Everyone will compare this DVD to Animatrix. The concept is similar, a series of short stories animated by famous Anime production companies, direct to DVD to bridge the gap between two successful movies.

The difference here is that Batman is a very well known character, and there have been many stories about him. So there isn’t anything new in this DVD. The novelty is watching Batman portrayed as an anime character.

Overall the visual look of Batman was satisfying. At times he looked more like an eagle, other times he had a clear armor. But I liked all those interpretations. In particular I loved the first story, which presented 4 different interpretations of Batman. Those were really fun to watch.

There is a small thread that carries over throughout the movie, but it’s so small that it’s almost inconsequential. But I did like seeing some of the same charaters pop up in more than one story. Those were Gordon and his two detectives Allen and Ramirez. We also see the Russian and the Italian mob.

There are obvious ties to the movies, Scarecrow being the obvious one. Killer Croc also makes an appearance, as well as Deadshot. There are plenty of fun action scenes, and a lot of atmosphere. Not a lot of characterization going on, the only exception is the story where Bruce flashes back to his time in India, where he learned to deal with pain. Very good story.

Even though the writers are American, everything else is done by Japanese, so all stories have a definite Anime feel, both in looks and atmosphere. One thing that links all these stories are the voices. Kevin Conroy comes back as Batman/Bruce, and he does an excellent job as always. He’ll always be Batman’s voice for me. All other voice talents are good as well, but the only one I recognized is Gary Dourden.

Each story is only about 10 minutes long, so these are at most teases and don’t go in depth. I wish they would have chosen fewer stories and given them more time. As it is, this feels more like a teaser. But the visuals are definitely worth a look.

Rating: 2.5 Stars

If it weren’t for Johnny Depp’s nomination for the Oscars, I wouldn’t have watched this movie. Nothing against the Burton/Depp pairing, I’ve actually liked their work together, but I’ve had enough of musicals. After Once, I don’t think any other musicals will compare.

The problem with songs in movies is that I don’t understand what they’re about most of the time, which is not good for understanding the story. That’s true for this movie as well. Depp is not a bad singer at all, his performance is actually not bad. I don’t think he deserved the Oscar, or at least I wasn’t touched by his performance.

However the main problem is that I had no idea why he killed all those people. That didn’t help with his revenge, we don’t even know these people. That montage of all those killings didn’t seem to have any motivation except that it was the premise of the story.

On top of that I also didn’t understand some of the dialogs, their accents were way too thick (especially Helena Bonham-Carter). I guess it’s realistic since they’re supposed to be in London, but I am also supposed to understand them and follow the story.

I guess what I did like was the ending, there was no other ending for this type of story, but I liked it and it at least made sense. Unlike the rest of the movie.

To me this movie failed both as a musical and as a story. Depp’s performance was ok, I just didn’t feel it.

Rating: 2 Stars

I am not a big fan of writer/director Paul Haggis, his Crash was the most overrated movie of that year’s Oscars. So I didn’t expect much from this new movie. Luckily I had a good time.

This is mainly a crime/mystery drama, where Hank (Tommy Lee Jones) is trying to find his son back from Iraq. We follow him investigating his disappearance, with the help of Det. Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). This part is ok, not particularly clever or interesting, but it was well done.

In between we also see videos of his son in Iraq, we are hinted at something terrible that happened to him, which may be the cause of his disappearance. The son’s colleagues in the army are all involved, but we don’t find out what really happened until the end.

The subplot about Sanders is really underdeveloped. Many of her scenes do not have a point or don’t bring to anything in the end, like her sexists colleagues, or her boss. There is also a couple of scenes involving one of her side cases that really didn’t belong in this movie, it was just a cheap way of making the character emotional.

What I did like was Tommy Lee Jones. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors and 2007 was a great year for him. I believe he is the main reason I enjoyed this movie despite its many flaws.

Haggis is famous for overemphasizing his “message”, as if he were afraid that we don’t get it and he has to bludgeon us over our heads. That’s what happens at the end. We get it!! War is bad!!

In spite of my dislike of Haggis, I still recommend this film.

Rating: 3 Stars

I must admit I have heard both good and bad reviews about this film, but what prompted me to watch this movie is the cast. Hoffman is always good, Albert Finney has been a favorite of mine since Erin Brokovich, and I have a soft spot for Marisa Tomei.

Ironically Marisa Tomei was the worst performance. I don’t think it’s really her fault, she wasn’t given good material to work with. Her character really wasn’t developed at all.

The story of the robbery is a classic bad idea that precipitates. The problem I had with it is that Andy should not have trusted his younger brother with such a big and important thing. He should have known that LB was not to be trusted.

And even if LB was such a loser, he really handled it impossibly wrong. There are so many things he could have said to his friend in order to avoid using the gun.

The relationship between Andy and his father was a bit too stereotyped, it was never really depicted except for that one conversation during the funeral. That’s not enough for me to justify the final scene.

The timeline was fine at first, we got to see what each character was doing before the robbery, however after that I got tired of it, and it felt like a gimmick that overstayed its welcome.

I guess it was a nice idea, but it was poorly executed.

Rating: 2 Stars

No Country for Old Men (2007): Violence and mayhem ensue after a hunter stumbles upon some dead bodies, a stash of heroin and more than $2 million in cash near the Rio Grande.My expectations for this movie were very high, and they were met. This is a very simple story, the plot is not at all complicated and there are not many dialogs. But what’s great about it are the visuals, the tension and the great acting.

The movie opens with Javier Bardem as Chigurh. Everybody’s singing praises for him and with reason. This is a very scary performance, everything about him gives me the creeps. His haircut, his voice, the dialog, his expression, his movements, his weapons. I love the two weapons he uses, and the way his mind works is just scary.

But he is only half of the story, the other half is Josh Brolin. He also gives a great performance, making us root for him in trying to escape Chigurh. He gives the impression of being bright, but also out of his league.

The technical side of this film is perfect. I loved the scene in the dark, where it is possible to see in the distance the second car and people around it. Then the chase scene is just beautifully shot, culminating with the swimming dog.

There are so many other scenes that grab you by the throat and never let go until the end. Most of them involve Chigurh. Him chasing Moss through the streets. The sheriff entering the hotel room at the end, etc…

There are also many supporting characters that give great performances themselves. Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Kelly McDonald…

This is just an enjoyable movie, each scene can be appreciated by themselves. The plot is simple, so repeated viewing will not be ruined by knowing the plot at all. This is a film that needs to be experienced.

Rating: 4 Stars

Gone Baby Gone (2007): Based on the Dennis Lehane novel about two Boston area detectives investigating a little girl’s kidnapping, which ultimately turns into a crisis both professionally and personally.This is the directorial debut by Ben Affleck, who does not appear in this film at all. Instead his brother Casey is the lead, and both brothers do a very good job.

The structure of this story is a little bit unusual to me. It first builds the case Patrick is hired for, it presents all the characters involved and it gives us an ending halfway through. That’s already a surprise.

Once that’s done, we get an action scene that brings us a moral question, and I think this is the main point of the film. What is the right thing to do? This question comes back again towards the end, when Patrick finally finds out the truth.

This was a reveal much like any other crime/detective story we’ve seen, but I thought the plot was very well thought out and the flashback scenes were filmed very well so that once we learn the truth it made sense.

I really loved the way the moral question was answered, Patrick knew the consequences of his decision and we were also told very clearly. But this being a Hollywood movie I was afraid we’d get some form of hope at the end. Instead we get what we’re supposed to get. Ben Affleck did not bail at the end, he went all the way through.

All the performances were excellent, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, even Michelle Monaghan. Casey Affleck was the star though, even though sometimes he mumbles and I can hardly make out what he’s saying.

This is definitely a movie people should check out without preconceptions. Ben Affleck surprised me and I can’t wait for his next project.

Rating: 4 Stars

3:10 to Yuma (2007): A small-time rancher agrees to hold a captured outlaw who’s awaiting a train to go to court in Yuma. A battle of wills ensues as the outlaw tries to psych out the rancher.

This is a well done western with a very charismatic villain and many good performances. The plot is simple, but I would say that the focus of this film are the characters.

The contrast between Evans and Wade is intriguing, it’s not exactly good vs evil. Evans only wants to provide for his family, but he also wants to be a hero because he feels he failed that during his time as a soldier.

On the other hand Wade is definitely a criminal, but as William said he still has a heart, and he definitely got to like Evans at the end. There are other characters that worked really well, Alan Tudyk, Peter Fonda etc…

However the movie falls completely apart at the end. What happens at the end is totally incomprehensible to me. I mean, yes there is a big shoot out and that’s all there is to it, but I just don’t get Wade’s motivations at all. Nothing makes sense to me. I get that he wants to help Evans, but wasn’t there a better way to do that? I just found it so wrong, but the final shoot out was even worse.

This had potential to be a very good western, unfortunately it lost me at the end.

Rating: 2.5 Stars

Shoot ’Em Up (2007): A man named Mr. Smith delivers a woman’s baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.This is a pure fun action movie that plays on the action genre of its conventions. The plot is simple, though there is a little bit of mystery about the motivations behind these characters.

But what’s important about this movie are the over the top action scenes. These scenes reminded me of early John Woo movies, where the hero shoots against an army of people blasting automatic at him, but always missing, while he never fails. Even the slow-mo style is reminiscent of Woo.

We also get people who keep going even after they’ve been shot multiple times, the classic face 2 face gun shot, and many other over the top absurd action shots.

There is also lots of “fun” action, especially with the hero’s favorite food: carrots. And the way that newborn is tossed around I don’t think he’s gonna grow up normal.

I think Clive Owen was perfect for this role, he is serious enough not to let this movie go into farce, which it isn’t at all. Monica Bellucci plays the beautiful woman of the story, and that’s all she needs to be. Paul Giamatti also gives a fun performance, though it’s something that feels very familiar, which is the point of the whole movie.

My favorite scene is when the US presidential candidate is taken prisoner by Smith. Smith then proceeds to tell us what he thinks he should do to get out of that difficult situation he’s in, at which point we all know what going to happen, because we’ve seen it so many times, instead BOOM!! I was surprised and understood perfectly why they did it. Too bad the following action scene while free-falling looked too fake.

I must say I had fun with this movie. It’s not deep or thoughtful, doesn’t have any message at all. It’s just fun action winking at the action genre.

Rating: 3 Stars

Eastern Promises (2007): The film follows the mysterious and ruthless Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), who is tied to one of London’s most notorious organized crime families.

I really liked A History of Violence, so I was curious to watch director David Cronenberg’s new collaboration with Viggo Mortensen.

This is a pretty straight forward story about the Russian mob in London, involving a 14 year old prostitute and her baby. The “twist” at the end was not a surprise, I guessed about Nikolai early on.

But the focus of this movie is not the plot, it’s about the characters and the environments. In particular the Russians, their heritage and their culture (at least the mob culture). Not being familiar with this culture, I was immersed in it and I enjoyed this part.

This being a Cronenberg movie, we get the usual gore and violence, which didn’t really do anything for me. It was shocking, but it also felt fake to me. Or maybe it’s more realistic than Hollywood movie, so it feels different than what I am used to see in movies.

However I liked the shower scene towards the end, a very well filmed and gripping fight. I must say I was distracted by the fake Russian accents. Not that it didn’t sound realistic, but on the one hand I couldn’t understand a lot of what they were saying, on the other hand I just knew that Viggo didn’t speak like that. I’d rather they spoke in Russian all the time, and read subtitles. That’s the most realistic.

This was a good movie which I enjoyed watching. It’s not as good as Cronenberg’s previous one, but it’s certainly enjoyable.

Rating: 3 Stars

American Gangster (2007): In 1970s America, a detective works to bring down the drug empire of Frank Lucas, a heroin kingpin from Manhattan, who is smuggling the drug into the country from the Far East.

This movie can be considered an epic gangster movie. This story is divided between good cop Archie (Russell Crowe) and drug lord Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). Their stories alternate for the whole movie until the end, when they finally cross each other.

Archie’s story in interesting but I’ve seen it all before. Good cop tries to do the right thing but is ostracized by his colleagues, who are corrupt cops (this obviously reminded me of Serpico). Crowe does a good job, but he’s done better.

Frank’s story was more interesting to me, at least his plan to become the first African/American drug lord. His plan to cut the middleman and go directly to the source works. I liked that part of his story, however director Scott also tried to show Frank’s family, in an attempt to let us care about his character, almost make him a good person. But it fails miserably, even though the casting of Washington was made so that we would like him.

It doesn’t work especially at the end, when Frank all of a sudden is working with Archie and we see them smile together in a montage that really offended me. That montage also shows some corrupt cops, and it’s supposed to be the big finale, but it really didn’t resonate with me because these cops were only cameos in the film.

The execution of this movie is very good, Scott’s technical skills are showing in this movie. The pace of the movie is very well done, it never bored me, allowing tension to build before each action scene.

I didn’t like the scene where Archie is checking the military plane and all of a sudden someone comes and stops it. After their conversation Archie goes back to the investigation, as if nothing happened. What was the point of that?

I did like this movie, but I also have many problems. It’s certainly not the big epic that it tried to emulate: Godfather, Goodfellas. This is probably more similar to Heat, in terms of quality and general story format.

Rating: 3 Stars