The Long Walk (2025).

Review #2419: The Long Walk.

Cast: 

Cooper Hoffman (Raymond Garraty [#47]), David Jonsson (Peter McVries [#23]), Garrett Wareing (Billy Stebbins [#38]), Tut Nyuot (Arthur Baker [#6]), Charlie Plummer (Gary Barkovitch [#5]), Ben Wang (Hank Olson [#46]), Jordan Gonzalez (Richard Harkness [#49]), Joshua Odjick (Collie Parker [#48]), Mark Hamill (The Major), Roman Griffin Davis (Thomas Curley [#7]), Judy Greer (Ginnie Garraty), and Josh Hamilton (William Garraty) Directed by Francis Lawrence.

Review: 

“To me, that’s what the whole thing is about. The whole thing is about the two of them bonding, and kind of falling in love in a weird way. The conflict of what they’re there for and what they’ve been through in the past only brings them closer together. The sacrifices they make for one another, to me, is the whole movie.”

There are many Stephen King stories that have been turned into a film or adapted for television, but, yes, The Long Walk finally gets its due for the first time ever. Apparently, the book was the first that Stephen King wrote, as he started writing it in high school (which he has stated was not done "consciously" about the ongoing carnage of the Vietnam War) and finished it by the time he started attending the University of Maine in 1967. Years later, having become an established writer, The Long Walk was published in 1979 (under his pen name Richard Bachman, because authors weren't expected to release books so quickly). A cursory glance at a summary of the book reveals a few distinct details that the film is different from: 100 participants are walking on a road that must average a pace of four miles per hour (no I am not correcting that to kilometers) that gets warnings if they miss the threshold for 30 seconds. And yes, you can't stop for anything (in real life, you could last a few days without walking, albeit with growing levels of severe damage to one's insides). Apparently, there had been quite a few filmmakers that wanted to do a film adaptation that ranged from George A. Romero to Frank Darabont before it came together in 2023 under the direction of Francis Lawrence, who you might remember as the director of The Hunger Games follow-up films; the movie was written by JT Mollner.

We live in a nation that seems to love watching suffering, don't we? The age of the Internet accelerated our curiosity to overdrive for watching people do damn near anything out of desperation (this of course extends to watching "political streamers", because hey, if you are going to hear about the news, you might as well be angry too). Debate all you want where it all may go in the future in terms of bloodlust when it comes to how we treat the deaths of others, it probably correlates with people complaining that their country has sucked for several decades now. So, in a movie with a dystopian setting that wants to fight against a malaise of laziness with the ultimate expression of fitness, it only makes sense for me to treat it as basically a horror movie* where the greatest enemy is inevitability. Everyone dies, but some will suffer far more than others in that last moment spent on the great rock. With that in mind, this is a pretty good movie in the execution of tension and brotherhood that comes out even with all the inevitable qualities that come with its 108-minute runtime. Most of its time is spent on that one road with only cursory glances at the countryside (one member of the landscape seen is a cat with no eyes) to go along with the sights and sounds of people being shot. In that sense, the ensemble is exceptionally talented to hold up the task of a movie that could've easily had a chance to go off the rails with less confidence to hold things together (really I'm more surprised someone had not made a low-budget cheapie of this before). Hoffman and Jonsson each carry the film with a bond that is fascinating to see build and build as the film goes on, selling the curdling fear that comes with seeing people die and die that might as well make the possible winner the biggest victim of them all. Sure, you might find moments of levity within the road of gloom, but you have a group that sells the tension that comes with knowing and losing people who it might hurt more to remember their name (as opposed to the numbered tag they wear, which seems to fit the times more if you think about it). You get to see the personalities of these people wither down to the logical conclusion, be it a bully who sees death right in front of them, wisecrackers or a self-realization about one's perceived value. Calling it a cross between Stand by Me and a war movie is probably not as far off as it may seem, and there isn't a weak note among the cast. Hamill pops in from time to time with one specific type of presence (namely never taking off those sunglasses), which is fairly effective in authoritative menace. To say nothing of the ending, it provides its own distinct take on the meaning of having a wish versus actually realizing it in the wake of the road getting there that is pretty solid when you see it play out.* As a whole, it is a tense burner of a movie, having a worthy execution of suspense within the horror of inevitability within death in brotherhood that may very well become a curiosity to view in the coming years.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*What? People try to label movies clearly in the horror genre as musicals or "psychological thrillers", change my mind.

*I wouldn't call this a "both sides" thing, there are people who just brush aside school shootings, so you know where they can shove the "decency card".

*Spoiler (in lighter text): The book has McVries die (sitting at peace) before Stebbins, who then dies so Garraty wins. The book ends with Garraty wandering to catch a figure he sees in the distance, ignoring the victory. The movie ends with McVries being the winner after Garraty stops moving before the prize is awarded. You might debate whether anything after the victory is really real, but I'll go with the literal ending just for the hell of it: shooting the Major dead and McVries wandering into the distance...

Slipstream (1989).

Review #2379: Slipstream (1989).

Cast: 

Mark Hamill (Will Tasker), Kitty Aldridge (Belitski), Bill Paxton (Matt Owens), Bob Peck (Byron), Eleanor David (Ariel), with Robbie Coltrane (Montclaire), Ben Kingsley (Avatar), and F. Murray Abraham (Cornelius) Directed by Steven Lisberger (#098 - Tron)

Review:

"It’s hackneyed to say this but I liked SLIPSTREAM because it was character oriented. And so few films can find a balance between character and effects. Great directors like Peter Yates say "I'll show them how to do it properly,’ and KRULL is the result! 1 can’t get excited over WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT for the same reason in terms of its special effects breakthroughs.”

What's in a name? You may or may not wonder just what exactly this movie is, particularly with a poster that bills itself as from the "producer of Star Wars and the director of Tron". Famously, Gary Kurtz had worked with George Lucas on American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars (1977), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) before he split with Lucas to do his own ventures. He served as co-producer alongside Jim Henson on The Dark Crystal (1982), which was a mild hit with audiences. He got involved for a time in producing the American production side of trying to make a film of Little Nemo in Slumberland that he left after it went nowhere, but Kurtz served as an executive producer with Return to Oz (1985), a movie considered a flop at the time*. And then there was this movie. Apparently, the original script was written by Charles Edward Pogue in the wake of the success of Mad Max (1979). Kurtz liked the basic idea but found it "far too violent" and "heavily exploitation oriented". Enter Steven Lisberger. Fresh off Animalympics, a sports comedy TV movie that spoofed the Olympics but with animals that came out in 1980, Lisberger followed that with Tron (1982), an idea he had developed for years. The movie received better notices in the years to come, and Lisberger would return to direct five years later with Hot Pursuit (1987), a movie that came and went with, well, some money made? He was hired in Autumn of 1987 to help reshape the script, which he described as: "based on an outline from another producer’s ramblings back in the early ’80s. Pogue worked from a Huckleberry Finn travelogue base—a 14-year-old’s encounter with an android as he journeyed in the future, a coming-of-age saga mixed with sci-fi. But Mark Twain’s brand of narrative sarcasm was missing.” Lisberger called it in simple terms as "a futuristic western". Tony Kayden was hired to shore up the script and apparently had issues getting the script through the demands of both producers and Kurtz, who seemed to tussle over what they wanted in the script. Apparently, the movie was supposed to be more violent to help make the movie more coherent, but these scenes were not shot. Bill Bauer was credited for "based on story material" while Pogue either asked for or did not receive credit. Made for a budget of $15 million for "Entertainment Film" in February 1989...no one saw the movie. It received a brief release in the United Kingdom and Australia while managing the dubious distinction of having name actors for a movie that never was released in the USA and leading Kurtz to apparently go bankrupt; he produced two other movies in his lifetime that are even more obscure than this one. Lisberger has never directed another movie since this one (but you can read scripts of his on the Internet), which you can apparently find anywhere on the Web, along with a "making of video".**

Let's be real here: This is not a cult movie. There is no trumpeting for this movie to be re-discovered as some sort of sneaky good movie or one that has scenes worth looking into again. This is the kind of movie you find at the bottom of the barrel with nothing better to do that just happens to have a couple of familiar names involved...and man, that is sad. Really sad. The biggest sin of this movie is that for all the tropes the movie aims for as a wannabee sci-fi movie that might as well have cribbed elements of the Western while they are churning in desperation...it is boring. Sure, there are bits and pieces that are interesting to see in its execution (good or bad), but as a whole, there is not enough here to make one want to see it again or even show it to others. It died a quiet death in theaters because nobody could justify saying more than 50 words on why you would want to show it to a group of people. Lisberger can say the movie grows complex with the whole "android goes to Christ figure" thing, but it seems to be more a movie that you would only like if you have never seen a plane in your life. Slipstream doesn't even sound like a sci-fi title, it sounds like a name you would reject for a minor league team. The territory never feels tough enough to justify the tension, and you might as well call it a precursor to a bigger budgeted flop of the future in wannabee post apocalyptic films such as Waterworld. 

Now, let's get this out of the way: I like Bill Paxton, he was a good character presence in a handful of movies people love now and then...he gets the short stick here. Sure, it is nice to see his attempts at charm in a role that might as well have been ripped out of the dime-store Han Solo / Jack Burton playbook, but there is not nearly enough here to justify the eventual road set out by the climax. It just isn't as involving as it sounds to follow him in a movie that yearns to be a road movie but meanders. Feasible or not, it just seems like the role was meant for someone younger, but then maybe I just have, say, A Boy and His Dog on the mind. Peck was actually best known for his work in television such as Edge of Darkness (1985). And to be fair, his performance here is fairly interesting enough to make things watchable beyond just calling it a wannabee wanderer type. There are flashes of curiosity and yearning for someone who is adrift and, well, the movie really does have you thinking he is an android before it wants too. At least you can say Hamill tried. Hell, he apparently believed that if the movie was a hit, he could use it to play a Bond villain rather than doing stuff that was basically a take on Luke Skywalker. Ironically, Hamill ended up playing more noted villains in the form of voiceover work than stuff like this, and I can see why: it just isn't an interesting role to chew on. Sure, a good villain can involve folks that believe they are in the right, and we have a self-righteous person that wouldn't be too off from The Searchers, but, well, it just isn't a compelling threat to really watch. Its a pursuit movie where he just shows up and then boom, he's off for a bit. The climax screws him over. One minute he and Peck are in the plane fighting over control of it, then he's trying to quote the works of Byron to, well, the guy mistakenly referred to as Byron, then he seems to be hopeful the plane can make it out of turbulence, and then, boom, he's dead. Hell, Byron I guess is just one of those "explosion-proof androids", so he just moseys on out, as if barely anything's happened. Aldridge and David equally have little to really do to make anyone want to go forward with adventuring, suffice to say; rounding it out, the cameos from Coltrane (and two Academy Award winners with Abraham and Kingsley!) are, well, short and not exactly helpful for a film bereft of actual edge. As a whole, Slipstream aimed to be an adventure, but instead it flounders to the ground with a whimper. You might find something here with the names involved or just groan at the missed opportunities. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Well, if you want to call a movie "too dark", you might need a head check. Hell, they apparently said that (in lighter numbers) with The Dark Crystal, but eh, people like that movie too.

**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WdIRsBks8

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Review #1311: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Cast: 
Carrie Fisher (Leia Organa), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Adam Driver (Ben Solo / Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Naomi Ackie (Jannah), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Richard E. Grant (Allegiant General Pryde), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Keri Russell (Zorri Bliss), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine / Darth Sidious), and Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
Well, isn't this an interesting day. Nine years of Movie Night in written form, and I celebrate it with the ninth (and last) film of the Skywalker Saga (alongside being #98 in the Theater Saga). It sure has been quite a ride over these 3,287 days - basically a review every 2.5 days. The best is yet to come ahead for Movie Night 2020 (or Season X, if you will). If I am not mistaken, this may actually be the longest review yet. May the force be with you. 

How did you picture the last Star Wars movie in a trilogy was going to end? That's a question you can now ask three times and get three different answers. One trilogy conclusion had the burden of closing the loop on what was thought to be a six film saga while also sealing up loose ends of its own. Another trilogy conclusion had the burden of ending its story with its beloved characters that made for a worthy space fantasy adventure worth telling again and again. This trilogy conclusion has the burden of sealing a trilogy of trilogies once and for all - 42 years and nine main films with various actors tasked with interesting (for the most part) characters and worlds. Some landed better than others, but there are plenty of people who can say they grew up with a Star Wars trilogy, for better or worse. It is the journey that counts in the end when it comes to Star Wars, really, where George Lucas used his imagination alongside inspiration to cultivate a film all those years ago. He loved his comic books, his fairy tales, his Saturday morning serials, and he loved creating a mythology for a new generation. Everything gets picked apart in the age we live in nowadays, but it doesn't diminish the basic core of what made this series endure for so long. It will be nice to have a rest from these films for a little while, I must admit. After five films in five years, one can appreciate something else taking over the landscape for a bit (for those who refer to television, I have my own things to cycle through). This may seem like an elegy for Star Wars, but it really isn't. I am trying to express my train of thought when it comes to the realization of seeing a saga come to a close yet again and how it ended up following up not just its "polarizing" predecessor film (The Last Jedi, which I ran out of time in regards to re-watching it before doing this) but the others as a whole. Look, the last film had Leia pull herself out of space through the Force and then decided to kill off its big bad villain suddenly (complete with a jump to lightspeed to obliterate a ship because...[BLANK]) and wrote itself into a corner with mawkish sentiment. An intriguing corner, but still a corner that is not easy to pull out from without some sort of effort.

Could it really do a better job at closing a saga that Return of the Jedi did three decades prior? Honestly, it didn't. It sure tries hard to seal it all into a big ball of entertainment, and I applaud the effort - but the film is a mess. However, I enjoy big messes when there is enough positivity to go around (or camp), and this has that in spades. It becomes evident right from the very opening, where text crawls say the dead rise and get things rolling with quick editing and plenty of shots to go around. This is a 142 minute movie (somehow being ten minutes shorter than its predecessor), yet it sure feels like a big roller coaster ride that doesn't want to end. It tries to please everyone and may very well have a different kind of result. That doesn't mean it will go down as a monumental thing to ridicule, it just means it will go down as something to argue for/against when it comes to imagination for a space opera about laser swords and space beliefs. At a certain point, one has to wonder if this is meant to be a comeback on the scale of Elvis, where fan service deliver greatest hits very much like Abrams' previous work in this trilogy - wrapped with a tinge of bittersweet fervor. You know it is the end, I know it is the end - but it wants to throw everything at the void to make sure the end doesn't come easy. If the last one was inherently too ham-handed to stick to its principles in the face of the past, this one is inherently determined to glue everything together to land certain twists down without making too much laughter come out than needed. Allow me to use one pop culture analogy here: this is essentially the equivalent of when Homer Simpson tries to build his own barbecue pit and frantically tries to build it before the wet cement makes it stick permanently, just replace the grill with story toolbox and Homer with...you get the idea. Seriously, the film has four credited writers: Abrams and Chris Terrio for the screenplay while the story credit went to Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow (the initial director slated to direct this film before leaving production due to creative differences), Abrams and Terrio.

Golly, there sure a whole bunch of actors and characters present. Some are given their time to shine, some are thrown in there all of a sudden, some are given a bit less to do from before, and some are somehow back in the thick of things (for better or worse). You really have to just roll the dice and see what works and what doesn't, honestly. I didn't so much see a bad performance as I saw actors trying their hardest to stick through a big sprawling adventure with plenty of skepticism and fear circling around. I find that the best ones to come out of it are Ridley and Driver, a duo with their odd own kind of bond of vulnerability and fear over who they think they are and what they must face to step forward beyond their doubts. They definitely do well when it comes to lightsaber fighting, graceful despite rocky environments like a bit of water to get in the way. Granted, their paths seem a bit easy to draw out, where I wonder if it had been better to have swapped the focus to Driver as the main focus (or perhaps better framing to have a trilogy that spans more than a year in movie time). Boyega and Isaac try to fend off being wooden with humor, which goes off okay. They felt better together four years prior with the seventh film, but I do find myself at least going along with them on essentially a scavenger hunt, where characters pop out to wedge their own part to play, because I suppose one needed to try and give some sort of backstory/shared thing for people we just met to people we barely know much of through three films. It is quite striking to see Fisher appear on screen for a few minutes (in the sense just as much as she did for the other two films), where the re-purposed footage of her works for what is needed and gives her a fair way to make farewell without going overboard. It is nice to see Daniels get a bit more scenes to chew upon for another trip down the lane for our favorite fussy golden robot, who delivers a chuckle or two that is welcome here. The sudden new blood of Ackie, Grant and Russell prove alright, moreso for the latter two in that one can seep right into an obvious villain trap without having to get outside and the other can just wear a mask and beat some nobodies for a bit. Gleeson, Nyong'o and Tran seem like they drew small straws when it comes to "Who gets to be in another Star Wars film but doesn't have much meaningful things to say?" (which proves amusing if thought as essentially being Jar-Jarred out of importance). McDiarmid and Williams return to their roles with ease, in that neither have to really move too much to deliver their lines to serve the plot, where it is nice to see them again, if not for the camp of the former and the smooth charm of the latter. Granted, it barely makes sense to see either come back - but why not? The film feels like a whole batch of why nots. One might wonder how much of this is a hand-wave of what happened before - the jokester in me is slightly delighted at the idea of shaking the head-turning predecessor, even if that means more predictability. A good adventure is all that it takes, and this does fine with that. It won't be the kind of thing that inspires navel gazing or anything when it comes to analysis, but always take to heart four words: It's just a movie. Turning off my brain a bit for some ridiculous things in a Star Wars film didn't give me a headache as it did just help my throat get some chuckles.

At least the effects work themselves out pretty good. Sometimes you really need a bunch of flashing lights on a stormy dark world to really make something ooze out well, really. You don't need spoilers to know that the film will fling whatever it takes to make things work - a Skywalker has to stand triumphant after all. It isn't like anyone actually thought this would end on a downbeat note (much like how Lucas liked his happy ending for VI) - by golly one has to sell this product somehow (besides, Rogue One wedged in hope even with its downbeat stuff). One does tend to get tired of saying "X was better than Y", so I'll try to refrain from said comparisons too much. What we have here is an okay sequel trilogy, packed firmly between what was done before through Lucas and others - and that's okay. I'll probably look at these films in retrospect as ones that had their moment in the sun and did what they thought made sense - churning some nostalgia and Internet frothing for better or worse. They aren't the best or worst things to happen to the franchise, that much is for sure (a statement one could even see someone saying about the previous trilogy). Everything moves in a flash to get to some sort of point that matters, and I liked more than what I shook my head at. If you want to see something with space action and a bunch of things that relate to the stuff of the past, go right on ahead. If you want something a bit deeper or perhaps more fitting for the end of a space opera, consult oneself first. In my heart I enjoyed this weird little film, but I know the rating it really does deserve - it's an average film, but at least it isn't a complete mediocre one for the books.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Review #1027: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Cast: 
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Leia Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Laura Dern (Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo), Frank Oz (Yoda), and Benicio del Toro (DJ) Directed by Rian Johnson.

Review: 
Yes, I know it's been a few days since The Last Jedi premiered in theaters. But in any case, this is the 49th film in the Theater Saga, in which I watched a movie while it was in theaters, so let me just say that it was nice to see this movie in theaters with a big crowd. I apologize if this review feels a bit long, but I hope that it is worth it for you viewers, even if it is over the usual 300-500 word count that I try to hold to myself to.

It's hard to believe that it has been two years since The Force Awakens (#769), which I described as one "not bogged down by weight or its own characters...a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself." Obviously I still stand by those statements, although I can certainly find why some wouldn't find it as good as I thought it was. I have no doubt that I will be recapping what I thought of this film when it comes times for Episode IX two years down the line, but I don't know how I'll feel about this film after a matter of time passes by. In any case, The Last Jedi is a decent movie for my tastes, although I will say that it is a movie that inspires praise along with detractors, for better or for worse. Whether it lives up to the hype of following up the previous film or not, I did enjoy myself enough, but I can't say that it was better than the last one, or even as good as any of the original trilogy. It definitely is a movie that doesn't try to play itself safe, but it is also a movie that can't always hold all of its plot threads together, despite a 152-minute run-time. I don't mean to be too shallow but let me talk about the visuals for one moment. The movie does have a tremendous look when it comes to the action sequences and the landscapes and sets that it shows throughout the film, such as Ahch-To, the planet that Luke and Rey are on for most of the film, or the planet where the final climax takes place, with accompanying red hues. On a most basic level, this is good entertainment that will satisfying someone looking for some well-done space action. But in a franchise that now has eight primary movies (and a spin-off film, with another coming next year), the bar for satisfaction is not entirely too high. That doesn't mean that Star Wars movies need to just be big spectacles or heavy with plotlines, it just means that the best ones are the movies that find a middle ground. I'm not so sure that this one finds that ground perfectly, but I do think that it makes itself work with what it has just enough.

The performances are fairly entertaining, with the biggest stand out being Hamill, Ridley, and Driver. They are the main group that drives the movie forward, and they certainly have their own respective qualities that make them easily watchable. Even after over 30 years, Hamill manages to leap right into his role without any sort of staleness or taking the role into anything too radical, for what the writing requires anyway. Driver does a fine job in making his role seem more full-fledged, showing vulnerability and conflict that resonates well with the film, especially when with others. Ridley does a good job in showing this character with a bit more depth and tension, and it is easy to go along with her character in her actions, for the most part. Fisher (in her final film role) does a fine graceful job in the time that she has on screen, although I wished that there would've been a bit more with her, but I digress. The drama that engages the main trio is pretty good, and it certainly feels more gripping than the other plotlines, for better or for worse. The rest of the cast do a fine job, but I think the script doesn't help them all too much. One subplot involves Boyega, Issac, Tran, and del Toro, and they all do decent in their performances, but as a whole that plot-line does feel a bit strange. Serkis proves to be somewhat decent as Snoke (this time in physical form), but it leaves you wishing for a bit more. Nyong'o has one scene appearance, and I guess it is satisfactory, although I suppose there could've been more from her role. Gleeson does fine in his role, with a bit of ruthlessness along with a bit of ambition. Christie is fine in the sequence that she is in, although I can't say she was any better than she was in the last film. Tran does okay with what she is given, but I didn't really find myself really caring about her part in the plotline. It is nice to see Dern and del Toro, and they do decently in the roles they are given, even if they don't have too much screen-time. It's hard to explain the story quibbles without spoiling it, but I will just say that the motivations of certain characters do seem to rely a bit on of an idiot plot. Sure, the movie does have a decent payoff, but the way that certain characters seem to do things out of nowhere does detract (and distract) a bit from the enjoyment.

Ultimately, this is a movie that can be a bit of a mess. It has a story that tries to cover numerous bases, whether about the Force, the plot-line with the First Order and the Resistance, or something deeper, and while I can't say that it works all the time, there is enough enjoyment and entertainment to make a movie that is worth watching at least once. For a Star Wars fan like me, I found it to be satisfying enough for my tastes. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but it doesn't need to be. Am I anticipating the next one? Sure, but I'll try not to keep my excitement to a reasonable level.

Lastly, may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Because I can't find a way to put a sentence about the Porgs in the review, I'll just say that they were okay. Obviously, they were created to make for merchandise, but they are at least somewhat amusing without being too distracting. 

Review edited in 2025 for formatting.

Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Review #993: Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Samuel L. Jackson (Richmond Valentine), Mark Strong (Merlin), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggsy" Unwin), Michael Caine (Chester King / Arthur), Sophie Cookson (Roxanne "Roxy" Morton / Lancelot), Sofia Boutella (Gazelle), Samantha Womack (Michelle Unwin), Geoff Bell (Dean), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Mark Hamill (Professor James Arnold), Jack Davenport (James Spencer / Lancelot), Jack Cutmore-Scott (Rufus Saville), Lily Travers (Lady Sophie), Hanna Alström (Princess Tilde), and Bjørn Floberg (Scandinavian Prime Minister) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class)

Review: 
It is evident early on to see the influence the James Bond films had in making this movie (based on the comic book series The Secret Service): specifically, the Roger Moore films. Granted, this is certainly more stylized in its action (and decidedly more violent) than those films, but this is a movie that is fairly enjoyable entertainment that will fill some people's taste significantly better than others. The best parts of the film involve either Firth and Egerton together on screen, or Jackson. The mentor-trainee aspects aren't particularly new (you could take your pick on what it reminds you, my pick would be Men in Black - #211), but they certainly are enjoyable to watch along with being capable heroes in their own right. Jackson does a capable job in part because he seems so comfortable with the role he is playing on screen, with a good sense of humor and self-awareness (which the film has a good deal of already) that is fairly entertaining; his supervillain plot is certainly an interesting one, resembling something one of the Moore Bond films would've done, reminding me a bit of Moonraker (minus the space parts, naturally) that certainly might seem a bit odd with its implications if deep thought was put into it, though what spy flick doesn't have that kind of quirk? The rest of the cast is fairly enjoyable and capable at their roles, such as Strong and Cookson, with Boutella proving to be a fairly useful (and thrilling) henchwoman.

The movie certainly has a useful sense of humor to it that hits more than it misses when required, fitting with the tone of the film for the most part. The action sequences are interesting to watch to be executed on screen, never really seeming to miss a beat nor feel too murky (with the easiest standout being at the church); the violence might prove to be a bit graphic for some, but I generally thought that it worked finely enough to the movie's advantage, for better or for worse. Ultimately, the enjoyment one gets from this movie comes from how they feel about the action and the way the movie goes about with getting to the highs (and slight lows) that it does. Take it for what it is worth, and you get a movie that has something to like (or watch) for most people, for better or for worse.

I don't usually get to say exactly what is next up on Movie Night, but here's a rare exception.
Next Review: Kingsman: The Golden Circle. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: Return of the Jedi.

Review #115: Return of the Jedi.

Cast
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Sebastian Shaw (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (The Emperor), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Frank Oz (Yoda), Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles), and Timothy M. Rose (Admiral Ackbar, Sy Snootles and Salacious Crumb) Directed by Richard Marquand.

Review
In my original review (#115 - April 1, 2012), I had given the movie a 9/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie, with regards to the characters, action and effects. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux - Special Edition (which I had done for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). 

Now, with May 25, 2023 on the horizon, it is time for a bit more editing. Don't worry, it's just the addition and subtraction of certain sentences to give better clarity. Enjoy.

Decades after its release, Return of the Jedi always seems to be lumped in as the lesser of the three films of the so-called Star Wars Original Trilogy. On an emotional level, the movie is a bit too safe, particularly with the ending. Granted, The Empire Strikes Back is a tough act to follow, because that film basically saw the series grow up a bit when it came to the stakes being even higher in terms of space opera while separating its characters into neatly defined plots. I maintain of course that the original 1977 film is the one with the most punch in terms of "first-time joy", but with Return of the Jedi, it does have the benefit of closing its door of a story not one of simple rebellion, but of one with father and son. Howard Kazanjian replaced Gary Kurtz as producer. The director would be Richard Marquand, who had directed The Legacy (1978), Birth of the Beatles (1979), and Eye of the Needle (1981), with the latter being cited by Lucas as key to hiring. This time around, Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas wrote the screenplay with Lucas providing the story (Kasdan used tape transcripts of him, Lucas, Marquand, and Kazanjian in conference discussing ideas to help make the script). The film was a tremendous success, although for Marquand, having to direct with Lucas looming on set frequently when it came to handling effects certainly must have been a challenge. Marquand directed three further films after Jedi before his death in 1987 at the age of 49 following a stroke. 

Of all the cast in the movie, the one actor with the most impact is the one with little screen time and only 24 words, Sebastian Shaw, who manages to evoke the dying words of a redeemed but withered man with such little time and be one of the more memorable aspects of the film. The Emperor, after being seen briefly in Empire Strikes Back (voiced by Clive Revill in 1980 but replaced by Ian McDiarmid with computer-generated imagery for the 2004 alteration), is given his time to showcase his power over the Empire and Vader himself. McDiarmid plays this master of deception with an unsettling tone of voice that makes the villain more than just a hammy bad guy, compelling even without much revealed about him (until the prequels, anyway, which let him play a double act). Hamill's best scenes are with McDiarmid & Jones, and they make for compelling entertainment, with the lightsaber duel being a key highlight. While the trio of Hamill, Ford & Fisher doesn't really cover any new ground, it is nice to see them again. It's interesting that Ford wanted his character to die as a "self-sacrifice" for a character that progressed from a rogue who didn't particularly care about the Rebellion (while caring mostly about himself) all those years ago to one who decides to die for his friends; Kazanjian had got Ford to return to the role and actually agreed with Ford's suggestion to kill the character off, but Lucas refused. The reveal of Leia being Luke's sister isn't a bad scene, but after everything the two characters had gone through (such as the kiss in Empire to make Han jealous - at least I hope so), it comes off as somewhat strange, especially with Leia stating that she apparently always knew. Circle of life and all. The movie ends with everyone happy (complete with celebratory music in both the original and Special Editions), but does an Empire truly end just because you take down the leader? By this point, Lucas wanted to end the trilogy and curtail any plans he (supposedly) had for Episodes VII-IX and just end it, even if it wasn't as poignant as it could've been. My thoughts on the film have shifted the tiniest bit when it came to the Ewok battle on Endor, since a group of teddy bears that believed a golden robot was a deity manage to take down Empire soldiers with logs and...overpowering them seems more and more amusing when considering the idea of a technological empire losing to a primitive tribe was evidently Lucas deciding to evoke the Vietnam War. Hell, he calls the Ewok sequences a "distraction", not a win, so keep that in mind. The opening rescue sequence on Tatooine with the loathsome Jabba the Hutt is a delightful way to spring adventure from the get go.

Of course, the space dogfight is as fun as ever, probably more so when considering how the series would do them in later years (to say nothing of the Special Editions, which are most apparent here, from the ridiculous song in the first half to the ending); Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren, Ken Ralston and Phil Tippett were each given a Special Achievement Academy Award for their work in the film in effects. Once again, the music by John Williams is excellent, being entertaining (any of the themes from the Battle of Endor, with one of my favorites being "Into The Trap", but "Emperor's Throne Room" is also a chilling brilliant one). For all I said about how it seems too safe at times, Return of the Jedi an enjoyable film, full of spectacle that has enough fun to mostly overcome its emotional shortcomings. Is it slicked in more commercial flavor than the other two? Sure, but it still an enjoyable adventure, one that showed what is fun about making space adventure that turns old cliches into new enjoyment for all to see.

32 years later, Star Wars: The Force Awakens bridged its continuation to the old and new generations of fans, doing a fine job as a beginning of a new trilogy. Time will tell how the new trilogy (and spin-off films) will go, but as someone who saw Episode VII on opening day and enjoyed himself, I sure can't wait.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: The Empire Strikes Back.

Review #114: The Empire Strikes Back.

Cast
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Frank Oz (Yoda), Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), and Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#004 - Robocop 2)

Review
In my original review (#114 - March 31, 2012), I had given the movie a 10/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie. I barely mentioned the characters and effects at all, among other aspects that I should have talked more about. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux - Special Edition (which I did for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Enjoy.

The Empire Strikes Back is often called the best installment of the original trilogy and one of the best sequels of all time, and with good reason. It raises the stakes along with the mood and tension in a degree that makes for an entertaining movie that eclipse the excitement and depth of the original film in some aspects. It's interesting that the beginning of the movie starts not only with a large-scale battle, but one that our heroes technically lose (in that they retreat). Sure, they had destroyed the Death Star, but the story (and the war) didn't end just because you can blow up a base (or two). It has been three years since they destroyed the Empire's space station, but the Rebels has moved on from celebrating in Throne Rooms to having to deal with getting a new base and adapting to the cold and the fear the Empire would find them. The music by John Williams is once again fantastic, ranging from tense (The Battle of Hoth) to mysterious (Yoda's Theme) to one that inspires dread (The Imperial March) to one that fits for the climax (The Clash of Lightsabers), with the music fitting the movie just perfect.

Of the (now seven) films, Empire Strikes Back is the only one that introduces key characters while not having any major ones die, and the movie still manages to be emotionally satisfying. Williams is certainly a welcome addition to the band of heroes, managing to have a certain aspect of intrigue along with conflict about the decisions he has to make. Yoda is an interesting case, depending on when you see him (prequels/originals), but in this he certainly has a mystique that evolves from seeming like an strange little hermit (in our first encounter watching him first meet Luke) to a wise master that seems to have more secrets than he lets on. I love the puppetry for Yoda because it never seems fake or off-putting to watch. The way it moves around along with the voice (by Frank Oz) fits well with a character as grand as Yoda.

It's interesting how popular Boba Fett (voiced by Jason Wingreen originally, though replaced by Temuera Morrison after 2004) became even though he doesn't have many lines to say (though he does have a crucial role), though his armor is admittedly interesting to look at.  The Emperor (voiced originally by Clive Revill but replaced by Ian McDiarmid in the newer editions starting in 2004) has only one scene in the movie, but he manages to have an important presence even when he isn't seen because even though Vader seems to be more in control (as opposed to Tarkin essentially having Vader on a leash in the previous one) of the Empire's wrath, he still has a Master to look to. Of course, one can't mention the movie without saying something about the Han-Leia dynamic, and the way their romance doesn't seem to override the movie or take away from it - because it seems natural and it makes the movie more interesting than it already is. Even the line of "I know" to Leia saying "I love you" works because it doesn't bog the movie down in melodramatic form of romance (which is something the prequels, in particular Episode II failed to do).

Once again, the effects (visual and sound) are impressive, but the fight between Vader and Luke is also a key highlight, with the lighting and steam creating a subdued atmosphere, for a fight sequence that is a key improvement over the last film in terms of tension and stunt choreography. The reveal of Darth Vader being Luke's father is a moment in which the movie manages to culminate all the emotional buildup of Luke having believed that his father was killed by Vader only to find out a harrowing truth (or was it?...of course it was) into a powerful moment that still is a great scene even when you've already seen the movie or know the mythology because it still manages to be a memorable and effective scene, serving as a great climax for the film. Ultimately, The Empire Strikes Back manages to be a dark, but entertaining movie that serves a great sequel to the original Star Wars film that while not ending on a high note for the characters, still has a hopeful outlook to continue onto more adventures.

Next up on Redux - Special Edition is the film that ended the story of our heroes...for a while on a peculiar note...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: Star Wars (1977).

Review Special Edition: #113: Star Wars.

Cast

Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Phil Brown (Owen Lars), Shelagh Fraser (Beru Lars), Jack Purvis (Chief Jawa), Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles), and Garrick Hagon (Biggs Darklighter) Directed by George Lucas.

Review

In my original review (#113 - March 30, 2012), I had given the movie a 10/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie. I barely mentioned the acting at all, among other aspects that I should have talked more about. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux Review (which I had done for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Enjoy this "Special Edition" version, if you will. 

Star Wars (also referred to as A New Hope) is a mythical tale that has entertained audiences all around the world for over 40 years, and the scope of its influence on cinema (and filmmakers) can't be understated. It's interesting how a space opera like this had been influenced by other movies such as The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon serials, but also works by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Star Wars at its heart is a fairy tale with the mythical nature of the characters, legends in an epic that is not set in the beginning, but rather the middle. You don't have to watch the prequels before seeing this because this film s manages to introduce itself and its story extremely well, right from the opening crawl. I remember watching this when I was around 13 years old, and I can recall that I didn't know much about Star Wars at the time (aside from the name), but the Battle of Yavin (amidst other scenes) managed to stick out the most in my head, even years later. Perhaps it was the memorability of the characters, or the music (by John Williams) being so in tune to the movie, with Binary Sunset being especially memorable, but other music works extremely well to the atmosphere of the film (Cantina Band) or with adventure with the Yavin sequence at the end.

The characters are interesting to watch interact with each other (particularly our main trio), which is more interesting than the actual acting with regards to the dialogue. While admittedly Hamill can come across as slightly whiny, the progression of his character throughout the trilogy means that it is worth it in the end. Ford is a charming rouge who (along with Chewbacca) manage to be entertaining from the first scene they are in, primarily because of the sheer magnetism of the duo. Fisher also does a fine job, alongside Cushing and Guinness (both already well-established actors of film), who are both memorable in their own ways. Cushing is the perfect actor to play a role that really is the main enemy of the film (as he is the one that commands the Death Star, orders the destruction of Alderaan), even with a Sith Lord at his side. Guinness manages to seal the mysterious wise aspects of an old warrior in his first few scenes while putting Luke onto the path of adventure (even if what he says is true from a certain point of view) and realizing what he must do to play his part in trying to bring down the Empire. It's interesting how David Prowse plays the physical aspects of Darth Vader, and he sure fits the imposing frame of a villain perfectly, with James Earl Jones' voice being quintessential for the character.

Even though the movie has had fixes over the years (most notably the "Special Edition" version), the effects are still impressive to me in the sense that I love the effort it must have taken to get the look and action right, such as the TIE fighter attack and how it was based off of dog fights from World War II. The fun isn't in the themes or the dialogue, but in the adventure that ensues, and how it satisfies you by just being a charming movie that doesn't need slogs of backstory to be enjoyable. You can watch this first instead of the prequels and still not be too confused because it isn't one to try and fill background information, rather it is one that has a story of its own with a mythos that would only get expanded upon in future installments.

Next up on the Redux Review / Special Edition: The sequel that many argue is one of the best sequels of all time...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Review #769: Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Max von Sydow (Lor San Tekka), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), and Tim Rose (Admiral Ackbar) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, and #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness)

Review
As I went to my local theater for the 17th time (over the course of this show) to see my first Star Wars movie in a theater, I wondered how it would go. I wondered it because though I adored the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy was not quite up to the charm and fun of the originals. But I realized that I didn't need a perfect movie to be happy, I just needed what I need in any film: A good experience. The anticipation of waiting for a movie to start is a good sign, especially being there an hour early and having a house that looks 80-85% crowded. Naturally, there was a bit of hollering when the movie started up, and even I felt a bit giddy.

And the movie was good, too. Like I said, I wanted a good experience, and I sure got one. I enjoyed every minute of it because it was a movie not bogged down by weight or its own characters, rather it was a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself. Instead of waiting for the old cast to get into the picture, you're instead invested into the new characters because they actually are pretty compelling. Interestingly, my favorite from this movie was BB-8, the new droid who really is so adorable and really fun to watch. Ridley and Boyega are interesting to watch, because they aren't rehashes of the past (per se), they are something Star Wars needed: new blood, to carry the torch on. But of course, Ford is fun to watch again, especially with Leia. (I can share one quote: "When have you ever been helpful? And don't say the Death Star." It makes sense in context to the banter) There's no point in saying anything about the plot, because you really should see it for yourself. The effects look really well because they don't seem too artificial because you actually care about the effects this time around. The movie works because you actually care about where it will go next (after all, Episode VIII and IX will be around the corner soon enough) and care about these characters. It has a good share of humor and fun, laced with finely tuned action and around the same charm you'd expect from a Star Wars film. Will you like it as much I liked it? I don't know. But I'd recommend seeing it.

Believe the hype. And may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wizards.

Review #475: Wizards.

Cast

Bob Holt (Avatar), Jesse Welles (Elinore), Richard Romanus (Weehawk), David Proval (Necron 99/Peace), Steve Gravers (Blackwolf), James Connell (President), Mark Hamill (Sean), and Susan Tyrrell (Narrator) Directed by Ralph Bakshi.

Review

The film doesn't take too much time to start the action, with the Susan Tyrrell narration, possibly storyboards over the narration, and a...cliche? Not cliche? story. (though I do wonder how many stories use the brother of the hero as the villain) Whatever the case, the actors do a fine job, especially Bob Holt, playing the hero effectively, especially when imitating Peter Falk. The animation...is okay. Sometimes it looks pretty good, but other times it looks unfocused, not ugly, but not praiseworthy either. It runs short, 80 minutes in all, and I suppose it could be a fun flick for any...wizard aficionados, if their is such a term. Bakshi does an alright job directing, and the film overall is an decent, if not great film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

Review #269: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

Cast
Kevin Conroy (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Dana Delany (Andrea Beaumont), Mark Hamill (The Joker), Hart Bochner (Arthur Reeves), Stacy Keach (Carl Beaumont and Voice of the Phantasm), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Alfred Pennyworth), Abe Vigoda (Salvatore Valestra), Dick Miller (Charles "Chuckie" Sol), John P. Ryan (Buzz Bronski), Bob Hastings (Commissioner James Gordon), and Robert Costanzo (Harvey Bullock) Directed by Eric Radomski and Bruce Timm.

Review
This was directed by the creators of Batman: The Animated Series, which was a very well acclaimed show in the 1990's that would get a movie, which is this. This was the third (or fourth if you count the 1966 Batman film) Batman film released, though it was different from the first two (though released one year after Batman Returns and two years before Batman Forever.) Anyway, the film has a lot going for it, with a beautiful opening sequence showing Gotham City. The plot is alright, but I find that it is a bit hampered by the flashbacks in the beginning that while it gives important info for the rest of the film, it feels like a distraction. But the animation is good, with the animation of the show a bit improved to make it more like a film. The middle to the end get interesting as the Joker comes in. And he is...really good. Out of the 4 actors that have played him, he might just tie Nicholson and Ledger's performances for best Joker (although Romero isn't a bad Joker by any means) The rest of the actors including Conroy, are good. I wish the film could had been longer, as the run time is only 76 minutes. In the end, it's a good film that while not better then Batman or The Dark Knight, certainly beats the two films that followed this (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) by a long shot.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.