Talia al Ghul. Watching it the first time, I had no idea who the character was, mind you I didn’t read the comic books or the animated series or watch Batman Begins. Watching it now, there are subtle clues to her real motives. One scene in which Bruce, Lucius, and “Miranda” visit Wayne Enterprises new reactor. When mentioned that the reactor can be turned into a weapon, a music sting and subtle face tic that Talia has, made it clear that she is the bad guy.

It would’ve been appropriate to have Talia be introduced in the sequel instead of just being the new CEO of Wayne’s company for the sake of the movie. I guess I have so much grievance on Bane since I wanted him to be better than Joker. Hell, he gets killed by Selina. I guess that’s why I feel that this is the weakest in the trilogy.

Lastly, Talia’s character played by Marion Cotillard, she was actually the antagonist in Nolan’s film Inception, I feel that she got herself typecast in Nolan’s filmography.

3.      The Dark Knight Formula

After watching the trilogy in order and pondering about it, I noticed the formula in terms of how it handles villains and other story threads. For the villains, it always has someone who is working for someone and gets deposed of. In Begins, Falcone works with Ra’s, gets turned insane by Scarecrow. The Dark Knight has Lau working with the Mob, along with Gambol getting killed by the Joker. This one has Daggett working with Bane, getting killed by him through strangulation. Not that its bad to repeat, but it was something that I noticed and actually paid attention to.

It’s something brief that I felt should be warranted attention.

4.      Suspension of Disbelief

The third act of the film is where I originally had some problems. Not the final fight or the Gotham City PD going against Bane’s army. It’s after when Batman gets the bomb away from Gotham when it blows up in the sea. There’s a moment where the audience is left to assume that Batman/Bruce died. I for one would’ve liked if Bruce sacrificed himself to the city as one last noble act. But, when Lucius goes to R&D to make sure if the Bat vehicle still had autopilot problems, the workers told him it was repaired. Thus, making any attempt or interpretation of Alfred seeing Bruce with Selina a hallucination obsolete since Bruce wasn’t piloting the Bat.

I feel that the entire picking apart the final moment feels like a nondebatable situation to accept regardless of how anyone feels. It’s not so much as how exactly Bruce tracked down Alfred and be within sight of seeing his butler, but more on Alfred having to see Bruce finally have a comfortable life without being Batman. As well as having Wayne escape from the pit and making his way to the isolated Gotham. It’s established in Begins that he managed to travel around without any money and be able to survive before joining the League.

One last thing is Bruce having a motorized knee brace giving his knee strength to break concrete. It was dumb, but hey it’s a comic book movie not a work of art.

5.      The Trilogy as it is

Without a doubt, The Dark Knight Trilogy belongs to a very exclusive club in terms of best three film series such as the original Star Wars Trilogy, Back to the Future, and The Lord of the Rings. Each film keeps the stakes high and makes this interpretation of Batman so beloved. Christopher Nolan had a vision he wanted to tell and managed to pull it off successfully. I don’t think any superhero, or any future interpretation of the caped crusader can’t come close to what Nolan did. Sure, another actor can be better than Christian Bale, but the overall grounded realism and believability can’t be matched.

6.      Overall

This one is a good conclusion to a Batman story. It does falter on some points but, the overall emotional investment with the characters and the story makes it a worthy final chapter of Batman’s adventure. I still believe that The Dark Knight was supposed to be the final movie in the saga, though it just felt right to have a third movie. Rises didn’t try to be bigger than the last one, which manages to be good with its sum of its parts.

The Dark Knight Rises gets a four out of five. 

The Dark Knight Review

 

When the sequel was announced, there was some hype for it. I was interested in watching it since it had the Joker on it. Mind you, I didn’t watch Batman Begins to realize that it was part of the plan. When the death of Heath Ledger popped up in the news, the hype started to pick up. After the movie came out, some students in my middle school became Batman fans and a few dyed their hair green. It was quite literally, the talk in the cafeteria. With that, The Dark Knight is one of the best sequels and one of the best Christopher Nolan films he has made. SPOILERS will appear in the review.

1.      Story

The film picks up where the last one left. The criminal underworld of Gotham is afraid of the Batman. Until an unknown called the Joker, starts to subvert the mob and test the limits of the dark knight. While that’s the main framing story, it’s probably the most complex in any comic book film. Due in large part that the Joker is, no pun intended, a wild card. Since Bruce believes that he is just a regular criminal, the Joker continues to defy his expectations. I’ll elaborate further on the character.

 The subplots involve Bruce Wayne believing that the new District Attorney Harvey Dent to be the new hero that Gotham deserves. There’s a scene where Harvey and Rachel are out for dinner. Rachel is now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Bruce appears with a date and starts to have dinner with his friend and Dent. Bruce talks but when Harvey speaks throughout, he thinks that he can be the successor to him in terms of delivering justice.

Amid all that, Harvey doesn’t like the fact that Jim Gordon has crooked cops working with him. I’ll elaborate more when I talk about the Joker. Speaking of.

2.      Joker

This character changed how comic book villains are done in film. Played by Heath Ledger, he is the most intimidating adversary and antagonist I have seen. His leitmotif is the most haunting composition in the film. The ending moments of the interrogation in the police department, where he tells Batman the location of Rachel and Dent, shows just how twisted he is. By giving the wrong location and sending Batman to rescue Harvey. The music piece appears when Harvey is pleading to Rachel, shows just how dirty the Joker is.

Like I mentioned earlier how he subverts the mob, he, as stated in the film, is all for chaos. He could care less about the money and literally burns it when he brings in the man who was keeping all of it in Hong Kong. He even tests the Batman. Everything the Joker does in terms of killing and assassination attempts, Batman introduces new ways that from his view are ways to stop him but are many red flags. Such as when Lucius Fox says that his sonar tech that he developed was being used to find where Joker is. He threatened to leave and want no part of the operation since he believed it was unethical.

Lastly, the villain changed Harvey. During the assassination attempts, Dent kidnaps one of the Joker’s henchman. We start to see the twisted side of Dent by playing chance on the henchman. It is even exacerbated when Harvey gets injured and the Joker visits him in the hospital. Triggering Harvey to be an opposite of the Joker, by having him be an opposite of chaos and being the one to restore order.

Overall, Heath Ledger’s Joker won him an academy award posthumously. He absolutely deserved it. There were attempts to recreate this interpretation such as in the animated series “Young Justice” but it just didn’t work. Years later, Joaquin Phoenix would win an academy for best actor in, well Joker. Heath’s interpretation of the antagonist was and is a zeitgeist in the Batman rogue’s gallery.

3.      2008, for better and worse.

When the film came out in 2008, another film would also come and altered the comic book genre. Iron Man came out of nowhere and no one would’ve anticipated what that film was leading to. I will always attest that in terms of comic book films, 2008 brought in change that will bring the genre to be taken seriously. The Dark Knight brought the genre to be considered legitimate and Iron Man began with the idea of an interconnected universe.

Now for the worse, I always guessed that Warner Bros. saw how successful Nolan’s trilogy was doing in terms of box office numbers and critical reception and took in the wrong lessons. Such as giving director Zack Snyder the keys to adapt Superman. The overall darkness approach that worked with Batman doesn’t apply to the Kryptonian. More so on DC’s interconnected universe which at the beginning had a surface area level of a brooding and dark tone. Someday I’ll review Man of Steel, for now let’s continue.

4.      Pros

With all that said, this is one of my favorite films. It never feels that is dragging or just slow, stuff keeps happening and its kinetic as hell. I love the new batsuit. Finally, Batman can move his neck. To put in perspective, the previous films from the late 80s through the 90s had the suit with no neck movement. Making Batman move like a tank and making the movement weird in fight scenes.

The copy that I have on Blu-Ray contained scenes that was filmed on IMAX cameras. The whole bank robbery and police escort chase successfully utilized the cameras. My favorite scene has to be the bank robbery. It’s a simple setup but I love how it builds and shows who the Joker is. As well as how he thinks. The fact that the Joker tells the robbers to kill the other robbers just shows how the villain could care less about them.

5.      Cons

Like any film, this one was not perfect. It’s shocking how The Dark Knight is beloved by a lot including myself, but I have some legitimate criticisms of it. First, I feel that most of Harvey scenes when he was Two-Face could have at least been saved for a sequel. I feel that the whole movie hinged on the Joker and when he was captured a second time, the film could at least gain some closure and cut to credits. With Two-Face, it feels like padding to squeeze out the last remaining plot thread.

The ending as well is where I have issues. After Batman saves Gordon’s young boy from Harvey, Batman tells Gordon that the public can’t know what Harvey became. That everything that had happened to the city was because of the Batman. I never really understood why he went with that thinking. I mean, it would be one thing to tell the public that Harvey was corrupted by the Joker. Or that everything that had happened was just the Joker. I feel that it could’ve been rewritten or thought out more clearly.

6.      Overall

So, this movie is rightfully one of the best sequels in cinema. It’s hard to be a sequel with expectations to be bigger and better than the first one. I think since there wasn’t any lofty hopes with this one that when it came out, it was beloved on opening night. Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David Goyer changed a genre that has warranted to be taken seriously. Without a doubt, this is one of the best Batman movies of all time.

The Dark Knight gets a Five out of Five.

Batman Begins Review

 

      Batman has quite a cinematic journey. People tend to think that Michael Keaton was the first actor to portray the caped crusader. In actuality, Adam West was the first when he starred in Batman: The Movie. The film acted as a feature length extension of the Batman series that was airing in the sixties. There wouldn’t be another Batman film for twenty-three years. Tim Burton and Warner Bros. released Batman in 1989. This adaptation portrayed the dark knight as a gritty hero. Most people had a notion of the great detective as a campy superhero, when in reality, his comics were dark and gritty.

       Burton’s film was a massive success and was part of a loaded ‘89 summer blockbuster which included hits such as Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Dead Poets Society to name a few. The financial achievement of the adaptation prompted an animated series to be created. The sequel Batman Returns was the start of the slow downturn of Batman films. While it was well received with critics, it made less than the first one. The film was littered with Burton’s macabre motif that may have contributed to the low box office.

       Since the series was a money maker at Warner, the executives decided to give Joel Schumacher a shot to direct the next sequel. Batman Forever was quite literally the exact opposite of the former two. For instance, Gotham City was now more colorful, and the villains were way over the top. The overall feel and tone of the sequel is inconsistent of what had come before. The film contained aspects that made it more family friendly and harkened back to the Adam West series.

       Eventually, the success of the series can only go so far. Batman and Robin is considered one of the worst comic book movies of all time. The failure of the film was not entirely the director’s fault. Behind the scenes, the executives wanted Schumacher to make the sequel more “toyetic”. Meaning that the studio wanted to make toys to sell to kids. Hilariously, the villain Poison Ivy says this exact quote which only projects the studio’s want by saying, “I’m a lover, not a fighter. That’s why every Poison Ivy action figure comes complete with him!” The film was a disaster and an unintentional parody of the series. It promptly killed the franchise.

      There would be years until the next Batman will make its way back into theaters. Warner tapped director Christopher Nolan to direct a new Batman film. He started making a name for himself with the mind-bending film Memento. Batman Begins managed to save the brand’s image and reinvent the hero. There will be SPOILERS in the review.

1.      Story

            Since it has Begins in the title, the film is a reinterpretation of the Batman origins. The film starts with a nonlinear approach by switching from Bruce’s youth to him getting training with a group called the “League of Shadows”. What is interesting is that this is the first time we see Batman get an origin story. For Batman in ’89, we get flashbacks of Bruce’s parents death but never a concise look of just how the inspiration came from.

            When Wayne makes it back to Gotham, I feel that it is more interesting. We see just how Bruce is different from the affluent side of the city. As well as using his company to equip himself to be the caped crusader. Even throw in a shell company to at least be realistic with the film’s approach. We have the usual villain pop up. Although, I feel that it was too convenient that Scarecrow is in cahoots with Ra’s Al Ghul. 

2.      Grounded Realism.

            To put it in perspective, this was literally the opposite of Fox’s X-Men series and Sony’s Spider-Man series. It really utilized the grounded realism so perfectly. The gear and tech make this Batman so realistic. When Bruce was training with the league. I felt that most of what the members used, prompted Bruce to emulate the same weapons that the league was using. Like I mentioned earlier, the way Bruce gets most of the suit was a bit ingenious. Since, I would hardly believe that he would create the batsuit from raw materials. Just the fact that the Wayne Company would have the suit gathering dust made sense for Bruce to snoop around.

            Now, the batmobile is a tank of a car. I feel that it tried to be different from what came before, but amplifying to eleven. Hell, it’s called the Tumbler. The other interpretation of the car looked streamlined up until the Schumacher films where the batmobile looked phallic.

3.      What I liked

            The movie is probably one of my favorites in terms of comic book movies in the 2000s. It must’ve been a massive hurdle to reinvent an iconic character. Christian Bale is my favorite to portray the playboy and the Batman. While he’s not living in an ostentatious lifestyle, I really like how he’s humble and attempts to regain his company from corporate hacks. The supporting actors do a really great job. Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman own the roles as Alfred Pennyworth and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman does a good Jim Gordon, finally looks like his character from the comics. For the villains side, Liam Neeson is a pretty good formidable villain. He has depth and reasons as to why he wants to wipe out Gotham City.

            Speaking of, the overall feel of Gotham City feels right. I really like the brownish color scheme that captures the vibe of the city, even in the section of the city called The Narrows. That place feels like it was built on a set because of just how tight the buildings and the ground look. Speaking of, parts of the movie was made with miniatures. In the final fight scene, the train derailing was all practical.

            Batman is an intimidating character. The moment where he stops the drug peddlers in the port is probably the best scene in the film. The level of tension and anxiety when Batman knocks out the lights and snatches the goons work to create the level of fear and anxiety. The voice works. I didn’t have a problem with it despite the jokes that popped up later in time.

4.      The Bad

            One of the biggest missed opportunities was with Scarecrow. He could’ve been a real threat to the dark knight. He only got a few minutes of screen time. The way he gets defeated is such a travesty. Rachel Dawes played by Katie Holmes tases Scarecrow. A promising villain, wasted. Like I mentioned earlier, I felt that it was too convenient that he is working with Ra’s Al Ghul to subvert Gotham. Speaking of which.

            Throughout the film, Liam Neeson plays the character “Ducard”. We see who we are led to believe as Ra’s Al Ghul played by Ken Watanabe. When the temple for the League of Shadows goes up in flames, Ra’s died. Then in Bruce’s party scene, we see that Neeson plays the actual Ra’s Al Ghul. Including another decoy that has the iconic moustache. I felt that it got irritating since the need of decoys.

            The overall use of fear in the dialogue gets a bit mind-numbing. Compounding that the villain Scarecrow’s bit involves fear toxins which he sprays.

5.      Overall

            With all my complaints out of the way. This is probably one of the most unexpected and unique takes on a beloved comic book icon. I felt bad for myself since I watched The Dark Knight first before delving into this one. Overall, this is one of the best origin stories I have ever seen and easily in one of my favorite Christopher Nolan film    

Batman Begins gets a four out of five.