Batman (1989)

In light of the recent release of Christopher Nolan's latest Dark Knight film, "The Dark Knight Rises", I thought it appropriate to go back to where the Dark Knight on film began. Sure, the Batman character was no stranger to the cinema (The 1940's serials and the 60's movie based on the show). But it wasn't until a wacky, eccentric, up and coming director got a hold of the character that the 'dark knight' would become common knowledge.

 Prior to 1989, if you asked anybody what Batman was all about, they would have referred you to the campy Adam West television series of the 1960's. The character had never been given a proper treatment on film that was respectful of its source material. When Bob Kane first created Batman in 1939, he was a shadowy creature of the knight that stalked criminals like a vampire.

Tim Burton realized that the character needed a proper film, and agreed to direct the project Warner Bros. was formulating. Burton's recent success with "Beetlejuice" (1988) made him the hottest new director in Hollywood.Large fans of the Batman comic books questioned this decision, but went into attack mode when Burton announced he had cast Michael Keaton (who had played Beetlejuice) to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman. People thought this would be another comical adaptation, due to Keaton's work in the comedy genre. Once trailers and photos began circulating, those people were silenced.

"Batman" begins a few weeks into Bruce Wayne's crime fighting career. Rather than providing an origin story like Nolan would later do in "Batman Begins" (2005), Burton chose to leave that part of Wayne's life a mystery. Rather, he focused on the psychosis of a man that dresses up as a bat to fulfill his need to avenge his parent's death. Michael Keaton, who had previously proved to have dramatic acting chops in "Clean And Sober" (1988), delivered an excellent performance as the troubled Wayne.

 In Burton's film, Batman is portrayed as a border-line schizophrenic who is extremely damaged (to the point of sleeping upside down like a bat). While many argue that Nolan's movies are more faithful to the comics, I prefer this version. His utter craziness almost seems essential to a man willing to go to this extreme.

 To counter a hero this crazy, you need a truly insane villain. It came as no surprise when the Joker was announced to be played by Jack Nicholson, of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) and "The Shining" (1980) fame. Nicholson played the Joker exactly as he is; a maniacal criminal. He is splendidly over the top, which works for the character.

"Batman" is a beautifully crafted film that blends fantasy and realism perfectly. It is Tim Burton's best film and Michael Keaton's biggest success. It forever altered the public's view of Batman, which has remained dominant to this day. Without this film, there would be no Nolan films. It is my favourite of the Batman films, and in my opinion the best.

American Graffiti (1973)

Where Were You In '62? the poster asks us, a question which perfectly defines the nature of this film. This excellent tagline, along with the film itself, captures the innocence of what has been described as the last innocent time in American history. Long before we were nostalgic for the '70s (Dazed and Confused), the '70s was nostalgic for the doo-wop playing, drag racing, late 1950s era.

 American Graffiti tells the tale of a group of friends who have just graduated from high school. They begin doubting what their futures hold for them, and if it is what they want. This plot synopsis is purposefully generic, for it shows how this film could be about any teenager in any era. That is one of the beautiful aspects of this movie; it is timeless.

 Before George Lucas gained stardom for "Star Wars" (1977), and received a huge amount of backlash for the prequels to it, he was making small films. In my opinion, American Graffiti is his best film, due to the massive amount of heart it has. The time period alone makes viewers cherish every moment. The beautiful vehicles and the wonderful music makes one wonder why society had to change. And change it did.

 It is no coincidence that American Graffiti is set in 1962, the year prior to President Kennedy's assassination. The conflict in Vietnam also materialized around this time. Lucas set the film in '62 because it was the final year of what is considered the golden days of post-WWII America. This is rather evident within the film; despite its beauty there is always a sense of sudden closure looming over the characters.

 This is cemented by the final moments of the film, which inform the viewer what happens to each character in the years to come. Needless to say, the film captures the final night of their wonder years.

Any generation can relate to what the characters go through; Kurt and Steve don't know if they want to go to college, Toad just wants to finally get the girl, and John Milner attempts to avoid growing up as much as possible. American Graffiti is one of the greatest films ever made, and absolutely refuses to age.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

It is difficult to examine the quality of certain films without memories of inferior sequels leaving a bitter taste. This can be said for "Halloween" (1978), "Rocky" (1976), and the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Each was the first in a series followed by questionable sequels. Films such as these must be viewed on their own merits to be fairly judged. For the sake of this review, the rest of the Pirates franchise will be ignored (the second was alright, the third was horrible and the fourth was not much better).

Pirates of the Caribbean has been a money-making device long before a film was ever made. It originated as a theme park ride at Disney theme parks. The task of creating a film based on such source material could have been very generic and bland, which is usually the case (I didn't say Transformers, you're the one thinking it). Luckily, Disney decided to commit one hundred percent to the project and produced a film that appealed to both children and adults. Its success was due to its originality and revival of the pirate genre. Movie-goers were ready for a swash-buckling adventure film; they were just waiting for a good one.

Elizabeth Swann is set to marry Commodore Norrington. Before this can occur she has an accident in which she winds up in the bay and the medallion she is wearing, upon touching the water, puts forth a chain of events that involves undead pirates and a cursed ship. The crew of the Black Pearl needs every piece of the Aztec gold in which Elizabeth's medallion is a part of in order to break the curse. The crew is led by Captain Barbossa, who mutinied against the Pearl's original Captain, Jack Sparrow. However, Sparrow managed to overcome this and arrives on the scene to "aid" Elizabeth and Will Turner, a blacksmith's apprentice turned hero, against the cursed pirates.

Basically, I like this movie. I remember when it was first released, and can recall children and adults alike being enamoured with it. The generation in which it came out had never seen anything like it, and took to it immediately. Yes, the special effects were amazing, but it was the plot of the film that made it so memorable. That, and of course Johnny Depp's carreer defining performance. Suddenly, he was no longer that guy who played Edwards Scissorhands; he had BECOME Jack Sparrow. I believe Depp was deserving of his Oscar nomination that year, and possibly should have won.

No matter how many unbelievably complex sequels they make, nor how many thousand action figures Disney shells out, the name Pirates of the Caribbean will always conjur the image of the pirate skeletons walking on the ocean floor. It was a great moment in cinema, and perfectly defines why this film is so loved.

The Phantom Of The Opera (1925)

"Lon Chaney, or it can't be done!" exclaimed Rupert Julian, the director of this landmark film in the Universal monsters legacy.

                                         By 1925, Chaney was a hot commodity; he had become known as the Man of A Thousand Faces. This nickname referred to his ability to transform his appearance to the point of not being recognizable. Chaney, who started out as an extra, gained attention via his abilities with make-up and prosthetics. Soon he was a star, competing with Charles Chaplin for movie-goer's bucks. With such a reputation, Rupert Julian's reaction to the question of casting the Phantom is understandable.

 Mary Philbin plays Christine, a young chorus singer who has suddenly become the understudy of the Paris Opera House's major star. This is because of her secret vocal training with a mysterious admirer, who is actually Eric (or The Phantom). Eric has escaped from a mental institution and is hiding deep below the Opera House. He pines for the beautiful Christine, who is engaged to be married. As the film progresses, The Phantom makes his presence known to all through a series of frightening events which conclude in the kidnapping of Christine. Can The Phantom be stopped and will Christine be saved?

 The Phantom Of The Opera is perhaps best known as the musical version from the late 1980s (and the 2004 film). But from a historical perspective, the 1925 version of the classic tale is by far the most important, and best. In an era of CGI robots and inter-galactic shootouts, the scale of this film is still impressive (if not more so). The size of the sets are mind-blowing, as well as the number of extras needed to make the film possible. It is speculated to be around 5000 people.

That being said, Lon Chaney makes the movie. His breath-taking make-up for the Phantom has yet to be matched. It is the most frightening image in cinema history, and continues to scare the shit out of those watching it for the first time. Chaney's performance is truly remarkable here; he knows how far to go with this larger than life character. Long before Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman were changing their entire demeanor along with their looks, Chaney was doing it to an astonishing level.

This is the big one; the one that led to "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Wolfman" (1941), and every other major horror film of the era. Karloff and Lugosi are the poster boys for horror, but Chaney is the master.

Platoon (1986)

It goes without saying that this film and "Apocalypse Now" (1979) are the greatest Nam war flicks. The true debate would be which is superior. While "Apocalypse Now" perhaps delivers stronger performances and is more impressive from a cinematic standpoint, "Platoon" is a more accurate depiction of the war itself. The director, Oliver Stone, served in Vietnam, and uses his experiences within the film. Overall, it is my opinion that "Platoon" is the superior film.

 Chris Taylor has volunteered to fight in the war, because he wants to carry on his family legacy (father and grandfather had fought in previous wars). He is put in a platoon with a handful of unique characters, who have all in one way or another been damaged by Nam. He meets Sergeant Barnes, who is hell-bent on winning the war by any means necessary. He also meets Sergeant Elias, who couldn't be more different than Barnes. As the war progresses, these three men develop relationships that result in murder and betrayal.

 The shining performance of the film is Willem Dafoe as Elias. He is a truly phenomenal actor, and this may be his great performance (either this or Last Temptation of Christ). Tom Berenger also delivers a solid performance; a cold, calculating antagonist that you can't decide is wrong or right.

Say what you want about Charlie Sheen, but his performance in this film is quite exceptional. Following in his father's footsteps (who starred in Apocalypse Now), Sheen showed much promise as Christ Taylor. Unfortunately, after his success in "Wall Street" (1987), Sheen disappeared into comedic trash.

 The best part of this film, however, is its beautiful direction at the hands of Oliver Stone. This is the type of film that, while watching it, you can't help but think how beautiful and tragic a film can look. Creating beauty out of violence is incredibly difficult (visual beauty, not beauty in subject matter). Stone delivered his best film with "Platoon". It was very deserving of its Best Picture win that year.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)

Wes Craven's inspiration for this film makes for an excellent spooky campfire tale. According to Craven, when he was a young boy he had an odd encounter. One dark night, he peered out his bedroom window and saw a lone man walking the silent streets. The man was wearing a trenchcoat and full brimmed hat, and apparently sensed that the little boy was looking at him. He peered up at the young Craven, which made the boy hide in fear. He waited a few moments, then looked again. The man was still gazing at him, and shot him an evil glare. Craven cited this sick form of amusement on that man's befalf as a large inspiration for the antagonist of A Nightmare On Elm Street.

This story sets the tone for the film which would kickstart a franchise that dominated the 1980s, alongside Friday The 13th and Halloween. With each new sequel the plot became more complex, but this original film was quite simple; a young girl named Nancy has nightmares about a creepy man with claws on his hand. She discovers her friends are having the same dream, and soon enough they begin dying from it. Nancy sets out to unravel the mystery of the nightmare.

Freddy Krueger was a child killer who was apprehended but released due to the proper warrents not being in place. The parents of Springwood, thw town in which the film takes place, form a vigilante posse and burn Krueger to death. But death, as Nancy would discover, would not stop Freddy Krueger.

Nancy must fight for her life against the dream demon, who is hell bent on killing every child of those who murdered him.

A Nightmare On Elm Street is probably the second best slasher film ever made; only John Carpenter's Halloween (1978) tops it. While I am a larger fan of the Friday The 13th series, I can't deny that its debut film cannot compete with Nightmare. The film is so much more than the generic slashers of the era, such as My Bloody Valentine (1981). This is due to Wes Craven's capabilities as a story teller. While the special effects hold up to this day, it is the brilliant script which makes Nightmare a cinematic landmark.

I find my relationship with Craven movies to be odd; his later work far exceeds his early work. This film, coupled with New Nightmare (1994) and Scream (1996) are three of the best horror films of all time. His 1970s efforts, however, are nothing more than exploitive trash. Nevertheless, one only needs to watch the scene in which Nancy sees her friend's corpse in a body bag come to life in order to understand the brilliance of Wes Craven.