Editorial: Top 5 Stories of 2013

Happy Holidays everybody! Here at Kaiser Critics we hope everybody is having a good one as people around the world celebrate (or don't! In which case we hope you have a nice day) the holiday of their religious choice. Around here it's become time to find out just what stories held it together the best this year. Why stories you ask? Well as you may very well be aware here at Kaiser Critics we review both movies and games, so instead of making two separate lists (which we arguably don't have enough material for) I've decided to just judge both things interchangeably on their stories. Ground rule for this one? It has to be from something that's been reviewed on the site, meaning if your favorite from this year isn't on the list it just might be because it hasn't been done on here. Here we go!

#5: The Wolverine

link to the original review here

The 20th Century Fox X-Men movies helped bring back superheroes as a genre when the original film was released in it's hayday. Following the deteriorating releases of X3: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine a lot of people had sentenced the Fox X-Men series dead until the release of X-Men: First Class which despite some minor flaws managed to bring back the notion of a genuinely good X-Men movie. Many were still vary however when Hugh Jackman once again returned as the most popular X-Man Logan, whose previous solo-effort has been dubbed one of the worst superhero flicks ever by fans and professional critics alike. However The Wolverine managed to not only pull through, but become one of the better Superhero movies featuring a solo-hero to date. The story takes place following the events of X-Men 3, Wolverine had been forced to take out his beloved Jean Grey in a last ditch effort to save the world from the crazed homicidal force of The Phoenix and is now living in seclusion in the wild. This is where his past once again comes back to haunt him, as an elderly Japanese man he saved from the Nagasaki bombing by shielding him with his regenerative body sends for him to thank him one last time before he dies. However things go terribly wrong as Wolverine is cast into a succession drama surrounding the large company owned by his old friend and loses his power to regenerate in the process. Ultimately not wanting the attention of any such action at all, he reluctantly becomes the bodyguard of the mans granddaughter and must fight a large army of highly trained professionals with the very real possibility of death looming over his head all the while being haunted by hallucinations of his deceased beloved. Wolverine has a real danger of being written a little cheesy, even portrayed by his most iconic actor as was the case in X-Men Origins. However he's here written very sympathetically and as a very 80's type action heroes in a classic kung fu movie type story. It's not often that western movies get this genre right, and throwing in as well-known a character as Wolverine would have made the movie almost seem impossible to do. However there is a lot of visible heart and dedication in this film that could just as easily have been another quick paycheck in the box office from one of Fox's most popular cinematic franchises something that was sadly lacking in some of the former outings. There also seems to be less of a snark about the source material, keeping in some of the cheesy fun that most previous X-Men movies has tried to leave behind completely.

#4: Monsters University

link to the original review here

2013 has been a busy year for Disney animation, and this latest outing from their masterpiece-littered studio Pixar has surprisingly ended up not being the most popular animated release this year. Monsters University gives us the backstory of the superstar scaring team of Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan, inhabitants of a monster world which is entirely powered by the frightened screams of little children. The original movie, while not the most popular Pixar movie had gathered a following it was interesting to see how they were gonna justify a sequel to a movie where the problems of the universe were all solved in it's first installation. That's why I'm guessing they decided to do a prequel instead, and what a prequel it was, the previously in the background character of Mike Wazowski takes top billing in this college-comedy with a surprisingly sobering message behind it. Between a new fun supporting cast, and three pretty cool origin stories, Monsters University may not be the best Pixar movie out there, but I actually think it might be one of the better stories from the studio as it for once doesn't explore the parent/child relationship that dominates a lot of it's other movies.

#3: Pacific Rim

link to the original review here

Bringing us a western take on the Kaiju formula, Pacific Rim ended up being a movie meant for fun and games but also one hiding just a little bit more. The premise is very basic, a rift in time and space has opened somewhere in the pacific ocean in the near future and giant monsters dubbed "Kaiju" by humanity are unleashed from the depths wrecking havoc all other planet Earth. To combat these abominable creatures the governments of the world has banded together and created giant robots named Jaegers that are powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with the monsters. The catch? Only certain individuals are able to actually pilot the things and they have to do so via a psychic link, only possible to obtain between two people who have aligned personalities meaning almost only family members pilot them. However one young man who used to be an ace-team with his brother suddenly has to be teamed up with a woman he's never met when his brother unfortunately passes away and it's a race against the clock to get all the jaeger pilots up and about in time for what seems to be the biggest Kaiju attack yet and before the program is scrapped in favor of another experiments. What could've been a very sappy spectacle-fest actually turns everything on it's head when it presents us with one of the better female characters in years, and a mostly unknown cast that even beats the performances of this years outings from some of the bigger names. Guillermo Del Toro has proven with Pacific Rim that the Kaiju genre doesn't have to be obscure to a western audience that's mostly been fed with poor westernizations of Japanese series up to this point. With it's great blend of spectacle and honest to goodness well-written drama it breaks tradition from roots of the genre and the previous American imitations.

#2: Thor: The Dark World

link to the original review here

Picking up after the bestseller of The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World had the burden of not only living up to the expectations following that, but also raising the popularity of Thor as a cinematic character. The original Thor, while a fun movie in it's own right was not a very popular one compared to the other releases in the aptly dubbed "Marvel Cinematic Universe" series. However whereas Thor was very much a dramatic comedy, Thor: The Dark World decides to go full on Space Opera as we leave Earth behind in favor of more exciting adventures in the world of Asgard. The story picks up where the previous title left off, Jane Porter has now not heard from Thor in 2 years after he had promised to come back for her once he had dealt with the immediate threat of the previous movie. Now trying to move on, she is cast into a conflict several millennia old as her actions awake a dormant race from the beginning of the known universe called The Dark Elves. Their leader is the hard-hearted Malekith, played by Christopher Eccleston who has the gigantic burden of being in the shadow of fan favorite Loki played by Tom Hiddleston. Eccleston unfortunately doesn't pull through as much as he would seem to as the writers doesn't give the character a lot of nuance for him to work with. However, what makes the movie good is the absolute spectacle of the space opera genre, gone are the shifty eyed jokes of the New Mexico desert from the previous movie and instead we have Thor fighting against armies and directly fighting against the will of his own father as he does everything in his power to stop the threat with as little casualties as possible. Hemsworth does a great job as he shows us just how far Thor has come from his role as a hearty frat-boy like character in the beginning of the first movie. He has learned to judge every situation on it's own merit and doesn't just barge into a fight trying to take every problem out with the power of his hammer. We are also given a more in-depth look at Asgard, a world that was left mostly in the background in the previous story. Supporting cast members are likewise no longer just standing idly in the background as some of them each get their own respective crowning moment in the movie to justify them being there instead of just being there for the sake of keeping true to the source material. Loki also returns and he is given more depths as well, as we see just how much his journey mirrors that of his brother's, him becoming more blunt and rash in his decision making as a result. Thor: The Dark World takes us on a breath-taking adventure with great fight scenes and some really cool imagery.

#1: The Last of Us

link to the original review here

Stealth titles has seen a great resurgence in recent years, given new popularity with Rocksteady's Arkham series. Sony's in-house studio Naughty Dog previously well-known for titles like the original Crash Bandicoot trilogy and the Uncharted series gives us a taste of just how much juice can be pressed out of the aging Playstation 3 even in the same year as the launch of it's much more powerful successor. Bringing us not only some fun gameplay mechanics but beautiful environments, nerve wracking situations and a great cast of characters. The Last of Us takes place 20 years after the fall of mankind, a weird fungus-like plague that takes control of the dead has made most of the planet completely uninhabited, humanity instead gathering in small closed up societies controlled by the military. The player takes control of Joel, a man who makes his living smuggling supplies and humans in and out of the otherwise completely exclusionists cities with his partner the tough-as-nails Tess. Joel, like so many others has become disillusioned with the world and he will seemingly do just about anything to survive till the next day. When he and Tess are given the task of smuggling a young girl named Ellie who's around the age of his now deceased daughter, he very reluctantly abides and through their many adventures the two of them form a special bond of mutual dependency in a world that has gone completely crazy. It's a very basic concept when you think it through, and you can tell where the story is going a times but what makes it so great is how well written the characters are. Ellie could just as well had become a damsel in distress, a girl who'd constantly need saving by the sheer masculine musk of the very capable Joel. Joel could just as well have been your very basic "badass" hero, but both of them along with the supporting cast turns out to have so many more nuances in their characters than what would normally be the case in this kind of story. Zombie survival tales are easily the most drama driven horror genre, however a lot of writers depend a lot on archetypes to make it work out so it's a real treat to see what has been done with the characters this time. A lot can also be said for the great use of juxtaposition, throughout the game you will be fighting cannibals and gangsters and horrible abominations but that has next to no effect on the environments. All of these cities has been left to their devices for 20 years, meaning they're completely overgrown by trees and grass. As such you will see all that the PS3's graphics engine has to offer as you will be treated to some absolutely spectacular sights throughout.  

Hocus Pocus, Alfie Atkins (2013)

Norwegian poster

Film: Hocus Pocus, Alfie Atkins (Hokus Pokus, Albert Åberg)
Release: 2013, theatrical
Starring: Henrik Forsbak Langfeldt, Kim Haugen, Hallvard Lydvo
Directed by: Torill Kove
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Alfie Atkins really wants a dog, but he and dad can't afford one so when he meets a magician that can conjure money out of thin air he decides to ask him for help.

Hans' thoughts:

The Swedish childrens books by Gunilla Bergström about the young boy Alfie Atkins has become a staple of Scandinavian childhoods since their initiation in the early 70's. Their short stories about everyday problems are easy for any kid to relate to so of course it was only natural that they would eventually turn to animation, and they did - a short lived series of 13 episodes each based on a book was created between the 80's and early 90's. The series was almost entirely narrated with the actual writing from the books and the animation was, at times, very scarce. That being said, it managed to strike a cord with a whole generation of children and 19 years after the last episode was made it's now become an animated feature presentation made by Norwegian director Torill Kove. So how does it hold up?

I was happy to see (or rather hear) the theme music from the series returning in this movie in some form, the main 5 chords of the theme returns in some form throughout even the new songs in the film and it's a nice nod to the classic series. The animation style also looks really good, even though it's with thinner linework it manages to recreate Gunilla Bergström's drawings from the books pretty well and it was nice to see a smoothly animated Alfie. I have to say though that the lack of shading did take a little getting used to. The environments of the movie are also drawn really well, just like with the books it has a very small number of locations and they're all drawn with a blend of detail and empty linework. Objects will sometimes be in the background that doesn't have colors filled in, for whatever reason. However, that's all lifted directly from the art of the books so it's a nice way to stay true to form. 

Unlike the original animated series though, the movie isn't narrated at all. It's frankly a good choice, having to sit through the lack of dialogue throughout an entire 1 hour and 12 minute movie would've been painful. Another change is the addition of song and dance numbers, reminiscent of the Disney formula. While a nice change of pace from the storyline, it does feel a bit tacked on. It should be noted that this is actually where the imagination of the art crew shines through the most, it has some really nice sequences in there with, as an example, a magician conjuring up various animals. On the sound side they decided to let the old theme's chords return in some of the song making all the music of the movie tie together in an overarching type of sound. I'm not a music critic, but I still picked up on it and I really liked it.

Concerning the story, this book was probably the best candidate for a feature adaptation. Hocus Pocus, Alfie Atkins is about Alfie wanting a dog, one day he meets an old man that can do magic and he decides to ask him for help in convincing his father that he's old enough to take care of one. It's a fun story about not always believing everything and a good story for adults about underestimating the capability for responsibility in their children. This being a feature presentation, of course they've made a few additions. More characters have been added to the story, there's been added an entire new subplot reminiscent of "Där går TJUV-Alfons!" (There goes Thieving-Alfie) and there's references to the other books throughout the movie. What makes the Alfie Atkins stories so compelling is because they're not written for a single age group, kids can read Alfie books from their early childhoods all the way through the first year of school. It's like having a companion that goes through the same troubles that you go through growing up. 

The books are also always fairly laid back, while never referenced directly Alfie seems to only live with his father. The father character is learning how to deal with each situation on the same terms Alfie is so it makes him relatable to parents of both sexes in that sometimes adults don't know all the answers and they're learning just like kids are. The books also manages to represent the logic of kids almost flawlessly, conversations like "Do you know why you don't believe in magic?" "Because it doesn't exist?" "Because nobody conjured money out of YOUR nose!". This is pretty much how kids think about these things and even though it might seem silly there's actually some kind of weird logic behind it. It kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Hocus Pocus, Alfie Atkins is a fun childrens movie without anything big and mystical going on, it's just kids problems seen through the eyes of a kid and as such some immediate things might seem phenomenally big because to a kid, they kinda are. I found myself rooting for Alfie all the way through and almost talking at the screen alongside my niece and nephew "no no no, Alfie! Don't do it!". The same seemed to go for all the other kids and adults at the pre-screening, and managing to get adults into the story and universe as well is a pretty well done job. Though it might be a bit too long for some of the younger ones I guarantee that it's family friendly fun for all ages, with some cute little music numbers and a good story to boot. 

Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor (2013)

Film: Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Matt Smith, David Tennant, John Hurt
Directed by: Nick Hurran
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 2013, A strange man in a blue box is brought to the royal british gallery to receive a letter written by Queen Elizabeth the 1st. In a time forgotten, another strange man in another blue box is contemplating a horrible sacrifice for the sake of the universe.

Hans' thoughts:

50 years running, the science fiction adventure series Doctor Who produced by BBC has made a roaring comeback after it's series revival starting in 2005. The Doctor, of course, is a timelord - a super-intelligent alien from an ancient race with remarkable life-spans and technology. Throughout his adventures he's fought countless of strange beings and universe threatening catastrophe, somehow being personally connected to planet Earth and always bringing along one or more human companions to show them the wonders of time and space. When a timelord dies, he regenerates and gains a completely new face - which is the core reason for why the show has run this long. Whenever an actor felt it was time to find new ventures, he could be replaced by someone else and as such The Doctor has become comparable to James Bond. Everybody has their favorite incarnation and companion, everybody has their favorite villain and adventure. Everybody has a 'first' Doctor. Personally I was very late to the party, not jumping on the series till the introduction of Matt Smith in the 11th incarnation. He's the current Doctor (slated to be replaced this Christmas by Peter Capaldi) and the movie revolves around him meeting the 10th incarnation played by David Tennant, and a previously unknown incarnation played by John Hurt. Having such a strong legacy, it's no wonder that this is probably one of the most anticipated events of 2013 - with the special even being screened in cinemas worldwide. So how does this actually hold up?

Because of the announcement that some of the classic Doctors would not make an appearance despite the movie being announced to have different incarnations meeting each other I went into this with some degree of wariness. Fortunately, I was legitimately surprised by how good some of the moments and how overall great this movie turned out to be. It is not often you have something that builds up a great amount of hype and actually manages to live up to expectations. I found all actors involved to do a great job, Matt Smith is tried and true as the Doctor and David Tennant was able to jump straight back into the role in spite of the time between now and his last appearance as the adventurous timelord. Newcomer is of course John Hurt, portraying an all new incarnation of the time-lord and playing a character with a lot of weight on his shoulder - who exactly he is, and where he fits in would be too much of a spoiler to disclose here but suffice it to say that he makes for a really good incarnation more than living up to the series. The one I feel did the best job of portraying The Doctor is Matt Smith, channeling this fun loving yet weary character much more strongly than the goofball adventurer of David Tennant but that also has to do with the difference between their characters (Yes, The Doctor is one character yet more at the same time). 

Companion-wise we have the return of Clara, played by Jenna Coleman. We have recently seen her introduced as "The impossible girl" and she does a very good job her, while I understand why she's included (this serves as special episode and fits into series continuity after the episode "The Name of The Doctor") she thankfully takes a backstep to let us have fun with the interaction between The Doctor and his other selves. We also have a return of Billie Piper in an unexpected appearance, she was announced to appear in the episode months ago but I don't think anyone would've expected her to show up in this version. Piper, I have to say, does a much better job in this than I feel she has done in any other of her appearances. I was never a fan of the Rose Tyler character so I was pleasantly surprised that she doesn't become the focal point of the story and has a much more reserved performance than the highly emotional Rose from her initial run on the series. The supporting cast, while sparingly utilized all do a very good job at portraying their individual characters but I feel the movie definitely would have benefited from instead using more established characters as opposed to introducing new ones - there are characters long time fans would quite frankly be baffled do not show up to assist our time-travelling heroes. However, there exists room to expand upon some of them in the future so I'm hoping they will make a return to more traditional episodes so we can actually get to know them. On the story side there exists a bit of a schism when it comes to kind of high stakes we're used to, while fans of the series will recognize The Time War as being a great event that very much defines the character there is not much in the way of urgency when it comes to the danger our characters face. While there are certainly shots of Daleks encountering civilians and causing distress the foes that dominate the film are the alien shapeshifters known as the Zygons, a minor monster race that has only appeared once or twice in an episode many years ago. 

I certainly like the creatures but one can't help but think that Daleks, or indeed any other more well-known Doctor Who villain would make much more of an appearance in this 50 years anniversary special. Cybermen, The Master or The Sontaran race is not included at all and you have to stop for a moment and wonder if, aside from the actual Time War event, any of these dangers couldn't have been handled by a single incarnation of The Doctor. The Day of The Doctor takes some time to get up and running but once it finally gets going there is fun and games all around, Tennant, Smith and Hurt have surprisingly good ping pong between them and, while sparingly used, the other actors of the movies all turn in a very good performance. I recommend this to fans only however, if you are only passingly acquainted with the series you will have a hard time keeping up with who's doing what and why their lines are significant, references to 50 years worth of sci-fi is spread throughout the movie so if you don't know who The Doctor is you'll likely be a tad confused. However, for fans this is a loving tribute to what has become an icon of the genre and one that I hope we will continue to follow for years to come.

An Adventure in Space and Time (2013)

Film: An Adventure in Space and Time
Release: 2013, TV
Starring: David Bradley, Jessica Raine, Sacha Dhawan
Directed by: Terry McDonough
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The new head of drama at BBC Sidney Newman wants to implement science fiction in an empty 25 minute spot. To produce the new program he promotes his former assistant Verity Lambert, and the young indian Waris Hussein is put into the directors chair - both of them the first of their kind they face numerous challenges in an industry dominated by middle-aged male traditionalists.

Hans' thoughts:

Made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, the longest running science fiction on television, BBC has released this dramatised version of the events surrounding the creation of the program up to and including William Hartnell's departure from the series as the first Doctor. Starting in 1963, we're introduced to BBC as a highly traditionalist institution: Our main character is a young woman promoted to a leadership position at a time where such a thing was pretty much unheard of. If you've seen the 50's drama series Mad Men, you know what kind of environment I'm talking about. Middle-aged and Older men in leadership positions who scoff at anyone who doesn't belong to their own group. Her director for the series is the young Indian Waris Hussein, and together they pretty much represent the young generation that would become more and more commercially relevant in these years. Unfortunately the dramatic potential for their struggle to actually put out the series feels very lightly brushed over. It is touched upon that they would run into a number of problems, departments not taking them seriously, horrid shooting conditions and other such things but instead the movie shifts focus to the actor playing the Doctor and hurries to go over some key moments from the years where Hartnell would have the role. 

Fortunately they have a very strong actor actually portraying the late Hartnell in the form of David Bradley. Most people will remember Bradley from prominent role as the nasty janitor Argus Filch at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter films or his supporting cast role as the perverted Walder Frey in the HBO fantasy series Game of Thrones. Both are very off-putting characters and it only speaks to the man's talent how polarizing his portrayal of Hartnell is to the others. He shows definite, strong and believable range here not seen very often even among the most famous of actors. I expect even non-Doctor Who fans will find something to enjoy in his performance, because while the movie definitely plays on it's role as "The film we're watching until the 50th anniversary special" it also more than stands it's ground as being a well-written dokudrama about the major changes the sudden rise of awareness from companies on the teenagers and kids audiences would have on business practices and programmes. 

Being an insightful story about the creation of that wonderful alien in his big blue box aside, it is overall very well-done period drama for fans and non-fans alike. Everything shot on the set looks like you could have travelled back in time to the era it took place, and of course it has nods to some of the most iconic villains and aspects of the show. Between heartbreaking moments, really good acting and just a good story this is was a treat to watch all the way through.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Film: Oz the Great and Powerful
Release: 2013, theatrical
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams
Directed by: Sam Raimi
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A stage-magician and conman is transported to the magical kingdom of Oz, where he's believed to be the prophesied great wizard that will rescue the land from an evil wicked witch that murdered the king.

Hans' thoughts:

Functioning as a prequel to one of the greatest childrens stories of all time, Oz the Great and Powerful give us the backstory of the man known as Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs - Oz to friends and audiences. He's played in this film as a fast talking womanizing fortune-seeker by James Franco, whom audiences might recognize as Harry Osborn in the Spider-Man trilogy also directed by Raimi. I have to admit I was not a fan of his performance in the Spider-Man movies, but that is mostly because I felt they were "too mopey", focused too much on drama than on actual superhero stuff. Which is why Franco really surprised me by his performance in this film, although he carried over one or two elements he is generally a lot more energic and animated in this than he was in the Spider-Man films - then again, Oz and Harry Osborn are two radically different characters in many ways. The other main actors in the film are all female, each of them stunning in their own right I have to admit the one out the three I felt did the best job was Mila Kunis. While she is very reserved throughout most of the film, when she finally steps into character you can tell that she tries to give it her all in her performance. Mila Kunis plays the role of the withdrawn and naive Theodora, and her arc in the movie serves as the origin story for yet another of the big name Wizard of Oz characters. Her and Franco's character arcs almost mirrors one another in a way, and when you consider the big weight that's put on their shoulders they do a pretty good job with what they're handed. As good as any of the performances in the film may be though, Weisz is a good schemer, Williams makes for a good pureheart and Franco is a fun hero to follow, Kunis completely steals every scene. The film obviously has a lot of key moments it wants to present to the audience, and unfortunately that means it rushes from moment to moment in an attempt to get as much "stuff" in the film as possible. This means that aside from being archetypes, none of the characters are given the time they deserve to be fleshed out more. We certainly end up rooting for the good guys and wanting the bad guys to fail, but I feel that it really could have helped if the audience was given a breather to actually get to know the characters before moving on the the next big story-changing moment. 

Why they decided to do it like this is anyones guess, this film while a prequel to the Oz tales is not based on any of the original books, much in the same vein of the popular musical Wicked, which also gave it's own take on giving us an origin story for the state of affairs in Oz before Dorothy arrives. Reusing the method from the MGM picture, The Wizard of Oz, the film starts off as black and white and then turns vibrant and colorful when we get to the magical land. This is a very nice nod in the direction of the classic, but the large amount of "okay, we gotta get through all this stuff" made it so we don't spend so much time in Kansas meaning the method is kind of squandered on the piece. In the film which it mimics, Kansas is shown with a pretty somber tone and it becomes a huge contrast to all the lively stuff that happens in Oz. However in this, the mood change is practically non-existent, it seems like even in Kansas, Oscar Diggs was a energetic conman on the run from one situation to another and as such there is not much new under the sun when he comes to Oz and continues his behaviour. Visually, the film is absolutely beautiful. While I'll rally the call for more practical effects just as soon as the next guy, I simply cannot deny how much I loved the look of both the animated characters and environments. It is obvious however, when the audience was supposed to be wearing 3D glasses as there are several moments where the environment and characters "pops out" at the audience. I watched it in 2D, but the film still remains beautiful all the same. The color green (representing the Emerald City, no doubt) is a recurring factor in much of the films visuals and it works to great effect. The most beautiful part of the film however is the character known as The Little China Girl. A small living porcelain doll that makes for one of our main characters required sidekicks - this is an Oz tale after all. She is an incredibly sweet character and she is stunningly animated, perhaps even better than that of Gollum from Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings films.

The film is much more of a classic fantasy tale - with Oz being the "chosen one" fighting against an evil army only armed with his ingenuity. It's been done to a children's tale before, many will probably remember the Tim Burton movie "Alice in Wonderland" where the titular Alice character would end up fighting The Jabberwocky. Thankfully however, this film doesn't try to make the story particularly dark or heavily stylised. Whereas the Burton picture almost revelled in the potential for using the directors knack for bizarre imagery, Instead it shows exactly why this film is an Oz tale and not an attempt to mimic the likes of The Lord of The Rings, much more like Raimi's other work it feels almost like a living comic book - the characters are all easily recognizable and the shots are akin to that of comic book panels. This feels like a live-action cartoon, and it very much makes a childrens story feel like it has very high stage without trying to cater to adults. This is childrens film in some regard, and one that follows the Don Bluth proverb "Children can be submitted to pretty much anything as long as there's a happy ending" and it really seems to that train of thought to heart. Our characters go through some very dark moments, without revelling in making the imagery dark as well. It is fully aware that it's possible to convey dark consequences and events without having to show horrifying imagery. When it needs to be sad, I genuinely felt it was up there with moments like the sinking of Artax in The Neverending Story, coincidentally also a childrens fantasy film with both dark and lighthearted moments. Honestly, being able to make things like the notion of a green-skinned witch and flying monkeys seem like a genuine threat again is a feat that I feel have scarcely been pulled off successfully since the original. Yes, as seen in the trailers The Wicked Witch of the West is indeed in this film and I was surprised by just how threatening Raimi was able to make her. Once she finally shows up on screen, you can feel a lot of atmosphere lifted fromhis love of horrors and from his Evil Dead roots.

A genuinely good fantasy film that both adults and children can enjoy and be thrilled by is becoming more and more of a rarity in a post-Harry Potter age and honestly I feel that this film manages to become one such movie. Sam Raimi's mix of serious moments, spectacle and genuine fun works so well for him in this particular case. Much like how he managed to update a 60's comic book character to the big screen without updating him to be far too dramatic in the original Spider-Man, here he manages to take a an early 20th century children's story and update it for modern audiences while keeping the spirit of the original intact. If you loved the original MGM picture I urge you to revisit the magical world with the yellow brick road once more as we're told the story of the greatest con in fantasy history. This is a fantasy adventure when told by a storyteller who doesn't deliberately attempt to recreate any of his former successes like it seemed was the case with Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". It's almost like Raimi sat down and saw Burtons picture, then went to work with the thought of "time to show them how it's done" - and man did he show.

Story-liners: Batman: Arkham Origins (2013)

Game: Batman: Arkham Origins
Release: 2013, Retail
System: Playstation 3/Xbox 360/PC/Wii U
Starring: Roger Craig Smith, Troy Baker, JB Blanc
Directed by: Eric Holmes
Previous in the series: Batman: Arkham City
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: For two years, rumors has spread across the city about a mysterious vigilante known as "The Bat" - though no official pictures or recordings exist to prove his existence. Fed up with losing men to him, the powerful crime boss known as Black Mask sets a price on The Bat's head on Christmas Eve. Anyone who would care to try is given one night to cash in on the reward of 50 million dollars - if they can.

Hans' thoughts:

Continuing the best-selling game series about the worlds greatest detective, Arkham Origins give us a prequel to the events of the previous titles. Batman has only been active for two years and has yet to meet most of the now iconic supporting cast of his stories. This game marks a couple of firsts, this is the first game in the Arkham series to not be created by Rocksteady - instead the title is handled by by Warner Bros. Games Montréal and Splash Damage Studios. This is also the first title in the series to not have Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy play The Joker & Batman respectively. Conroy and especially Hamill have been voicing these characters on and off since the hugely popular Batman: The Animated Series that ran in the early 1990's and have become iconic in their roles. This leaves a huge gap to fill out and I'm glad to say that both newcomers, Robert Craig Smith as Batman and Troy Baker as The Joker do a really good job at filling out their shoes. Especially Smith sounds like Conroy from time to time and Baker, while channeling Hamill's performance, does a more reserved version of the voice that, honestly, works really well for the character. The other voices also do a pretty good job of conveying their characters, though I have to stress how easily it becomes to recognize the same voiced when you hear them again and again - I'm of course talking about the nameless flunkies that appear throughout the game. Special type characters have special voices, such as the big musclebound ones but when the ones you hear mostly all have the same three or four voices it quickly becomes routine to hear the same banter over and over again. I understand why this was done, voice work is hard, good voice work is even harder and there's only so much time and resources you can put into the unnamed characters - however it bears mentioning all the same.

Arkham game fans can rest assured however, the gameplay is pretty much copied directly from the two previous titles with only minor tweaks in the form of new combo's for new types for mobsters. We also have two new gadgets in the game, giving room for new interesting puzzles. Unfortunately, like with Arkham City most of the puzzle solving comes from the Riddler side-mission. Find the unlockable, solve the challenge, on to the next. It's pretty much a thing for the completists among you. A positive improvement is a fast-travel system, made unlockable by solving some of these side-missions so at least that's a carrot for the rest of us. Design-wise the game is very much "same old". Since it takes place on Christmas Eve, it's once again a snow-filled landscape and therefore the creators have ported some of the environments directly from Arkham City. The old church, the courthouse and other such locations are all present and accounted for. Thankfully, there are new areas added to the mix as well but the old environments still take up about half of the game map. The designs of the characters are, on the other hand, pretty good. A younger Bruce Wayne, bearing a much heavier armor makes one think of the Dark Knight Trilogy, yet it isn't a complete copy most notably coloring-wise. This made me, personally, breathe a sigh of relief as I'd like each iteration of the Batman to be it's own separate thing (And frankly, I've never been a fan of any of the cinematic Batsuits). The character designs for other characters are, as they should be, a lot less colorful and outlandish than in previous titles. Keep in mind that this story takes place prior to the public knowing that the caped crusader exist and therefore Batman is mostly found dealing with "normal" criminals this time around. This also serves to enhance the few present colors more than ever, which the designers thankfully have used to their advantage making the presence of colors either restricted to billboards or to the special events.

This brings us to the story. As is tradition for the series, the writers have tried to incorporate as many well-known Batman characters as possible. Unfortunately the set scenario makes some of these cameos extremely unplausible compared to the other games. Both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City took place in prisons, which is why it made sense that Batman would have to deal with all the big names from his rogues gallery. However, in this game we're expected to believe that Batman would have his first encounter with several of his most well-established villains all in a single night. The most immediate threat in the story is that of the assassins out for the 50 million dollar bounty on Batman's head, fortunately the writers has kept the assassins down to, at the very least, character who are known to be mercenaries in the comics as well. Lesser known characters like Firefly, Electrocutioner, Deadshot and Lady Shiva all make an appearance, some more well-known than others but all definite C or D-list villains, in spite of the recent appearance by Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, he's also normally considered a lesser known Batman villain. But then we're also exposed to The Joker, The Penguin and even The Mad Hatter. While they all are done excellently, Mad Hatter especially makes a much bigger appearance than he did in Arkham City, you can't really help but question the validity of all this taking place in a single night. The game becomes way too crowded, and some of the assassins are only finally dealt with in optional side-missions. This is actually a pretty big problem, as I found myself being more interested in solving the optional missions than engaging in the story. At the very least, the ending of the story is a lot better than the outlandishness of the ending of Arkham Asylum, staying a lot more true to classic Batman form. The game also sees the return of the more outlandish scenes, similar to the Scarecrow sequences of Arkham Asylum. We get an interesting and trippy look into the mind of Batman on more than one occasion.  Sad as it is though, I don't expect casual Batman fans to get much out of the game compared to previous entrances in the series - while the voice acting is excellent, the story is just way too crowded with characters and events and it makes a lot of the struggles in story seem like they have little to no impact. Not to mention the obscurity of some of the characters only serving to make them sideshow characters once the more well-known villains show up to play. It has some very cool moments, but they're far in-between. If you just want a Batman sandbox game however, the side-missions are very entertaining and the higher focus this game puts on actual detective work is a refreshing change making the game at least the turning point for an entertaining weekend.

Planes (2013)

Film: Planes
Release: 2013, theatrical
Starring: Dane Cook, Stacy Keach, Carlos Alazraqui
Directed by: Klay Hall
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When a crop dusting plane qualifies for a round the world racing championship on a technicality, he does anything in his power to prove that you can do more than what you were built for

Hans' thoughts:

The Cars movies turned out to be one of Pixar's greatest commercial successes. The tale of the up and comer learning to remember the simple pleasures is cute enough, but basing it around talking cars proved once again how much little boys love cars. So why not try the same thing, but with Planes? I'm sure this isn't far off of the actual pitch that were done to make this movie happen - how they worked in the "Not actually animated by Pixar" and still got greenlit is anyones guess, though I suspect whoever Disney executive were in charge expected to make back the revenue on toy sales anyway. Okay, I cannot really be more frank than this: This film, though entertaining, is a very obvious marketing ploy by Disney to sell some toys. Just as was the case with the G.I. Joe cartoon or Transformers cartoon of the 80's, the film pretty much amounts to a very well-made toy commercial. The movie takes place in the same universe as the Cars movies, meaning all vehicles talk and have faces. If you can't look past this and watch the movie then you will not get any enjoyment out of the experience whatsoever. Let's get on with it.

That's about where the connection to the original two movies stops, this isn't a sequel to the Cars movies and our main character Dusty Crophopper is a bit different from Lightening McQueen. While yes, Planes is a racing movie just like Cars was but I'd argue this movie is actually more about racing than Cars. Dusty is a young crophopper who's tired of his lot in life, for years both him and his best friend the fuel truck Chug have been fans of the annual "Wings Across The World" race. Despite being warned that his engine wouldn't be able to handle the strain of going through such a thing, Dusty competes for the qualifications and just barely makes the cut on a technicality. To have a better chance of winning, he seeks out reluctant help in an old WWII fighter who used to train planes in the army. At this point in the movie it seems very reminiscent of Cars once again, but as I said the "arc" that McQueen and his trainer went through in their movie is barely, if at all present this time around. Dusty isn't an accomplished airplane not wanting to take advice from others and Skipper really isn't an embittered fallen star who's become disillusioned with the world. Instead we don't spend all that much time on the ground, focusing instead on making the movie about the actual race. 

The film has some funny moments, but they mostly based in "pun" territory. As an adult, I question how much you will actually do more than snicker at it but I expect kids to love it. Jokes like "Does a Giga bite?" "Not if you pet it nicely" are what we're dealing with, basically. At least we have some genuinely fun characters to go on the adventure with, I'm especially fond of the Mexican racing plane El Chupacabra, who becomes completely infatuated with one of the other contestants. To be honest, this subplot turns out to be very cute and actually written a little better than the main story. Thankfully our main character has a love interest, but it doesn't take the focus at any point in the film. While they do share a scene or two together, focus is thankfully kept on winning the race. Our main villain is not all that well written however, he's your typical "rest on his laurels" type character that becomes unnecessarily cruel to the others in a desperate attempt to win the race. I fully expected him to menacingly twirl a mustache and tie an innocent girl to some train tracks.

While not the most advanced childrens cartoon out there, some good animation, beautiful visuals and fun little characters keeps the idle viewer entertained and at the very least chuckling for the duration. It is not art or even un part with most Pixar movies. Disney has made better 3D animated films themselves before this movie and hopefully they will continue doing so in the future as well. Until then, there's a fun little movie without much consequence out there making the rounds. Trust me, there exists far worse animated films out there, if that's any sort of consolation.

Series of Events: LEGO Marvel Super Heroes: Maximum Overload (2013)

There's no cover for this release!

Series: Lego Marvel Superheroes: Maximum Overload
Release: 2013, Online
Starring: Laura Bailey, Dee Bradley Baker, Troy Baker
Directed by: Greg Richardson
Website: Link opens in a new window
Description: Bored by what's on TV in Asgard, Loki the god of Mischief decides to amplify the superpowers of the Marvel villains by using a mysterious force called the Nornfrost, 8 out of 9 realms don't recommend it.

Hans' thoughts:

A surprise entrance to the animated TV world is that of Lego, the well-known building blocks. While definitely varying in quality, Lego has had very good success in it's licensed video game series. The next release coming up is "Lego Marvel Super heroes" and taking an early step into the franchise we have a comedic mini-series, released for free on Marvel's own youtube channel for anyone to see, as well as being cut together into a 20 minute movie on Netflix. Every episode varies around the 5 minute mark and features Loki "overloading" a Marvel villain from his hidden palace in Asgard.

The series showcases a short, but sweet look at the kind of writing that's probably to be expected in the upcoming video game. As with Lego Batman: The Movie: DC Super Heroes Unite they're animated based on the Lego mini-figures. While an obvious ploy to make people buy the video game and by possible expansion they toys it's based on, I would be lying if I said the series was "bad". No, it's actually pretty funny. While nothing too advanced (as I said, it's 5 very short episodes) I found myself being kind of invested in the plot nevertheless. Most of the series focuses on the antics of Loki in his palace and curiously they've decided to give him Chitauri henchmen. While very generic in The Avengers, the chitauri becomes the center for some of the funniest moments in the series. Another focus in the series is Spider-Man, seemingly voiced by the person who voices him in the Ultimate Spider-man TV-show. He does a well enough job, however you can tell that the writers decided to focus more on making fun of him rather than have him be funny himself. Most of the other Marvel characters are given mostly what amounts to cameos, some larger than others. 

Short, sweet, funny and best of all: Free! Marvel Super Heroes: Maximum Overload is recommended  for anyone who wants a funny little Marvel fix to hold them over until the release of the upcoming video game or those who just wants a laugh overall. It knows exactly what it is, it doesn't try to hide it by somehow being serious and it doesn't overstay it's welcome.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Film: Thor: The Dark World
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Eccleston, Anthony Hopkins
Release: 2013, theatrical
Directed by: Alan Taylor
Previous in the series: Thor
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Picking up 2 years after the events in New Mexico, Thor is busy keeping the peace in the nine realms. Meanwhile on Earth, a disillusioned Jane Foster stumbles upon a dormant power from the time when the universe began.

Hans' thoughts:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the best way to make a good sequel is to take the established setting, expand upon it and amplify everything that's great about it without rehashing the plot-points of its predecessor. Thus we now have Thor: The Dark World. 

So our villain this time is the old race of dark elves, lead by the world-weary King Malakith played by Christopher Eccleston, he plays a very troubled character . As far as villains go, the dark elves are very cool. The Frost giants of the first movie were very much just big blue monsters but the dark elves actually seem like a genuine threat. No one is prepared for their actions and they are completely untraceable - able to strike whenever they would please. Overall, the movie is just much larger in scale. Instead of setting most of the movie in the New Mexican desert with just one big baddie, most of the action film consists of war-like battles, with footsoldiers on both sides. Something they have, perhaps thankfully, toned down is the humoristic aspect. A lot of Thor was him being a fish out of water in the human world and the comedy came from people reacting to him or him misunderstanding the nature of the world he was thrown into. Don't get me wrong, The Dark World certainly has some comedic moments but I felt they worked a lot better this time because they weren't so predictable or thrown in so abruptly. There's not much winking at the audience going "get it?" in this movie.

Most of the film doesn't take place on Earth this time around, instead we are given a much more insightful look in the land of Asgard. This is great because while Asgard certainly looked cool in first movie, most of what we got to see were throne rooms and chambers from Odin's palace. Here we are taken on a small tour around a bit more of the world. This movie also shows us some of the other realms besides the ones we've already seen. The scale feels much grander this time around and It's possible the movie has taken cues from the likeness of Peter Jackson's "Lord of The Rings" movies. Imaginative combinations of science fiction and fantasy as well as some pretty cool designs for the villains our hero encounter, even the minor ones look fairly interesting. In stark contrast is the scenes taking place on Earth. Jane Foster has moved from the desert to the city of London, meaning we also get something at least a little more interesting to look at than in the previous film. All the supporting characters return from the previous film, including the humans who actually gets something to do rather than commenting on the things that transpires around them.

This is one of the best changes from the former movie, while there certainly were a supporting cast in the film they didn't get all that much to do. Most of the original movie were about the characters of Thor and Loki and their sibling rivalry. In this movie the other characters become involved in the adventure, Jane Foster becomes one of the major driving forces for the plot and the relationships between the characters also feel more believable. Tom Hiddleston returns once again as the villain Loki and once again he steals even scenes where he isn't the main focus. We explore more of his relationship with the rest of the family and as with the other movie, this also factors into the events of the film. That isn't to say that he's the only great actor in this piece, Chris Hemsworth has really grown into the role of Thor and he really hits it out of the park in some of his scenes. This is probably due to a much more reserved performance, Thor is no longer the boastful prince of Asgard and for those of us that's followed him throughout all his appearances it is easily recognizable that he has gone through character development. Just like with the Iron Man films, the character development isn't over by the end of the film but you can easily see a change from the beginning of the characters first appearance and to his current adventures. This kind of slow but steady character development is what makes these characters interesting to follow even after several movies. 

Speaking of the other movies, it was a breath of fresh air after Iron Man 3 that the movie didn't rely on everyone having seen The Avengers. One of Iron Man 3's greatest weaknesses was it's constant references to "New York", referring to the climax of The Avengers. Here, the event is definitely mentioned but no more than one or two times. An unfortunate lowpoint however is the reliance on the audience believing the relationship between Thor and Jane Foster. The former movie took place over the span of three days and then they were suddenly in love, akin to what one could call the "Disney Princess romance". This is sort of repeated in this film, while I certainly like the pairing of Thor and Jane I would like their relationship to be expanded upon a little more than is the case in both of these movies. Compare it to the how well done the relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts is done in the Iron Man movies, Tony repeatedly makes mistakes and has to make it up for Pepper in the Iron Man films, whereas in this case it seems the romance between Thor and Jane is way too perfect. Anyone who've been in a relationship with the same person more than once could tell you that the pieces aren't picked up quite as easily as this movie would have you believe. The film seems somewhat self-aware of this though, as a comedic jab at those kinds of love stories are made later in the film. 

If you were bored with the pacing of the original film, rest assured that Thor: The Dark World is a much bigger movie and better for it, albeit much information is thrown at you during the movie it manages to keep focus on the main plot, and keeping all the different strings together in one place. If you liked the former movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one as well: We get more facetime with each character and we learn much more of the nature of the setting of the story. With higher stakes, deeper characters and much more action, Thor: The Dark World may very well end up being one of the better movies in the shared universe franchise.

Reader survey

Hi folks! 

We're trying to determine what people think of the site, so we've created a short 5 question survey

you can take the survey HERE

Doing so would be very appreciated :)

Monsters University (2013)

Film: Monsters University
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi
Directed by: Dan Scanlon
Previous in the series: Monsters, Inc.
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Mike Wazowski is a young monster who've dreamt of being a scarer for Monsters, Inc. his whole life. Tons of challenges await when he starts his freshman year at Monsters University.

Hans' thoughts:

The thing about prequels is that the audience pretty much already knows what the outcome is going to be - so you better be able to pull a lot of very good red herrings. Which is exactly what this movie does!

Monsters University, or as I like to call it, Party at the Design Department, is a colorful and happy movie. If you watch this one and it's predecessor back to back you will notice quite a lot of changes. One thing I definitely noticed was the much better use of lighting. Okay granted, the original Monsters, Inc. had technological limits and I respect that but even going by that, this movie really had an ability to set the mood. This is a movie about monsters after all, and this is a very dark movie. As in, the blinds are pulled in almost all the rooms.

In fact, not till our main characters join a fraternity do we see a more light-hearted movie. Up until then the movie has been kinda silent, well for comedy standards anyway. It does have one wild scene before the movie "starts" but I'm not gonna spoil it. This is just a review after all. As you may have expected, we don't see a whole lot of actually going to school in this movie. It IS a kids film and our main characters sitting around in a classroom taking notes would be a horribly boring kids film. The plot of the movie is believable though, there's a passable reason for why this movie has all the energy that it has.

On the voice acting side, the returning characters have their voices intact. Buscemi, Crystal and Goodman all returned for this film. I'm actually pretty impressed by the voice-range of Buscemi, seeing Randall turning into the character we know from the original is quite the treat. Crystal and Goodman also both do a pretty good job, being able to convey the emotions well enough that you believe that these particular voices would come out of these characters. 

This movie also pumped up the imagery from the original. The original movie took place in a factory so there was a lot of walking through white hallways with not much to look at. This movie however, has some pretty well-designed locations and some very cool character designs. I'm especially impressed by the dean of the school, who plays a major part. She looked very imposing and could've been a creature from an actual horror film.

On the comedy side, this is a big step-up from the original. This movie has more characters to bounce off of each other and that makes for some very funny moments. I especially liked the character named "Don". This movie having more energy also makes for some very good physical gags. Monsters, Inc. was one of the least popular Pixar movies, so going ahead and actually making a sequel to it is a surprising move - if not a bit overzealous. I'm happy to say though, that this is a really good animated movie, capturing the spirit of the original as well as building upon it's lore.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

Film: Kick-Ass 2
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloë Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Jim Carrey
Directed by: Jeff Wadlow
Previous in the series: Kick-Ass
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: 5 years after the fall of drug lord Frank D'Amigo, his son Chris is still seeking vengeance on the world's first costumed hero. Donning an all-new costume, he becomes The Motherfucker: The world's first super villain.

Hans' thoughts:

This movie is exactly what a sequel should be, instead of trying to do a formulaic repeat of success, it broadens out the universe and the story and takes the next logical step. From the first hero to the first villain, this move is the other side of the coin in a lot of ways.

Kick-Ass was a wild movie for sure, but it was also a little dramatic - trying to remind you at every turn that the story was still supposed to take place in the real world. To some extent anyways. Kick-Ass 2 on the other hand puts the pedal to the metal, this is very much a comic book movie and a good one at that. There's more action, more characters, bigger scenes, bigger events, bigger everything.

In this movie we not only get the first supervillains, but also the very first superhero team "Justice Forever". This team is lead by a completely unrecognizable Jim Carrey in the role of Colonel Stars and Stripes. But really, you could have told me it was someone else and I would've believed you - kudos to the makeup department on the facework and to Carrey himself for a excellent performance. He really managed to the take on the guise of someone else. Most of the members of Justice Forever - however likable, is kinda one-note archetypes. There's not much to them but they're likable enough to not become grating or feel flat.

This is more than can be said for The Motherfucker's team. While all his teammates certainly get backstories and each have at least a single moment of their own, only the character Mother Russia really stood out to me as a completely realized characters. Though the same thing happened to the heroes team, at least they managed to make me able to tell them apart based on more than the look. 

The breakout actor of this movie is definitely Mintz-Plasse as The Motherfucker, he really getting his acting chops fit into shapes and he had a lot of very cool moments - even in spite of the character itself being a whimp. He plays the wimp in such a way that you actually like him though, and I found myself kinda wanting him to succeed. This is mainly due to the two leads. While they certainly acted decently, Kick-Ass was just kind of around because his name was in the title, not having all that much to do in this movie before the final act. And while I love Moretz as Hit-Girl, she does not manage to pull off the struggling teenager persona all that well. This is in part because the actor who played Marcus, her caretaker, felt sort of bland to me.

Overall, Kick-Ass 2 did a lot more with the universe and has much better action than the original, I just doubt there is all that much more you can do with this property - though they seem to be setting up a sequel for it. I look forward to seeing just where they intend to go with it next and until then I will have had a very enjoyable experience.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2 (2013)

Film: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2
Release: Video, 2013
Starring: Peter Weller, Ariel Winter, Mark Valley
Directed by: Jay Oliva
Previous in the series: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Gotham's protector has returned to duty, his actions having lead to a major gang being split up into a bunch of clusters, one of them following his example. Meanwhile, the man known as the Joker is planning his own sinister return..

Hans' thoughts:

The thing about adapting a piece of work is that everyone will have their own opinion on what is important from the original product. Therefore, some modern movie makers has gone the route of splitting their movies up in two in order to get as much from the original as possible (a trend I believe started with Harry Potter). 

So in this one we delve further into the theory of Batman being the cause of all his villains. On top of that as a bigger stake in the film we have Superman showing up in the picture, being the tool of the president of the united states. What I like about this movie is that even though it's been quite a while since I reviewed the last one, I was able to immediately get back into the action. Of course, this could be due to me having read the original graphic novel several times but I feel that, since the original story is made so you get it all in immediate succession , it's still a feat to be able to carry over the status quo and expand upon it, just like a good sequel should do. However, as with most of the DC direct to video animated movies, I have to stress that they're mostly made with the already established fanbase in mind. While this one may not be the worst case, taking some of the things at arms length never hurts. 

As for the voice work, I really liked Peter Weller's take on an older Bruce Wayne, giving him a deep voice, but not cartoonishly dark or gruff like, say, Christian Bale's take on the character. In all honesty, while Kevin Conroy may very well be considered the best Batman voice actor out there, Weller gives him a run for his money in this performance. It felt like he was channeling Adam West in his performance, an acotr who unfortunately does not get as much praise in this role as he rightly deserves. If you've forgotten what Adam West sounds like, you need not look further than the current animated satire show Family Guy, where he voices the mayor of the fictional city of Quahog. 

One thing that's always nice in elseworld stories like this one is seeing alternate takes on popular characters. In this case I'd like to highlight Jim Gordon, the commissioner of Gotham Police department (although recently retired in this case). While none are quicker to give Frank Miller flak than me these days, I have to commend him on his writing skills for this particular character. Almost every version of Gordon he's done has been right on the money, regardless of how he may have done in the case of a lot of other characters. Especially this story and "Batman: Year One" is where Millers ability to write Jim Gordon shines through. 

The animation style continues to be pretty good, keeping the basic look of the original comic while updating it for, I imagine, the purpose of broad appeal. Okay let me retrace my steps a bit. What I mean is that it looks like the original drawings to a point, but a lot more clean. A lot of the rough lines are cleaned up and the proportions for the body types are more anatomically correct. The coloring is also better, but that's to be expected when the original artist has his best work in the negative space department, his most beautiful work being that of the Sin City series.

All in all, this movie manages to update the story into a broader appeal and to a modern audience. Also toning down some of the more strong messages from the original work. While still managing to tell a good story and keeping alive the spirit of the story. To any fan of, especially the modern Batman movies, I strongly recommend checking both this and it's predecessor out, as a lot of the things that happen in the "Dark Knight Trilogy" are inspired by this story. I also recommend it to anyone who loves the Batman character and his extended cast - this take on him is a classic and this animated version manages to do it justice.