Eaten Alive! (1980) - 1.5/5

By 1980 the gore was flowing thick off of grindhouse cinema screens as the Italian Cannibal subgenre was in full force thanks to Sergio Martino's "Mountain of the Cannibal God" and Ruggero Deodato "Last Cannibal World" being modest hits with audiences that demanded to be shocked and disgusted. With the Cannibal subgenre being in high demand director Umberto Lenzi decided to revisit the genre he created eight years earlier with "Man from Deep River." Unlike "Mountain of the Cannibal God" and "Last Cannibal World" which had respectable qualities about them, Umberto Lenzi goes the trashy approach to the gives audiences a stock footage filled cheap cash-in, barely eking above such atrocious entries as "Cannibals" and "Cannibal Terror".

The film opens oddly enough in major cities in the U.S. where a wild jungle man is running around killing guys with poisoned darts before getting hit by a bus (cue in unintentional laughter). In his pocket he has the name of a missing women so the authorities notify her sexy Southern Bell sister. She takes it upon herself to travel to Berma, hire a borderline psychotic ex-Vietnam vet, and then trek into the jungle to find her sister that's being held captive by a sadistic cult leader. The kicker... the jungle surrounding the cult's compound is full of cannibals making escape nearly impossible.

What gets me is this film could have been SO MUCH BETTER. "Mountain of the Cannibal God", though not a great film, was competently made and "Last Cannibal World" is actually a good film with Deodato taking a gritty, realistic edge to the subject matter. Not Lenzi. He doesn't even act like he's having fun with the over-the-top subject matter, it just comes off more like he didn't give a shit and only rode the coattails of the genre he created to make a quick buck. His direction is sloppy, the writing is haphazard and the dialogue is banal.

This however isn't the part I hate the most about the film. What irks me is the use of stock footage. Literally every shocking and disturbing scene out of "Man from Deep River", "Mountain of the Cannibal God" and "Last Cannibal World" is recycled here. What's so humorous is Lenzi denies any stock footage was used on the DVD interview. What?! Is he fucking blind?! It's not like the distributors spliced in the footage without his knowledge, Lenzi filmed "Eaten Alive" specifically to splice in these scenes! If you've seen the afore mentioned films then you're going to have a serious case of déjà vu.

The cast however is good with plenty of actors Italian cult fanatics will recognize including Robert Kerman (who made a career of appearing in cannibal films including "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Cannibal Ferox"), the gorgeous Janet Agren ("City of the Living Dead") and what cannibal film wouldn't be complete without Me Me Lai, reunited with her "Man from Deep River" costar Ivan Rassimov as the sadistic cult leader. Thanks to all the stock footage they re-used her death scene from "Last Cannibal World". Cheap bastards! Hell even Mel Ferrer makes a quick appearance as a professor who specializes in cannibalism. Ironically he appeared in Tobe Hooper's American film with the same title 3 years prior to this. How many people can say that they appeared in two separate films entitled "Eaten Alive"? I guarantee you Mel Ferrer is the only one.

This may not be the worst Italian cannibal film, as there are a few that are far worse, but this is hardly a prime example. It lacks the good filmmaking qualities of Deodato's gruesome twosome and it lacks the fun adventure element of "Mountain of the Cannibal God". It even lacks good shock factor as 99% of it's shocking scenes are STOLEN from other films! Do yourself a favor, watch those other films instead. If you have the inkling to see a trashy cannibal flick with shocking gore then skip this one and go straight to Umberto Lenzi's "Cannibal Ferox." At least that film doesn't use stock footage!

Written By Eric Reifschneider

[Rec] - 4.5/5

Although the handheld camera concept gets run a little thin anymore in the horror genre (just look at some of the mediocre films that have used it like "Zombie Diaries"), there are moments when it works well. The hard to type "[Rec]" for example. This is a film that uses its handheld camera style not as a gimmick, but as a craft to ably throw the audience into the fray and truly builds a horrifying experience with it. It never has that faux realism that so many of these films contain, but it actually feels like a real event. Something that many filmmakers need to take note of when utilizing the process.

Angela and her wonderfully understanding camera man Pablo are shooting an episode for a program that documents things that happen at night in Spain. Their latest gig is following around the night shift of a local fire station as they go about their nightly routine. The rather boring experience gets exciting when the fire station is called out to a small building to answer a distress call from the apartment residents. What they find in the building is not what they expect and soon the small group of people (camera crew and all) are quarantined within the walls of the small building with no answers and a quick spreading 'infection'.

The plot is simple. It's in the moment. It's nothing we haven't seen before. In fact, this 'infected' plot line of telling the zombie story is getting a bit old. Luckily, with abnormally efficient pacing, stellar acting performances, and an eye for the scary/suspenseful, "[Rec]" works it all in some amazingly profound ways. From its rather humble openings as Angela interviews the fire crew and how the station works we are given a taste that this is meant to fell as real as possible and with the directors use of long sequences, realistic editing moments, and jump scares that work the use of the handheld camera style they ably make it work. Our lead actress works that role for all its worth and the supporting cast each use their distinct character designs to really build up this realism and the story its telling. For once, the handheld camera style isn't forced but flows naturally as we spiral into chaos with the rest of these poor souls.

Something else that makes "[Rec]" such a phenomenal modern horror flick, is that is never feels the need to over explain. As the plot gets more complicated concerning the infection and its revealing properties, its done very subtly to the point that when major moments occur the audience slaps themselves for not seeing it earlier. The clues are buried in realistic banter and quips and it makes for a film that is worth watching repeatedly. Even the rather vague ending (which I am sure is further delved into with the upcoming two sequels and prequel) leaves an odd atmospheric touch of uncertainty with the viewer about the situation these people are in.

"[Rec]" is a blast of modern horror work that nails every moment for all its worth. The style works to its full effect thanks to a stellar script, acting, and directing. It's creepy, scary, and smart and its all rolled into one well presented package of foreign film brilliance. A must have for horror fans all around the world.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Ghost Of Mae Nak, The - 1.5/5

Yawn. How many creepy-woman-with-long-black-hair-Asian-ghost films does one have to see before they become fun and scary again? I thought by waiting for a while and then taking a gander at this Thai version called "The Ghost Of Mae Nak" that I might renew my faith in the style. Nope. At least not with this cliche and overacted film.

Mak has been suffering from nightmares about a pale woman with a black mouth and eyes (and a hole in her forehead). His new bride Nak seems unimpressed with it and they continue on with their marriage and recent purchase of a 'new' house with little thought about it. Too bad as it happens a ghost is haunting Mak and protecting the couple from harm that may come their way. When the ghost of this mysterious woman Mae Nak becomes overly obsessed with husband Mak, the new bride must find a way to rid their lives of this love forlorn spirit before she takes Mak all for herself.

Personally, I don't care if the film is based on a true 'legend' from Thai folklore or not, it's still a poorly paced and ridiculously cliche ghost flick. The design of Mae Nak might be enough to conjure up a few solid jump scares (thanks to the subtle directing that really tries to make each encounter with the ghost a bit of a surprise, whether it works or not), but in general, the style has just been done to death. No pun intended. A love torn ghost haunting a young couple in love? Meh. Seen it and seen it done better.

Not only is the concept a well trampled topic and style, but the execution of the it's plot is heavily hit or miss. The director shows some inspiration with certain moments, the hand in the crushed car for example, but her relies too heavily on the jump scares and the film's actors (who overact fr too much) to carry the film instead of focusing down on the atmosphere which is what makes these kinds of films work. Even the heightened moments of gore, of which there are a few including a glass plate slicing a man right down the middle in grindhouse cheesy effect, can't make the rather generic film stand out.

Perhaps I'm harsh. I don't care. I felt "The Ghost Of Mae Nak" was a rather boring and uninspired attempt at rehashing what the Japanese had already perfected. It works in moments, but moments rarely carry a film through the entire play time.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Devils, The (1971)

THE DEVILS

I have never seen a movie so controversial that the film industry has done their damnest to sweep it under the rug, dump it in a well and cover with ten feet of concrete. Ken Russell's "The Devils" has literally vanished but thanks to a large group of film fans the film has lived on, in circles of unauthorized releases on DVD and video. What's amazing is that this wonderful, truly provocative and shocking motion picture was financially backed by Warner Brothers, one of the leading film studios. This is not some little, independent film that shook the pillars of hell with the censors. This is a grand scale production with A list stars, production values and filmmakers that truly deserves to be re-discovered by open minded film lovers.

This period piece horror drama takes place in the 1600's where a Catholic Priest (Oliver Reed) is abusing his power in a small village that is home to a covenant of nuns. The mother superior (Vanessa Redgrave) has a secret crush on the towns priest and when he marries, she becomes insanely jealous and in turn turns vulgar and blasphemous in order to convince the Cardinal that the Priest has turned herself and covenant into Satan worshippers.

Ken Russell pushes the limits of acceptability in this brooding yet elegantly beautiful picture. There is disturbing allegorical imagery throughout which includes blasphemous images of all kinds. We are talking about nuns running amok, naked and doing all sorts of depraved actions. In other words most of the movie going public found this insanely offensive, including the heads of Warner Brothers who ordered the film heavily cut before release, which predictably hurts the overall impact of the film.

Though the film is mostly known for its shocking imagery, the characters are also darkly complex and in turn make the story truly engrossing. Oliver Reed begins as a corrupt priest only concerned about his own indulgences before truly falling in love and thus his character arc flip-flops. One truly despises him in the beginning only to have their emotions turned to feel pity for the horrors the Catholic Church judges him by. Oliver Reeds performance is the best of his career and one of the most monumental performances I have ever seen and it's a damn shame the controversial nature of the film got him overlooked for a potential Oscar nomination. Vanessa Redgrave also turns in a performance for the ages as the jealous hunchbacked nun that will do any heinous act in order to get her love convicted.

Ken Russell's trademark direction is in full effect with his eccentricities rearing their heads at every turn with unforgettable imagery and truly bizarre characters. He gives the film a grand, amazing look with mesmerizing cinematography and astonishing set pieces. His style gives the film an aesthetic feel while at the same time giving it a sense of sheer anarchy as he puts the Catholic church on the stand to be judged. If I can complain about one thing is that some of Russell's shocking imagery has lost its impact over the years and can now come off a little over-the-top and just plain ridiculous, though for the most part it is still is as shocking as it has ever been.

I cannot praise "The Devils" enough as it is a provocative masterpiece that induces the viewers raw, primal emotions. The film may be mostly known for its shocking imagery (which later spawned the bastard subgenre of the "nunsploitation" features that overtook Europe) but the film is far more than just a "shock film." The film covers a range of subjects from complex human emotions of depravity and hatred to the corruption of an organization that was founded to spread love and caring. This, as you can tell, is not a film for everyone as many will just find the film offensive which I can totally understand. If that emotion can be quelled then one can truly praise this film for what it is... an intelligent masterpiece for viewers with an open mind.

Due to the controversial nature of the film, Warner Brothers is sitting on it instead of releasing it to the public despite numerous petitions for the film to get a proper release, especially in its uncut format. Fans however have cultivated an extended version of the film (though stated as 'uncut', it is still missing a few scenes) which has been unleashed as an unauthorized version on DVD. The DVD is far from perfect, with picture quality that looks equivalent to a VHS, but for now this is the ONLY way to obtain the film in its extended version. For me this DVD was well worth the purchase as Warner Brothers will most likely never release the film again... but I still keep my fingers crossed.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Man from Deep River - 2.5/5

"Man from Deep River" (also known as "Deep River Savages", "Sacrifice!" and "The Man from the Deep River) has the notorious reputation for kickstarting the whole brutal Italian cannibal subgenre. To be honest that's how I actually heard of the film. However if you are a fan of this questionable subgenre you better change your expectations. Even though it's directed by Umberto Lenzi, the man responsible for two of the most notorious films in the genre with "Eaten Alive!" and "Cannibal Ferox", this is a far cry from the extreme nature of those films as this is more of a survival drama film with cannibalism only being an element in the picture instead of being the main focus.

The plot is actually almost identical to the popular American western "A Man Called Horse" only substituting the western background with a jungle and changing the Native Americans to jungle tribes. So the film starts with a photo journalist visiting Bangkok with his girlfriend, who leaves his ass and he somehow kills a guy while drunk in the bar. On the run from the authorities he decides to hire a local to take him deep river so in order to take picture but it only serves him to get captured by a reclusive tribe and in turn forced to be a slave. The daughter of the tribes leader, who just happens to be smokin' hot, takes a liking to him and after proving himself to the tribe and their customs, he 'marries' the bitch and then knocks her up.

The film is the life and times of living in a jungle tribe and if you've seen "A Man Called Horse" then you know exactly how the plot will unfold as it really is identical. Because of this I actually found the film do drag a bit. Even though it has the reputation of being a "cannibal film", it is actually more of a slow moving drama. Think of "Dances with Wolves" extreme Italian exploitation style.

The whole story arc of our main character is extremely clunky and haphazardly strung together. The beginning of the film is horribly cut, to a laughable extent, as within 5 minutes of arriving in Bangkok his girlfriend leaves him and he ends up killing a guy in a bar. It's truly a "what the fuck" string of events that leads him to the jungle and just left me shaking my head.

For an Italian exploitation film the acting is acceptable but it is no where it needs to be in order to realistically portray the love between the man from the city and the tribal beauty. Ivan Rassimov, whom I knew from numerous Spaghetti Westerns, and Me Me Lai, who shows off her glorious nude body on numerous occasions, just seem wooden together.

Enough of that 'plot' stuff, you're wondering about the CANNABLISM. Don't worry my friends, it's coming. Apparently the rival of our main tribe is a ferocious cannibal tribe that lives further up the mountain. We get to see this cannibal tribe in full on bloody glory when they attack a female tribe member and Umberto Lenzi spares no carrnage as he full on shows this graphic attack. The scene, though extremely gruesome, proved popular enough for Lenzi to re-use as stock footage in his next cannibal-fest "Eaten Alive!"

Of course with these type of films 'cannibalism' isn't' the only exploitative element. Lenzi also loads up the film with tribal nudity and sex scenes. There is also a few instances of real life animal killings, an element the genre would be known for and also the one element I despise in these films.

Overall "Man from Deep River" is a survival drama with a serious douse of Italian exploitation and because of this it will fail to truly enthrall audiences. It's too dramatic and drab for fans of Italian extreme cinema and it's too exploitative and brutal for fans of survival dramas. Needless to say, for better or worse, it was a hit in the underground circle for it's one, pinnacle cannibalism scene and the setting and that one scene would go on to inspire a slew of imitators, all more bloody and extreme than the next so the grindhouse theaters would be flowing with gore for years to come.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Bourne Identity, The - 4/5

I've figured it out. You what America needs? James Bond. It's simple. That's what we need. A Bond like figure. Oh we've tried to craft them before..."Mission: Impossible III" flirted with the style (and hopefully will continue to do so) and we certainly failed to make a good franchise out of the eye rolling "XXX", but we've tried. The best attempt at making our own version of the super spy was in the form of "The Bourne Identity", a high octane modernized spy film that fleetingly blends charm and kick-assery. A highlight for modern action films in this country.

Jason Bourne (Damon) wakes up in the middle of an ocean, two bullet boles in his back and a mysterious bank account number stitched in his hip. Turns out, he just might be a spy, but a nasty case of amnesia prevents him from remembering much anything past speaking English (and various other languages). As he trots across Europe trying to remember his trivial past, he forms a romantic relationship with a young woman Marie (Potente) and fights off a slew of assassins. What a horrid way to wake up.

Despite having a relatively B-grade spy plot (government killer wakes up with amnesia?), the movie is played to a certain realism with a belief in what is happening. It works. The director, Liman, plays with the story a lot giving it a modern flair that brings Bourne to an an almost human like standard, rather than the indestructible spy, and ignites the rather story heavy script with enough solid action sequences to make most mainstream fans enjoy it. You get fist to cuff fights, car chases in tiny European vehicles on tiny European streets, snipers (one played by the awesome Clive Owen), and your usual spy back stabbing double crosses. It's everything one could want with a spy film done with a modern eye that makes it work with snazzy efficiency.

It is pretty obvious that "The Bourne Identity" wanted to be America's spy franchise. The film is undeniably charming with Damon in the lead role and it's clever (but not without enough kick ass moments for those not willing to think too hard) plot. It's got a romantic sub plot that works for what it is (although certainly forced in moments) and a great villainous line up to counteract our heroic protagonist (including Brian Cox and Chris Cooper). One could run for 10 movies with the ideas presented here.

If you love spy movies, "The Bourne Identity" is a must see. For American standards in the genre, its an ace in the hole and a great way to kick off a great fun franchise. Amazing action, clever plot work, a fun and charming lead character, and just enough light heartedness to really appeal to that wide audience. What more could one ask for from this film?

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Green Lantern (2011) - 2/5

Martin Campbell. The director of the stellar "Casino Royale" and "Edge Of Darkness". Ryan Reynolds. The charismatic actor giving most comic book franchise a run including "Blade: Trinity" and "Wolverine". $300,000,000. A huge fucking budget. Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard in the supporting cast. With all of these things, "Green Lantern" should be a fucking epic film. Epic spelled out in all caps. The mythology and story for this legendary comic book hero could craft a film franchise for decades.

Then why is this summer blockbuster so damn mediocre?

Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is one of the best fighter pilots our military has seen in recent years. Too bad he's a bit of w wreck outside of flying. Can't keep a relationship. Can't even get to work on time. When an alien Green Lantern crashes on Earth, the ring of his power chooses Hal to be the first human to join the intergalactic Lantern Corps to replace him. Can Hal handle the responsibility of becoming one of the great space cops? When an ancient evil awakens and threatens Earth, only Hal is willing to stand up to the power of fear. Will it be enough though?

When I say that "Green Lantern" is mediocre, I really do mean it. It's just so disappointing. To be honest, I was never a fan of the comics all that much (space cops aren't my normal thing), but the potential for a great, fun movie franchise was all here and with the surprising solidity of the first DC cartoon of Green Lantern just a few years ago, I was sort of excited. Yet, with all of the talent up this film's sleeve it all comes off as a very watered down (and dare I say for a film with such a large mythos) and simple.

Through and through, "Green Lantern" half asses it. With $300,000,000 in the bank, all of the sets look cliche with nothing awe inspiring about it. The Lantern Corps home world  should inspire awe, yet it looks like a video game backdrop with little adherence to the relevance it should produce. Not only that, but the extensive use of CGI used in the film is worth a few eye rolls. Did you really have to CGI his damn suit? The film does have some fun moments of ridiculousness, particularly with his mind controlled Lantern powers, but even the villain looks like something just slightly better than what Little Nemo destroyed in Slumberland. (High five if you get this reference without looking it up).

Even the acting seems only partially there. Not that I expect a whole lot from Van Wilder, be even his normally fun banter and on screen charisma seems forced, leaving one sort of wondering just how this is going to work out about 15 minutes into the film. In addition, the supporting cast is never used to its full potential. Mark Strong is horridly underused (although knowing what becomes of his character does mean he gets a whole lot more screen time in future films - if they happen) and over and over again I found myself wondering where the charm went with this film.

"Green Lantern" is not the shit hole that many may claim it to be, as it is still a fun summer popcorn flick, but the potential for a great franchise kick off is certainly missed and missed widely. Not a lot of charisma is played out here and Martin Campbell and the writers make a huge mistake not embracing the huge epic nature of the film and taking it that extra step to wow the audience. This summer blockbuster just spirals down into an average film in the wake. One that doesn't touch the caliber that comic book movies have come to regularly employ.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Angry Red Planet, The - 2/5

The red planet isn't only angry, it's fucking pissed off in this glorious 'so awful it's good' 1950's science fiction yarn. Let's just say "The Angry Red Planet" sure didn't leave this reviewer burning red with anger... but with a giant grin on his face as it will be sure to do the same with the small percentage of the audience this quickie was intended for.

Well in futuristic 1959, man makes their first mission to Mars which consist of a beautiful red head woman and three other guys who look too old or too fat to be anything near astronaut caliber. They land on Mars and waste no time killing their way through the flora and fauna of the planet, pissing off local wildlife and infuriating intelligent life form inhabitants.

What's so great about these cheezy sci fi films from the 50s is they are so damn politically incorrect. Our male crew members make passes at our female astronaut constantly, even commenting how her curves don't show through enough in some of her space outfits. When trouble comes calling our woman astronaut always runs to the men for help and if help isn't provided, she faint's in good womanly 1950s fashion. Hell even their mission is politically incorrect as they show up on the planet for a 'science expedition' and end up only killing and maiming local wildlife with freeze rays. So much for scientific research!

The absolute most delightful aspect that makes this film so near and dear to B-movie connoisseurs is the hilarious animals and life forms our astronauts run into. Of course there's the expected man-eating plants but the creatures that take the cake are a ship swallowing amoeba (with a rotating eye that spins in a 360 degree circle) and of course the rat/bat/spider monster that became the poster child for the advertising campaign. There's also Martians to boot that look like cut out standees placed in the space craft's view holes!

Director Ib Melchior tries to mask the amateurish special effects by garnishing the film with a red filter whenever our astronauts leave their shuttle. It's interesting at first but trust me your eyes will punish you later with a glorious headache (though it's not as bad of a headache one would get after watching "Tron" and it's pain educing colors).

"The Angry Red Planet" is a cornball science fiction film that is bad in all the right ways. We get banal, politically incorrect dialogue, silly special effects including cardboard cut-out landscapes and outrageous monsters that will quench the appetite of any 50s B-movie aficionado. Hell give me this 'Mars" film any day over the genre's newer, more realistic ventures like "Red Planet" and "Mission to Mars".

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Jack the Giant Killer (1962) - 2.5/5

With the loveable fantasy adventure "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" winning over audiences in 1958, producer Edward Small decided he wanted to tap that ass of success as he financed the ultimate rip-off . In order to have a proper rip-off he knew he had to have stop motion giants so the children's fantasy tale of "Jack the Giant Killer" proved to be the perfect candidate for a film adaption. In order to have stop motion giants he hired Ray Harryhausen protégé Howard A. Anderson to bring the monsters to life. One would think that would be enough to make a reasonable rip-off but no... Small didn't stop there. He even went as far as to hire Sinbad's main star, villain and fucking director. With all these ingredients was he able to copy the success of "Sinbad"? Sadly the answer is NO.

Well "Jack the Giant Killer" has the typical fairy tale plot of a peasant rescuing a princess (from a giant this time) only to have her get kidnapped by an evil wizard. Now our peasant Jack needs the help of a child, a viking, and a leprechaun in a battle (don't ask) in order to beat all of his evil giants, witches and flying beasts.

The trailer proudly proclaimed "... three years in the making" but does the film look it? To be honest not really. First of all the stop motion effects leave A LOT to be desired. Anderson is NO Ray Harryhausen and his stop motion creations bring on images of "Gumby" instead of suspending disbelief. The rest of the special effects range from imaginative do downright ludicrous. The sets, props and wardrobe also scream stage production (at one point Jack's "mighty" sword flops like a limp dildo when dropped on the ground).

Even with the less-than-stellar effects we still get to see Jack battle two giants (one with two heads), a flying serpent, and even witches of the wind with some gnarly camera effects. There is even a battle between a kraken and a two headed giant but again the amateurish looking stop motion keeps this scene from having the impact it could have had in order to match the magnificent cyclops versus dragon battle from "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad."

Even our cast seem to know their only cashing in on the success of "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" as both Kerwin Matthews and Torin Thatcher sleepwalk through their performances hoping their fame from "Sinbad" will be enough to carry the film.

Though a seriously flawed fantasy film, "Jack the Giant Killer" still has enough magic and wonder to bring out the child in me but it's still just a hair too childish for my taste. "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" was able to entertain both children and adults on their level but one has to dumb themselves down just a hair for "Jack the Giant Killer." Perhaps with some better effects, more effort into the story-telling and production design could this have matched the film it was ripping off but audiences could see through its veil of disguise and "Jack the Giant Killer" ended up being a giant dude at the box office. I would call "Jack the Giant Killer" a valiant effort, but not a true success but still worth a look for fanatics of stop-motion effects from the glory age of cinema.

Note: Columbia Pictures, the company behind "Sinbad", even took legal actions against United Artists during the film's box office run for copyright infringement (yes that's how much "Jack" rips off "Sinbad"). Due to this legal action United Artists pulled the film and re-edited and re-released it as a damn musical! Thankfully that awful musical version has been lost over the years and the version presented on the DVD is the original, unaltered release.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Dark Knight, The - 4/5

Although the critical praise was pretty universal across the board for the second Christopher Nolan Batman film "The Dark Knight", I am going to go ahead and say that the original 1989 "Batman" was better. Call them fighting words, even though I have to admit that "The Dark Knight" is a good film, but let's look at the film without the blinders of its success critically and financially. Let's look at this second Batman reboot flick as it truly is. A great film that still suffers from flaws carried over by its style.

Batman (Bale) has generally been cleaning out Gotham. With the help of a feisty new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) as Gotham's new 'white knight', the two unknowingly have been working in partnership to rid Gotham of its crime problem. The mob is running scared and in their desperation they are looking to anything or anyone to get rid of the Batman to help their cause. They are answered by an anarchical maniac with no name, no record, and no mercy calling himself The Joker (Ledger). Batman may have truly met his match. A man that no detective work or will power can overcome for he has no plan or motivation. Can Batman and Harvey Dent find a way to end the reign of anarchy that The Joker has brought?

"The Dark Knight" continues where Nolan left off with "Batman Begins". The realistic tone is even further embraced in this film (sans the random Bat-sonar contraption brought in at the end, which oddly sits as a very comic book like aspect in a film that tries desperately hard not to be) and the darker tones pushed to their limits with the film's focus on humanizing the characters. Bruce Wayne is given more to struggle with as his role as Batman is questioned by the public and the addition of Harvey Dent and his campaign for justice done in the system gives great comparisons to what Batman's role is as a character and as an ideal. This aspect is well accomplished with the tone and visual style of the film and Nolan nails it.

Again though, like with "Batman Begins", this film gets real damn preachy about viewing all sides of the problem. Monologue after monologue after dialogue after dialogue about justice's role gets to be a little much by the end and certainly rubs this reviewer a bit raw with it's bashing over the head of 'morals'. If only it just told the story and let the subtext do the work rather than having to spell it out for the audience.

Of course, as with most of the critics, I have to agree that the highlight of the film is Ledger's schizophrenic and completely riveting performance as The Joker. His insanely dark (and funny to this guy) take on the great nemesis is an odd mixture of every Joker that came before and done in a whole new light that still amazes and delights me to no end. Every time I watch this film I find myself still completely entwined with his work and it makes for one of the best villains Batman has yet to see.

Unfortunately, with how well Nolan and Ledger crafted Joker here, poor Two Face gets the shaft. The film does an amazing job building up to Harvey Dent's eventual downfall (this is one of the better stories told in the Batman universe), but his bout as Two Face in the finale seems tacked on and too long. It's like two hours is spent building this character and then...that's it. I would have preferred that Two Face's vengeance be saved for another film. It's too good to be wasted as a sub plot in the end.

"The Dark Knight" is a great film and perhaps my second favorite of the live action adaptions for Batman. It's not perfect though and many times I find myself really nitpicking at it because it could have been even better. Sharper. Trimming the fat and focusing down on what this film does so well...giving Batman a real world to live in.

BONUS RANT: I still find Bale's Batman voice to be unintentionally hilarious. Never get's old.

Written By Matt Reifschneider