Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The original animated Dark Knight returns in this ace adventure movie that rivals Mask of Phantasm in its coolness. There's a lot of style and intelligence in Mystery of the Batwoman, so much more than Batman Forever or Batman and Robin.

There's a new crime-fighter on the streets of Gotham. She dresses like a bat but she's not a grown-up Batgirl. And Batman is denying any affiliation with her. Meanwhile Bruce Wayne has to deal with the usual romances and detective work. But the Penguin, Bain and the local Mob makes things little more complicated.

I didn't have high hopes for this 'un since being strongly let down but the weak Batman: Sub Zero (Robin isn't featured so much here!)but I was delighted with the imaginative and exciting set pieces, the clever plot and a cheeky sense of humor. This is definitely a movie no fan of Batman should be without. Keep your ears open for a really catchy song called 'Betcha Neva' which is featured prominently through-out.

It's a shame the DVD isn't so great. Don't get me wrong there are some great features (the short 'Chase Me' is awesome) and a very cool Dolby 5.1 soundtrack but... the movie is presented in Pan and Scan. Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman was drawn and shot in 1.85:1 but this DVD is presented in 1.33:1 an in comparison to the widescreen clips shown on the features there IS picture cut off on both sides. I find this extremely annoying considering Mask of Phantasm was presented in anamorphic widescreen. Warner have had to re-release literally dozens of movies on DVD because people have complained about the lack of Original Aspect Ratio available on some titles. Why they chose to make that same mistake here again is beyond me.

I would give this DVD 5/5 but the lack of OAR brings the overall score down to 4/5. It's a shame because widescreen would have completed a great DVD package.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...

1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.

2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.

3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.

4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.

5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).

6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.

7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.

8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.

9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.

10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.

11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chavez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.

12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.

13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.

14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.

8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".

Worth one viewing.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.

*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.

Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.

Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .