Sorry I fell so behind in July with getting my coming soon articles out. I've had a lot to do in July. A lot of personal things came up and then I went on vacation for a week. Time to take a look at what I'm excited to see in August.
1) Total Recall: A remake from the original 80s movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. The previews make it look like it got a very needed technological update. I'm not sure if it will be as fun as the 80s movie but I'm curious to see the woman with the three boobs.
2) The Bourne Legacy: It's a continuation of the Bourne trilogy with a new leading actor. Jeremy Renner is an impressive actor and really showed me something special in The Town and The Avengers. Seeing him in a starring role should be awesome. Throw in Edward Norton and I expect a great movie.
3) The Campaign: Two great comedians making fun of political elections. Right down to punching out a baby. It's a farcical comedy and those can be hit or miss. I'm expecting something really funny.
4) The Expendables 2: Is it going to be a good movie? Probably not. That doesn't matter though since it's going to be just jammed full of 80s style action and crappy dialogue. It's going to be so much fun if you love watching old guys kick butt and blow stuff up.
5) Premium Rush: Generally speaking I don't really like the story. I chose this one because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just an amazing actor and he's earned a bit of loyalty from me. He's in it, so I'm watching it.
See you at the movies
Monday, July 30, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 8 The Dark Knight Rises
This was supposed to be the epic conclusion to the Christopher Nolan Batman movie trilogy. And in a lot of ways it is just that. It is full of action and has about an hour long climax that makes the fans happy. The characters are done very well and it is a satisfying ending to the trilogy.
There are many reasons for why I didn't like it but first let me get to some of the positives. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was really good. Most of her hit movies are Rom/Com movies so I was a little worried about her ability to do a character like Catwoman justice. I'd say her addition to the movie was a pleasant surprise.
I was also impressed with the ways this movie tried to tie in to both The Dark Knight and Batman Begins. Many things from the previous movies were eluded to and were major plot points for The Dark Knight Rises.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt did an incredible job as John Blake. There's some spoilers involved with this character so I won't say too much, so I'll leave it by saying this character plays some very pivotal roles in the overall story and if he is included in the next Batman movie (if there even is one) he'd also be a very important character.
Here's my problem with the movie.
Bane! I couldn't understand him. I'm not talking about just his voice which is mumbled and garbled almost beyond human recognition, but his motivations. His plan doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to avoid spoilers because even though I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped, it's still a good movie and it won't be spoiled by me. I feel that the first half of the movie was needless padding with a sub-plot that didn't need to happen the way it did.
Why is this eight years after The Dark Knight? And that opens up a whole bunch of mini plot-holes. I'll take just one example: Bruce's legs. He's been a Howard Hughes type recluse ever since the death of Harvey Dent. So now he walks with a cane because his knees are bad and the rest of him is beaten to the point his body is close to being hamburger. But this isn't the Batman we saw running from cops. What did he do in that house he never left for eight years that destroyed his body? Extreme sleeping?
The plot twists in this movie are telegraphed beyond words. Here are the big red flags I feel are okay to share without giving too much of the movie away: the fusion generator, Alfred's fantasy, and Bane's employer. I won't say anything else about it, but man. Anyone could see those plot devices coming a mile away.
Lastly, just like in The Dark Knight, the characters just won't ever shut up! Exposition is everywhere! The Exposition Fairy is what I call it when a character tries to jam in needed information to move the story along. This I'm going to start calling Alfred's disease. Where a character tries to make a moral argument through long winded speeches.
Here's what the movie was trying to talk about. Wealth distribution. First we had Catwoman playing the role of the noble rogue. She's Robin Hood. She steals from the rich but never too much. And she has another motivation for her actions but that's spoiler territory but yes she does have a selfish reason for wanting to steal from Bruce Wayne. Then you have Bane who is the champion of anarchy. He wants the criminals who were put in prison under the "Dent Act" set free so they can loot, pillage, and send Gotham City back into 16th century France. Right down to the kangaroo courts with Scarecrow as the judge. This movie really wanted to have some kind of say on the wealth/power disparity between the richest people and the poorest. Think of Bane as Tyler Durden from Fight Club.
The message is quickly lost in this movie. There is just too much action and a lot of unnecessary scenes. The movie feels both rushed and padded at the same time. The story isn't as coherent as I would've liked and the plot twists are really obvious. There are plenty out there right now trying call this "the best movie ever". In my opinion it isn't even as good as The Dark Knight.
With that we come to the end of the Batman Retrospective. There are a lot of great Batman movies I didn't get a chance to talk about. The animated movies are really great and they are worth checking out as well. I will leave you with my personal rankings of the live action Batman movies.
1. Batman (1989)
2. The Dark Knight (2008)
3. Batman Begins (2005)
4. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
5. Batman: The Movie (1966)
6. Batman Returns (1992)
7. Batman Forever (1995)
8. Batman and Robin (1997)
There are many reasons for why I didn't like it but first let me get to some of the positives. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was really good. Most of her hit movies are Rom/Com movies so I was a little worried about her ability to do a character like Catwoman justice. I'd say her addition to the movie was a pleasant surprise.
I was also impressed with the ways this movie tried to tie in to both The Dark Knight and Batman Begins. Many things from the previous movies were eluded to and were major plot points for The Dark Knight Rises.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt did an incredible job as John Blake. There's some spoilers involved with this character so I won't say too much, so I'll leave it by saying this character plays some very pivotal roles in the overall story and if he is included in the next Batman movie (if there even is one) he'd also be a very important character.
Here's my problem with the movie.
Bane! I couldn't understand him. I'm not talking about just his voice which is mumbled and garbled almost beyond human recognition, but his motivations. His plan doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to avoid spoilers because even though I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped, it's still a good movie and it won't be spoiled by me. I feel that the first half of the movie was needless padding with a sub-plot that didn't need to happen the way it did.
Why is this eight years after The Dark Knight? And that opens up a whole bunch of mini plot-holes. I'll take just one example: Bruce's legs. He's been a Howard Hughes type recluse ever since the death of Harvey Dent. So now he walks with a cane because his knees are bad and the rest of him is beaten to the point his body is close to being hamburger. But this isn't the Batman we saw running from cops. What did he do in that house he never left for eight years that destroyed his body? Extreme sleeping?
The plot twists in this movie are telegraphed beyond words. Here are the big red flags I feel are okay to share without giving too much of the movie away: the fusion generator, Alfred's fantasy, and Bane's employer. I won't say anything else about it, but man. Anyone could see those plot devices coming a mile away.
Lastly, just like in The Dark Knight, the characters just won't ever shut up! Exposition is everywhere! The Exposition Fairy is what I call it when a character tries to jam in needed information to move the story along. This I'm going to start calling Alfred's disease. Where a character tries to make a moral argument through long winded speeches.
Here's what the movie was trying to talk about. Wealth distribution. First we had Catwoman playing the role of the noble rogue. She's Robin Hood. She steals from the rich but never too much. And she has another motivation for her actions but that's spoiler territory but yes she does have a selfish reason for wanting to steal from Bruce Wayne. Then you have Bane who is the champion of anarchy. He wants the criminals who were put in prison under the "Dent Act" set free so they can loot, pillage, and send Gotham City back into 16th century France. Right down to the kangaroo courts with Scarecrow as the judge. This movie really wanted to have some kind of say on the wealth/power disparity between the richest people and the poorest. Think of Bane as Tyler Durden from Fight Club.
The message is quickly lost in this movie. There is just too much action and a lot of unnecessary scenes. The movie feels both rushed and padded at the same time. The story isn't as coherent as I would've liked and the plot twists are really obvious. There are plenty out there right now trying call this "the best movie ever". In my opinion it isn't even as good as The Dark Knight.
With that we come to the end of the Batman Retrospective. There are a lot of great Batman movies I didn't get a chance to talk about. The animated movies are really great and they are worth checking out as well. I will leave you with my personal rankings of the live action Batman movies.
1. Batman (1989)
2. The Dark Knight (2008)
3. Batman Begins (2005)
4. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
5. Batman: The Movie (1966)
6. Batman Returns (1992)
7. Batman Forever (1995)
8. Batman and Robin (1997)
Friday, July 20, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 7 The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight was a game changer in so many ways. In contrast to the fun loving Jack Nicholson Joker in the 1989 movie, Heath Ledger had a much more disturbing take on the character. Joker was always a dark character but also a comedic character. There's nothing funny about this Joker. Sure he has one good comedic scene with the whole "who wants to see a magic trick" stuff, but really the comedy this Joker likes is a bit more profound. The absurdity of civility.
And that is what I took away from the movie in a nutshell. This wasn't so much a comic book movie or an action movie as it was a philosophical discussion on some very weighty issues. Heath Ledger's Joker is the embodiment of anarchy. Thomas Hobbes called it the "state of nature" where if man were left to their own devices, they would be no better than common animals; devoid of morality and conscience. Joker believes this and his master plan is to expose all culture and society for the facade it truely is.
The Dark Knight is easily my second favorite of all the Batman movies. It is a very well done movie with a brilliant story. It took elements from all the predecessors and used it to create something nobody had ever seen before. It's a masterpiece of filmmaking and storytelling. But it does have it's flaws.
One thing that gets really annoying are the long chunks of exposition. Nobody will ever shut up. Especially Alfred. I think they did that just in case people in the audience couldn't keep up. But I've attacked other movies for using the Exposition Fairy in other movies so I have to bring it up here. And it does get annoying.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of the Heath Ledger Joker. Maybe it's my attachment to the Jack Nicholson Joker but Heath Ledger's Joker was ironically just too serious. His famous line from the movie was "Why so serious?" For an agent of anarchy, this Joker is incredibly focused and calculating. Everything is planned down to the last little detail. I think of anarchy as being far more random. I just remember back to the scene with Joker and Vicki Vale where Vicki asks Joker what he hopes to accomplish. And in a brilliant piece of acting Joker actually had this look of bewilderment on his face. Only for a split second but for that split second he just didn't understand the very idea of having a definitive plan. Then he just blurts out "my face on the one dollar bill." As if that's something anyone really strives for or shown any motivations towards. It's just the first insane thought that came to his head. He didn't really want that. It was just a joke. Heath Ledger's Joker just never jokes around. Why so serious?
The last point I want to talk about I have mixed feelings. Harvey Two-Face. Aaron Eckhart was absolutely brilliant as Harvey Dent. In every way he was inspiring as an actor. The only reason he didn't get the Emmy for best supporting actor was because Heath Ledger won it. I can't say enough about how good a job Aaron Eckhart did. But here's my problem. The character was unnecessary. They did such a good job with this character, he easily could carry an entire movie dedicated to himself.
The idea of including Two-Face was that they needed a dramatic element to end the movie. The ideas of Harvey being the traditional type of heroic character is beautiful. He's the light hero where Batman is the dark hero. Which one is better? It's a very powerful point to bring up and could easily be discussed in a stand alone movie, but here we also have the Joker and everything he brings to the movie. There are times it becomes overwhelming. I'll just pose the question: What would you think of this movie if it were split into two? One featuring Joker and all he did and the other featuring Harvey Two-Face and all he brings to the movie? The re-write would be simple. Instead of Joker burning Harvey, have it be Maroni.
Despite it's flaws The Dark Knight really is about as perfect a movie as I've seen anyone try. How will The Dark Knight Rises finish the story? After I see the movie, I'll be back with the exciting conclusion in Part 8 of the Batman Retrospective. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel.
And that is what I took away from the movie in a nutshell. This wasn't so much a comic book movie or an action movie as it was a philosophical discussion on some very weighty issues. Heath Ledger's Joker is the embodiment of anarchy. Thomas Hobbes called it the "state of nature" where if man were left to their own devices, they would be no better than common animals; devoid of morality and conscience. Joker believes this and his master plan is to expose all culture and society for the facade it truely is.
The Dark Knight is easily my second favorite of all the Batman movies. It is a very well done movie with a brilliant story. It took elements from all the predecessors and used it to create something nobody had ever seen before. It's a masterpiece of filmmaking and storytelling. But it does have it's flaws.
One thing that gets really annoying are the long chunks of exposition. Nobody will ever shut up. Especially Alfred. I think they did that just in case people in the audience couldn't keep up. But I've attacked other movies for using the Exposition Fairy in other movies so I have to bring it up here. And it does get annoying.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of the Heath Ledger Joker. Maybe it's my attachment to the Jack Nicholson Joker but Heath Ledger's Joker was ironically just too serious. His famous line from the movie was "Why so serious?" For an agent of anarchy, this Joker is incredibly focused and calculating. Everything is planned down to the last little detail. I think of anarchy as being far more random. I just remember back to the scene with Joker and Vicki Vale where Vicki asks Joker what he hopes to accomplish. And in a brilliant piece of acting Joker actually had this look of bewilderment on his face. Only for a split second but for that split second he just didn't understand the very idea of having a definitive plan. Then he just blurts out "my face on the one dollar bill." As if that's something anyone really strives for or shown any motivations towards. It's just the first insane thought that came to his head. He didn't really want that. It was just a joke. Heath Ledger's Joker just never jokes around. Why so serious?
The last point I want to talk about I have mixed feelings. Harvey Two-Face. Aaron Eckhart was absolutely brilliant as Harvey Dent. In every way he was inspiring as an actor. The only reason he didn't get the Emmy for best supporting actor was because Heath Ledger won it. I can't say enough about how good a job Aaron Eckhart did. But here's my problem. The character was unnecessary. They did such a good job with this character, he easily could carry an entire movie dedicated to himself.
The idea of including Two-Face was that they needed a dramatic element to end the movie. The ideas of Harvey being the traditional type of heroic character is beautiful. He's the light hero where Batman is the dark hero. Which one is better? It's a very powerful point to bring up and could easily be discussed in a stand alone movie, but here we also have the Joker and everything he brings to the movie. There are times it becomes overwhelming. I'll just pose the question: What would you think of this movie if it were split into two? One featuring Joker and all he did and the other featuring Harvey Two-Face and all he brings to the movie? The re-write would be simple. Instead of Joker burning Harvey, have it be Maroni.
Despite it's flaws The Dark Knight really is about as perfect a movie as I've seen anyone try. How will The Dark Knight Rises finish the story? After I see the movie, I'll be back with the exciting conclusion in Part 8 of the Batman Retrospective. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 6 Batman Begins
The only way to save the franchise was to blow it up and start all over again. Batman and Robin was such a colossal failure it completely sunk the franchise. But for all Batman movie fans, a savior stepped forward. Christopher Nolan! It was time to get rid of all the goofy stuff Schumacher brought in and go back to the 1989 Burton style of Batman movie. And now we have Batman Begins
In order to distinguish itself from previous movies, Nolan decided that instead of leaping right to Bruce Wayne in the batsuit we are going to see the journey Bruce Wayne had to go through to become Batman. In the 1989 movie we see Batman's origins only in short flashbacks. Here it's the first and second act! So who trained Batman to be the supreme ninja he is?
According to Batman Begins it was Ra's Al Ghul. When I first heard this Batman was going to feature Ras Al Ghul I was immediately excited. Villians like the joker provide the perfect action foil. It's the ultimate white hat vs black hat scenario. But Ra's Al Ghul is different. He's much more of a morally ambiguous character. On one hand the things he does are horrible, but much like Magnito in the X-Men comics, you can follow the logic as to why he does it. Ra's Al Ghul is one of my favorite DC villians and he's rarely used.
Imagine my feelings when Ra's Al Ghul played so little a role in the movie. Instead Batman's main villian is Dr. Crane. aka Scarecrow. I don't fault the movie for using Scarecrow. Scarecrow is also a very unique supervillian. He's not perticularly strong, he's not all that smart or devious, but the one thing he has going for him is the same thing Batman uses: Fear. Except Scarecrow found a way to weaponize fear.
The characterization of Scarecrow was done just perfectly. Even without the Scarecrow mask the levels of sadism are evident. He really is the kind of guy who probably was bullied in High School and then went and tortured ants in the backyard. The climatic scene of the fire-breathing black horse alone warrented using Scarecrow in this movie. It was gorgeous.
What sets this movie apart from all the others is the characters. Especially Batman. In the other movies Batman was always a super genious. He could figure out any problem just by doing research on his massive super computer. He was portrayed as he is in the comic books: as the World's Greatest Detective. In this movie Batman is more of a lost child looking for his place in the world. He hadn't developed the tools yet to be Batman. He relied heavily on Alfred and more importantly Lucius Fox. Fox was a scientist in Wayne Industries and he was the guy who designed the batsuit and the batmobile. The origins of the 'bat tools' were never discussed in other movies and it adds a lot of depth to the Batman character simply because we see that he isn't necessarily a jack-of-all-trades. There is a support network around Batman. A group of people to help him with new equipment and medical knowledge when he gets his butt whipped. What we lose in mystery, we the audience gain in a fully-rounded character we can relate to.
If I had any complaints it's these two. One is minor and the other not so much. Christian Bale as Batman can be laughable with that gravelly voice he uses. I realize it's a minor complaint but Michael Keaton was able to be threatening just by talking in a quiet voice. Bale on the other hand feels some need to scream his lungs out and ruin his voice. It works but it also doesn't. Batman needs to be threatening and having a guy yelling in your face is certainly threatening, but he's also supposed to be like a ghost in the night. Criminals spill their guts to Batman because he's Batman. His reputation alone is enough to intimidate villians. It's a minor point at best. I just feel it is a conflicting tone to the overall movie.
The other thing I didn't like so much was the Ra's Al Ghul character. In the comics Ra's is a supernatural genocidal ecoterrorist who feels the only way to save the planet from the ravages of the human race is to curb the human population. He is supernatural in the sense that every few decades or so he takes a bath in something called the "Lazarus Pit" that rejuvinates his body but leaves him momentarily bat squeak insane. Ra's Al Ghul is supposed to be hundreds of years old. Ra's also has a daughter named Talia. Talia and Batman have a child together. I know. Not exactly common knowledge. Nothing of this is ever added to the movie. Ra's Al Ghul is also a very honorable guy. He's well aware of Batman's true identity but he is very careful to never tell anyone. He will refer to him as Detective as a sign of his respect for the man he considers his greatest rival. I loved the inclusion of the League of Assassins aka Society of Shadows but the movie just never did the Ra's Al Ghul character justice.
While the 1989 Batman movie is still my favorite, this one comes in a respectable second. That is until we get to Part 7 of the Batman Retrospective.
In order to distinguish itself from previous movies, Nolan decided that instead of leaping right to Bruce Wayne in the batsuit we are going to see the journey Bruce Wayne had to go through to become Batman. In the 1989 movie we see Batman's origins only in short flashbacks. Here it's the first and second act! So who trained Batman to be the supreme ninja he is?
According to Batman Begins it was Ra's Al Ghul. When I first heard this Batman was going to feature Ras Al Ghul I was immediately excited. Villians like the joker provide the perfect action foil. It's the ultimate white hat vs black hat scenario. But Ra's Al Ghul is different. He's much more of a morally ambiguous character. On one hand the things he does are horrible, but much like Magnito in the X-Men comics, you can follow the logic as to why he does it. Ra's Al Ghul is one of my favorite DC villians and he's rarely used.
Imagine my feelings when Ra's Al Ghul played so little a role in the movie. Instead Batman's main villian is Dr. Crane. aka Scarecrow. I don't fault the movie for using Scarecrow. Scarecrow is also a very unique supervillian. He's not perticularly strong, he's not all that smart or devious, but the one thing he has going for him is the same thing Batman uses: Fear. Except Scarecrow found a way to weaponize fear.
The characterization of Scarecrow was done just perfectly. Even without the Scarecrow mask the levels of sadism are evident. He really is the kind of guy who probably was bullied in High School and then went and tortured ants in the backyard. The climatic scene of the fire-breathing black horse alone warrented using Scarecrow in this movie. It was gorgeous.
What sets this movie apart from all the others is the characters. Especially Batman. In the other movies Batman was always a super genious. He could figure out any problem just by doing research on his massive super computer. He was portrayed as he is in the comic books: as the World's Greatest Detective. In this movie Batman is more of a lost child looking for his place in the world. He hadn't developed the tools yet to be Batman. He relied heavily on Alfred and more importantly Lucius Fox. Fox was a scientist in Wayne Industries and he was the guy who designed the batsuit and the batmobile. The origins of the 'bat tools' were never discussed in other movies and it adds a lot of depth to the Batman character simply because we see that he isn't necessarily a jack-of-all-trades. There is a support network around Batman. A group of people to help him with new equipment and medical knowledge when he gets his butt whipped. What we lose in mystery, we the audience gain in a fully-rounded character we can relate to.
If I had any complaints it's these two. One is minor and the other not so much. Christian Bale as Batman can be laughable with that gravelly voice he uses. I realize it's a minor complaint but Michael Keaton was able to be threatening just by talking in a quiet voice. Bale on the other hand feels some need to scream his lungs out and ruin his voice. It works but it also doesn't. Batman needs to be threatening and having a guy yelling in your face is certainly threatening, but he's also supposed to be like a ghost in the night. Criminals spill their guts to Batman because he's Batman. His reputation alone is enough to intimidate villians. It's a minor point at best. I just feel it is a conflicting tone to the overall movie.
The other thing I didn't like so much was the Ra's Al Ghul character. In the comics Ra's is a supernatural genocidal ecoterrorist who feels the only way to save the planet from the ravages of the human race is to curb the human population. He is supernatural in the sense that every few decades or so he takes a bath in something called the "Lazarus Pit" that rejuvinates his body but leaves him momentarily bat squeak insane. Ra's Al Ghul is supposed to be hundreds of years old. Ra's also has a daughter named Talia. Talia and Batman have a child together. I know. Not exactly common knowledge. Nothing of this is ever added to the movie. Ra's Al Ghul is also a very honorable guy. He's well aware of Batman's true identity but he is very careful to never tell anyone. He will refer to him as Detective as a sign of his respect for the man he considers his greatest rival. I loved the inclusion of the League of Assassins aka Society of Shadows but the movie just never did the Ra's Al Ghul character justice.
While the 1989 Batman movie is still my favorite, this one comes in a respectable second. That is until we get to Part 7 of the Batman Retrospective.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 5 Batman and Robin
Ugh... Batman and Robin. There's so much to talk about with this piece of garbage I find it hard to pick a place to start. I knew once I started this retrospective I eventually would have to come to this movie. And much like a seventy car pile-up on the freeway, you know it will hurt, you know you should steer clear and take alternate routes, but something just compels you to witness the carnage for yourself.
Batman Forever, for as bad as it was, acutally made a lot of money. Mostly from fans that felt betrayed by what they saw, but who cares? They paid to go see it. ONCE! Trust me, I've yet to find anyone that went to see it twice in theaters. Well, with success comes more money and Joel Schumacher is back for Batman and Robin. I doubt it's any secret I don't think very highly of Joel Schumacher's work. But it is just so hard to pinpoint the moment this movie went off the rails. Because everything about it is just so wrong.
I think I'll start with the cast. For this romp Val Kilmer was replaced with George Clooney. Then for our villians we have Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. Chris O'Donnell is back as Robin and as Batgirl we have Elicia Silverstone. Please remember this was 1997. We didn't know any better.
Elicia Silverstone made herself famous by appearing in several Aerosmith music videos. And really that's about the range of her acting talent. When she isn't allowed to speak. As long as she is on screen looking pretty, she's a flawless actress. Ms. Silverstone just came off a bewildering hit movie Clueless where she plays a brain dead California valley girl. How well do you think she did in this one?
I'm sure most of you know Uma Thurman from the wonderful Terantino movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Unfortunately, Terantino wasn't making this movie. Uma Thurman also made a good living doing comedy movies like The Truth About Cats and Dogs but also did a number of great dramatic movies like Gattica and of course Pulp Fiction. If Shumacher and company can make Uma Thurman look like a rank amateur, what does that tell you?
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the king of camp. I'm hard pressed to think of any movie he's ever done other than the Terminator movies and Predator that weren't jam packed with campy action and bad dialogue. The fact he was cast in this movie doesn't surprise me, but I am a little disappointed. Of course then I remember he did Junior and I'm back to not surprised.
But the biggest disappointment has to come from the horrific disappointment that is George Clooney. I guess to be fair it was early in his movie career. He hadn't done Oh Brother Where Art Thou or Ocean's Eleven yet. He was getting jobs based on his looks alone. No matter what excuse you want, I still say he's the Timothy Dalton of the Batman movies.
I've said this in other reviews before but it takes a special kind of screw up if a single word or phrase can irrevocably destroy your movie. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I counted at least five such instances. I'll share with you the first two lines of dialogue. I'll let you decide at what point that remote in your hand starts changing the channel on its own. Robin: I want a car. Chicks dig the car. Batman: This is why Superman works alone.
From there the dialogue only gets worse. Mr. Freeze makes nothing but ice puns. Poison Ivy either speaks in sexual innuendos or plant puns. Robin is constantly whining about how Batman is the hero and he's the sidekick. Batman of course shows no human emotion at any time. My brain hurts just trying to remember how bad it was. It's like when something horribly tramatic happens to you. Time slows down and then your brain supresses the memory as best as it can. But little things leak in and you might not remember all the details but you're still in the fetal position crying.
And then there's the bat puns. They are nothing new of course. Since the 1960s and even in the comics there were bat puns. For example the 'batarang' instead of a bomerang or the 'batmobile' instead of an automobile. We let stuff like that slide mostly because they are really cool. But then they introduced us to the 'bat credit card'. Not even the Adam West tv show would ever have thought of that. I think it's the perfect symbol of this whole movie. Batman doing something he would never do, using something he wouldn't ever use, and speaking in commerical tag lines.
Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl was a huge embarrassment. The character was re-written so Barbara Gordon was no longer the daughter of Police Commissioner Gordon, but instead the niece of Bruce Wayne's long-time butler/confidant/surrogate father Alfred. It's such an embarrassment I'm just going to refer to her as Barbara Pennyworth just to distinguish her from the actual Batgirl. In the movie she is Barbara Wilson but that's just lazy. Alicia was supposed to be from England and of course doesn't even attempt to speak in a British accent. She sounds like she flew in from Clueless.
I've put off bringing this up because I really don't want to discuss a person's sexuality. For me, I have no problem with a person being either gay or straight or anything in-between. And I really find sexual humor to be in poor taste. Mostly because I see it as just being mean. With all that being said, based on the design of the batsuit, I'm wondering if the writers wanted Batman and Robin to be lovers. The 'bat nipples' aside, the suits they wore looked like something right out of a naked greek statue. Everything was form fit and accentuated every muscle. They looked like they were naked and wearing nothing but a cod piece. And of course the cod piece draws the eyes to their crotch because the color contrast makes it stick out just that much further. Pun definately not intended. And Shumacher just seemed to find enough reason to get as many close-ups on random butts and crotch shots that I feel I would be actively omitting something if I didn't say it. It didn't help that Saturday Night Live at the time were running clips of a cartoon called the "Ambiguously Gay Duo". Even the Batman and Robin logo looked gay. It was the Robin symbol sitting right on top of the Batman symbol.
Everything about this movie was just bad. I could go on forever talking about it but I wouldn't be adding anything new that hasn't been said before. This movie was so bad it was nominated for eleven Razzie Awards and Alicia Silverstone won for worst supporting actress.
Here are my final words on Batman and Robin. And I will quote the brilliant actor George Takei: You are made of stupid!
The film did so poorly that plans for the next Batman sequel Batman Triumphant were cancelled. It would be until 2005 with Batman Begins that the series would be rebooted. And that is what we will take a look at in part 6.
Batman Forever, for as bad as it was, acutally made a lot of money. Mostly from fans that felt betrayed by what they saw, but who cares? They paid to go see it. ONCE! Trust me, I've yet to find anyone that went to see it twice in theaters. Well, with success comes more money and Joel Schumacher is back for Batman and Robin. I doubt it's any secret I don't think very highly of Joel Schumacher's work. But it is just so hard to pinpoint the moment this movie went off the rails. Because everything about it is just so wrong.
I think I'll start with the cast. For this romp Val Kilmer was replaced with George Clooney. Then for our villians we have Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. Chris O'Donnell is back as Robin and as Batgirl we have Elicia Silverstone. Please remember this was 1997. We didn't know any better.
Elicia Silverstone made herself famous by appearing in several Aerosmith music videos. And really that's about the range of her acting talent. When she isn't allowed to speak. As long as she is on screen looking pretty, she's a flawless actress. Ms. Silverstone just came off a bewildering hit movie Clueless where she plays a brain dead California valley girl. How well do you think she did in this one?
I'm sure most of you know Uma Thurman from the wonderful Terantino movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Unfortunately, Terantino wasn't making this movie. Uma Thurman also made a good living doing comedy movies like The Truth About Cats and Dogs but also did a number of great dramatic movies like Gattica and of course Pulp Fiction. If Shumacher and company can make Uma Thurman look like a rank amateur, what does that tell you?
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the king of camp. I'm hard pressed to think of any movie he's ever done other than the Terminator movies and Predator that weren't jam packed with campy action and bad dialogue. The fact he was cast in this movie doesn't surprise me, but I am a little disappointed. Of course then I remember he did Junior and I'm back to not surprised.
But the biggest disappointment has to come from the horrific disappointment that is George Clooney. I guess to be fair it was early in his movie career. He hadn't done Oh Brother Where Art Thou or Ocean's Eleven yet. He was getting jobs based on his looks alone. No matter what excuse you want, I still say he's the Timothy Dalton of the Batman movies.
I've said this in other reviews before but it takes a special kind of screw up if a single word or phrase can irrevocably destroy your movie. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I counted at least five such instances. I'll share with you the first two lines of dialogue. I'll let you decide at what point that remote in your hand starts changing the channel on its own. Robin: I want a car. Chicks dig the car. Batman: This is why Superman works alone.
From there the dialogue only gets worse. Mr. Freeze makes nothing but ice puns. Poison Ivy either speaks in sexual innuendos or plant puns. Robin is constantly whining about how Batman is the hero and he's the sidekick. Batman of course shows no human emotion at any time. My brain hurts just trying to remember how bad it was. It's like when something horribly tramatic happens to you. Time slows down and then your brain supresses the memory as best as it can. But little things leak in and you might not remember all the details but you're still in the fetal position crying.
And then there's the bat puns. They are nothing new of course. Since the 1960s and even in the comics there were bat puns. For example the 'batarang' instead of a bomerang or the 'batmobile' instead of an automobile. We let stuff like that slide mostly because they are really cool. But then they introduced us to the 'bat credit card'. Not even the Adam West tv show would ever have thought of that. I think it's the perfect symbol of this whole movie. Batman doing something he would never do, using something he wouldn't ever use, and speaking in commerical tag lines.
Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl was a huge embarrassment. The character was re-written so Barbara Gordon was no longer the daughter of Police Commissioner Gordon, but instead the niece of Bruce Wayne's long-time butler/confidant/surrogate father Alfred. It's such an embarrassment I'm just going to refer to her as Barbara Pennyworth just to distinguish her from the actual Batgirl. In the movie she is Barbara Wilson but that's just lazy. Alicia was supposed to be from England and of course doesn't even attempt to speak in a British accent. She sounds like she flew in from Clueless.
I've put off bringing this up because I really don't want to discuss a person's sexuality. For me, I have no problem with a person being either gay or straight or anything in-between. And I really find sexual humor to be in poor taste. Mostly because I see it as just being mean. With all that being said, based on the design of the batsuit, I'm wondering if the writers wanted Batman and Robin to be lovers. The 'bat nipples' aside, the suits they wore looked like something right out of a naked greek statue. Everything was form fit and accentuated every muscle. They looked like they were naked and wearing nothing but a cod piece. And of course the cod piece draws the eyes to their crotch because the color contrast makes it stick out just that much further. Pun definately not intended. And Shumacher just seemed to find enough reason to get as many close-ups on random butts and crotch shots that I feel I would be actively omitting something if I didn't say it. It didn't help that Saturday Night Live at the time were running clips of a cartoon called the "Ambiguously Gay Duo". Even the Batman and Robin logo looked gay. It was the Robin symbol sitting right on top of the Batman symbol.
Everything about this movie was just bad. I could go on forever talking about it but I wouldn't be adding anything new that hasn't been said before. This movie was so bad it was nominated for eleven Razzie Awards and Alicia Silverstone won for worst supporting actress.
Here are my final words on Batman and Robin. And I will quote the brilliant actor George Takei: You are made of stupid!
The film did so poorly that plans for the next Batman sequel Batman Triumphant were cancelled. It would be until 2005 with Batman Begins that the series would be rebooted. And that is what we will take a look at in part 6.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 4 Batman Forever
Batman Forever. This is the point I felt that the movies really took a U-turn. Most audiences didn't care for the disgusting Penguin character in Batman Returns so the marketing of the movie just wasn't what Warner Bros. was hoping for. They wanted something they could plaster all over McDonalds drinking cups and make a fortune on merchandising. Instead they got something that wasn't appropriate for kids at all. So, Tim Burton was released and in comes Joel Schumacher.
With the new director came an entirely new cast. Val Kilmer took over for the aging Michael Keaton and Chris O'Donnell was hired to play the faithful sidekick, Robin. For Batman's villians we are treated to the enigmatic Riddler and Harvy Two-Face. And my God is this movie bad.
Gotham City itself was taken out of the shadows and got a much more colorful overhaul. What once was shadowy and gothic, is now glow in the dark neon colors. It became this weird mix of the Burton Batman movies and the 1960's tv show.
Batman Forever came out in 1995 and one of the biggest stars at the time was Jim Carrey. He was fresh off his big hits Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. Kids loved him because Jim Carrey himself is a cartoon character. Much of his demeanor and acting style was in the same vein as Daffy Duck. He's wild, expressive, and very enjoyable to watch doing comedy. And that right there is why this movie is so bad.
Batman isn't supposed to be a comedy. Tim Burton set the stage for a very serious and dramatic character and now we have a mugging Riddler character who nobody could take seriously. The dialogue given to Riddler and Two Face was just God awful. Nothing ever built any dread of sense of urgency. Chris O'Donnell had no clue who he was playing. Instead of being a strong character and almost a carbon copy of Batman; this Robin is whiny. I personally got the impression that O'Donnell didn't do his homework and read anything about the character. What really boils my blood is that O'Donnell beat out hollywood titans like Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Ewan MacGregor. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise they chose between O'Donnell and DiCaprio by asking 11 year-olds who would win in a fist fight.
Tommy Lee Jones was tasked with being Two Face and much like everyone else in the movie, I felt like they had no idea who they were supposed to be. Two Face is a tragic character pushed too far by the criminals he tried to put away. After a serious accident left him disfigured, he became obsessed with duality thanks to his multiple personality disorder. His obsession with the number 2 and using a coin to determine the future. Much of the movie had that but really no understanding of the character other than he's "quirky."
Similarly, Val Kilmer had no idea how to distinguish Bruce Wayne from Batman. Michael Keaton disguised himself. He spoke in quiet tones and that gave Batman a real sense of horror. The way he could smile at a criminal and without saying a word could make even the most simple of sentences seem to go through your soul. As Bruce Wayne Keaton was charasmatic but always had this feeling of being guarded. He never wanted anyone to get too close because he was hiding something. With Val Kilmer the two are indestinguishable. Again I don't know who to blame: the bad acting, the bad research, or the bad writing. And this also irritated me when I read it, Johnny Depp was also being considered to play Batman! Can you imagine what a Depp/DiCaprio dynamic duo would've been like?
I up until now haven't talked much about the female love interests in all these movies. Mostly because the romantic angle in the movie is largely irrelevant. Batman gets a new love interest every movie. First, it was Vicki Vale. The first woman Batman ever trusted with his darkest of secrets. Then there was Catwoman who figured out Bruce was Batman by kissing him. Believe me, it was done better than how I'm describing it. But now we have Dr. Chase Meridian played by Nicole Kidman. If I were Batman, I would've asked Commissioner Gordon for a restraining order. Her only defining character is that she is sexually attracted to Batman. Vicki was a reporter investigating the Joker killings and was a great help to Batman in getting important information to the public. Catwoman was a very complicated character. She had her own motivations and wants. She was a sympathetic character and we go as much on her journey as we do Batman's or Penguin's. But with Chase we are just given nothing. She's a vacant stare covered up with lusty intentions. An absolute waste of time.
What I take most out of this movie is a cautionary tale about letting Corporate America dictate art. Burton's movies, despite how disturbing they were, were artful and very well done. But they weren't "marketable" the way studio executives wanted. So, in order to placate their key demographic, they sold out. Bringing in things kids would like and abandoning any sense of identity. Major decisions were done by survey and what we have here is the very definition of junk food entertainment: lots of pretty colors and crazy stories. In an effort to make things 'edgier' without resorting to actually being 'edgy' they instead redesign the bat suit with nipples. Is there any other more perfect symbol of this atrocity? Bat Nipples? Why? Who in their right mind would look at the bat suit and say, "Do you know what this needs? Nipples!" Only to have some other moron immediately shout back, "That's BRILLIANT!"
The only saving grace this movie has, is that it isn't the abomination we are going to see in part 5 of my Batman Retrospective.
With the new director came an entirely new cast. Val Kilmer took over for the aging Michael Keaton and Chris O'Donnell was hired to play the faithful sidekick, Robin. For Batman's villians we are treated to the enigmatic Riddler and Harvy Two-Face. And my God is this movie bad.
Gotham City itself was taken out of the shadows and got a much more colorful overhaul. What once was shadowy and gothic, is now glow in the dark neon colors. It became this weird mix of the Burton Batman movies and the 1960's tv show.
Batman Forever came out in 1995 and one of the biggest stars at the time was Jim Carrey. He was fresh off his big hits Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. Kids loved him because Jim Carrey himself is a cartoon character. Much of his demeanor and acting style was in the same vein as Daffy Duck. He's wild, expressive, and very enjoyable to watch doing comedy. And that right there is why this movie is so bad.
Batman isn't supposed to be a comedy. Tim Burton set the stage for a very serious and dramatic character and now we have a mugging Riddler character who nobody could take seriously. The dialogue given to Riddler and Two Face was just God awful. Nothing ever built any dread of sense of urgency. Chris O'Donnell had no clue who he was playing. Instead of being a strong character and almost a carbon copy of Batman; this Robin is whiny. I personally got the impression that O'Donnell didn't do his homework and read anything about the character. What really boils my blood is that O'Donnell beat out hollywood titans like Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Ewan MacGregor. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise they chose between O'Donnell and DiCaprio by asking 11 year-olds who would win in a fist fight.
Tommy Lee Jones was tasked with being Two Face and much like everyone else in the movie, I felt like they had no idea who they were supposed to be. Two Face is a tragic character pushed too far by the criminals he tried to put away. After a serious accident left him disfigured, he became obsessed with duality thanks to his multiple personality disorder. His obsession with the number 2 and using a coin to determine the future. Much of the movie had that but really no understanding of the character other than he's "quirky."
Similarly, Val Kilmer had no idea how to distinguish Bruce Wayne from Batman. Michael Keaton disguised himself. He spoke in quiet tones and that gave Batman a real sense of horror. The way he could smile at a criminal and without saying a word could make even the most simple of sentences seem to go through your soul. As Bruce Wayne Keaton was charasmatic but always had this feeling of being guarded. He never wanted anyone to get too close because he was hiding something. With Val Kilmer the two are indestinguishable. Again I don't know who to blame: the bad acting, the bad research, or the bad writing. And this also irritated me when I read it, Johnny Depp was also being considered to play Batman! Can you imagine what a Depp/DiCaprio dynamic duo would've been like?
I up until now haven't talked much about the female love interests in all these movies. Mostly because the romantic angle in the movie is largely irrelevant. Batman gets a new love interest every movie. First, it was Vicki Vale. The first woman Batman ever trusted with his darkest of secrets. Then there was Catwoman who figured out Bruce was Batman by kissing him. Believe me, it was done better than how I'm describing it. But now we have Dr. Chase Meridian played by Nicole Kidman. If I were Batman, I would've asked Commissioner Gordon for a restraining order. Her only defining character is that she is sexually attracted to Batman. Vicki was a reporter investigating the Joker killings and was a great help to Batman in getting important information to the public. Catwoman was a very complicated character. She had her own motivations and wants. She was a sympathetic character and we go as much on her journey as we do Batman's or Penguin's. But with Chase we are just given nothing. She's a vacant stare covered up with lusty intentions. An absolute waste of time.
What I take most out of this movie is a cautionary tale about letting Corporate America dictate art. Burton's movies, despite how disturbing they were, were artful and very well done. But they weren't "marketable" the way studio executives wanted. So, in order to placate their key demographic, they sold out. Bringing in things kids would like and abandoning any sense of identity. Major decisions were done by survey and what we have here is the very definition of junk food entertainment: lots of pretty colors and crazy stories. In an effort to make things 'edgier' without resorting to actually being 'edgy' they instead redesign the bat suit with nipples. Is there any other more perfect symbol of this atrocity? Bat Nipples? Why? Who in their right mind would look at the bat suit and say, "Do you know what this needs? Nipples!" Only to have some other moron immediately shout back, "That's BRILLIANT!"
The only saving grace this movie has, is that it isn't the abomination we are going to see in part 5 of my Batman Retrospective.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 3 Batman Returns
Tim Burton's Batman was a huge hit in the theaters. The very fact that it was so different than what mainstream fans have ever seen from not only Batman, but comic book movies in general made the decision pretty easy to do a sequel. And why not have Tim Burton do Batman Returns? This time Burton was given a lot more creative direction. And that has to be the biggest mistake of the movie.
With the Joker dead, the Penguin was chosen to be the next Batman villian. In the comics, Penguin is a member of high society with a bird fetish. Anything of any monetary value and is bird related, he will try to steal. That means fabrege eggs, bird sculptures, or even rare birds in a zoo. But in comes Tim Burton. Tim Burton's Penguin is a disqusting, foul, deformed, sadist who lives with the penguins at the zoo and has an army of clown henchmen. He was abandoned by his parents as a baby because he was born deformed.
Along with Penguin we are also introduced to Catwoman. Catwoman is a cat-burglar with an obsession with cats. Much like Penguin's obsession with birds, Catwoman will steal anything cat related. But in comes Tim Burton. Tim Burton's Catwoman cranked up the sexiness to eleven and was given a really odd supernatural origin. She was thrown out of a window and died. But at that time a whole bunch of cats started to eat at her and somehow that gave her nine lives.
Much of the new decor we had in Batman was also cranked up to eleven in Batman Returns. It became way too much for most audiences. Instead of being shadowy, dark, and gothic, it became a nightmarish wasteland of grotesqueness. The people looked sick, the buildings look twisted and wrong, and the cute little penguins with rockets on their backs was so misplaced it stuck out like a sore thumb.
Again we are given a great cast with Michael Keaton again as Batman, but now we have Michele Pfeiffer, Danny DeVito, and "The Man" Christopher Walken. While they are all great actors, the problem is that these actors are most known and are at their best doing comedies. And the only humor in this comes in the form of dark humor; for example the Penguin riding on a duck boat or putting Danny DeVito in a fat suit so Penguin has to waddle everywhere.
While Batman Returns is hardly anyone's favorite of the Batman movies, it does have it's own perverse charm. The acting, while largely miscast, was great. They really took the characters they were given and were made memorable. Most audiences just couldn't get over how sick it looked. What was so innovative just became too much. Tim Burton fans would love this movie but it's just not going to draw a lot of new fans in despite all the success it had in theaters.
With the Joker dead, the Penguin was chosen to be the next Batman villian. In the comics, Penguin is a member of high society with a bird fetish. Anything of any monetary value and is bird related, he will try to steal. That means fabrege eggs, bird sculptures, or even rare birds in a zoo. But in comes Tim Burton. Tim Burton's Penguin is a disqusting, foul, deformed, sadist who lives with the penguins at the zoo and has an army of clown henchmen. He was abandoned by his parents as a baby because he was born deformed.
Along with Penguin we are also introduced to Catwoman. Catwoman is a cat-burglar with an obsession with cats. Much like Penguin's obsession with birds, Catwoman will steal anything cat related. But in comes Tim Burton. Tim Burton's Catwoman cranked up the sexiness to eleven and was given a really odd supernatural origin. She was thrown out of a window and died. But at that time a whole bunch of cats started to eat at her and somehow that gave her nine lives.
Much of the new decor we had in Batman was also cranked up to eleven in Batman Returns. It became way too much for most audiences. Instead of being shadowy, dark, and gothic, it became a nightmarish wasteland of grotesqueness. The people looked sick, the buildings look twisted and wrong, and the cute little penguins with rockets on their backs was so misplaced it stuck out like a sore thumb.
Again we are given a great cast with Michael Keaton again as Batman, but now we have Michele Pfeiffer, Danny DeVito, and "The Man" Christopher Walken. While they are all great actors, the problem is that these actors are most known and are at their best doing comedies. And the only humor in this comes in the form of dark humor; for example the Penguin riding on a duck boat or putting Danny DeVito in a fat suit so Penguin has to waddle everywhere.
While Batman Returns is hardly anyone's favorite of the Batman movies, it does have it's own perverse charm. The acting, while largely miscast, was great. They really took the characters they were given and were made memorable. Most audiences just couldn't get over how sick it looked. What was so innovative just became too much. Tim Burton fans would love this movie but it's just not going to draw a lot of new fans in despite all the success it had in theaters.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 2 Batman
After the 1966 campy Batman movie, it took another 23 years before another live action Batman movie would be made. And with then rookie director Tim Burton, nobody really knew what to expect. Tim Burton's previous work while highly regarded, wasn't exactly mainstream action. In 1985 he was the director for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure followed later in 1988 with the cult classic Beetlejuice. The one thing these movies shared with Batman was an emphasis on disturbing atmosphere.
The memory of Batman came strongly from the Adam West televison series, but Tim Burton loved the comics. Before the silver age of comics, the Batman comics were dark, bloody, and often disturbing and thought provoking. And that's the Batman movie we got. A Batman movie where the city itself is almost a character. Gotham city had a gothic and scary makeover. It looked like something out of a nightmare during the night. And at night we had a Batman who took that fear and put it back into the criminals.
Also similar to the 1966 movie, an incredible cast was assembled. Michael Keaton was chosen to play the troubled playboy/caped crusader and then Kim Basinger for the hero's love interest Vicki Vale. Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) even made a cameo as Harvey Dent. But the real take away from this movie was Jack Nicholson as the Joker. This was a role Jack has played his entire life.
The Joker is easily the greatest villian Batman ever had. In 1966, it was played by acting legend Cesar Romero. Romero played the character as more of a clownish figure. Complete with squirting flowers and a purple suit. He couldn't even be bothered to shave his moustache to put on the clown makeup. Jack Nicholson's Joker is far more disturbing. He played the Joker like he was still Jack Torrance in The Shining. Every word he said was tainted with malice. Every laugh had menace. And you could tell Jack was having the time of his life.
If anything this was the movie that is and should be known for the tonal shift away from the brightly colored goof fest that was the Batman tv show and brought Batman back into the shadows. For me, I've yet to see a better Batman movie.
The memory of Batman came strongly from the Adam West televison series, but Tim Burton loved the comics. Before the silver age of comics, the Batman comics were dark, bloody, and often disturbing and thought provoking. And that's the Batman movie we got. A Batman movie where the city itself is almost a character. Gotham city had a gothic and scary makeover. It looked like something out of a nightmare during the night. And at night we had a Batman who took that fear and put it back into the criminals.
Also similar to the 1966 movie, an incredible cast was assembled. Michael Keaton was chosen to play the troubled playboy/caped crusader and then Kim Basinger for the hero's love interest Vicki Vale. Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) even made a cameo as Harvey Dent. But the real take away from this movie was Jack Nicholson as the Joker. This was a role Jack has played his entire life.
The Joker is easily the greatest villian Batman ever had. In 1966, it was played by acting legend Cesar Romero. Romero played the character as more of a clownish figure. Complete with squirting flowers and a purple suit. He couldn't even be bothered to shave his moustache to put on the clown makeup. Jack Nicholson's Joker is far more disturbing. He played the Joker like he was still Jack Torrance in The Shining. Every word he said was tainted with malice. Every laugh had menace. And you could tell Jack was having the time of his life.
If anything this was the movie that is and should be known for the tonal shift away from the brightly colored goof fest that was the Batman tv show and brought Batman back into the shadows. For me, I've yet to see a better Batman movie.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Batman Retrospective: Part 1 Batman: The Movie
With the release of The Dark Knight Rises coming, I felt some kind of need to take a look at the path that led to what very well could be the most highly anticipated movie in recent memory. The problem comes with where to start. There have been a lot of Batman movies done over the years. Most of them animated and voiced by Kevin Conroy, the same person who voiced the Batman animated series. While such movies like Mask of the Phantasm, Under the Red Hood, and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker shouldn't be overlooked, I feel for my purposes here I should show a little more restraint and focus on the live action Batman movies. But I'd say there are worse ways to spend an evening than watching some of these animated movies. They are phenominal and Mark Hamill as the Joker is priceless.
To start our retrospective on the live action Batman movies, we might as well start at the beginning. All the way back from 1966, it's Batman: The Movie!
Back then there was a very popular television series called, Batman. It was a largely tounge-in-cheek style comedy starring Adam West and Burt Ward as the fabled caped crusaders. In the tv series, Batman played by Adam West, is your classic good guy. He helps out the police, he doesn't swear, no guns, and always has a quick quip to share. And with Batman was of course the Boy Wonder, Robin played by Burt Ward. Much like The Dark Knight himself, he's quick with his signiture catchphrase "Holy_________ __________, Batman!" Just fill in the blanks with something barely coherent and there you have a catchphrase. The dangers faced by villians like the Riddler, Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, or even Mr. Freeze were never quite wrapped up in time leading to our narrator's catchphrase, "Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel!"
Despite how rediculous the series was and how mind blowingly different it was to the Batman comics, the tv show was a huge hit. It lasted three seasons because while it was popular, the episodes became absolutely bat squeak insane. Budget cuts also led to poor set designs and half hearted efforts at reoccuring characters.
But during the high point in the show's popularity, we had the 1966 movie starring Batman, Robin, and all his greatest villians. The plot is about as silly as the tv show. Four villians get a machine that dehydrates people and hold the world hostage. So, Batman has to save the day. And he does.
This is a movie that definately is a product of it's time. It is brightly colored, an emphasis on comedy and slapstick, but a cast of acting talent that would make any director jealous. With Caesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Lee Meriwether, and Frank Gorshin acting as the villians to Adam West and Burt Ward's heroes, while a cheesy, silly, and sometimes annoying film, it still has a charm unlike any other. It's the kind of movie that just doesn't work in the 21st century but for a little nostalgia, it's a fun piece to laugh at.
To start our retrospective on the live action Batman movies, we might as well start at the beginning. All the way back from 1966, it's Batman: The Movie!
Back then there was a very popular television series called, Batman. It was a largely tounge-in-cheek style comedy starring Adam West and Burt Ward as the fabled caped crusaders. In the tv series, Batman played by Adam West, is your classic good guy. He helps out the police, he doesn't swear, no guns, and always has a quick quip to share. And with Batman was of course the Boy Wonder, Robin played by Burt Ward. Much like The Dark Knight himself, he's quick with his signiture catchphrase "Holy_________ __________, Batman!" Just fill in the blanks with something barely coherent and there you have a catchphrase. The dangers faced by villians like the Riddler, Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, or even Mr. Freeze were never quite wrapped up in time leading to our narrator's catchphrase, "Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel!"
Despite how rediculous the series was and how mind blowingly different it was to the Batman comics, the tv show was a huge hit. It lasted three seasons because while it was popular, the episodes became absolutely bat squeak insane. Budget cuts also led to poor set designs and half hearted efforts at reoccuring characters.
But during the high point in the show's popularity, we had the 1966 movie starring Batman, Robin, and all his greatest villians. The plot is about as silly as the tv show. Four villians get a machine that dehydrates people and hold the world hostage. So, Batman has to save the day. And he does.
This is a movie that definately is a product of it's time. It is brightly colored, an emphasis on comedy and slapstick, but a cast of acting talent that would make any director jealous. With Caesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Lee Meriwether, and Frank Gorshin acting as the villians to Adam West and Burt Ward's heroes, while a cheesy, silly, and sometimes annoying film, it still has a charm unlike any other. It's the kind of movie that just doesn't work in the 21st century but for a little nostalgia, it's a fun piece to laugh at.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man Review: America's Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
A lot has been said about rebooting a movie franchise that is only 10 years old. But if any comic book fan were to watch the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies, I think they'd be the first to say that this is a series that needs some new blood. The first Spiderman movie starring Tobey Maguire was wonderful. Amazing performance by William DeFoe as the Green Goblin and James Franco as Harry Osborne really carried the film despite sub par performances by Kirsten Dunst, Tobey Maguire, and a not too talented supporting cast. The writing was very cheesy and just never really struck the notes it wanted. But man was it fun to see William DeFoe grin it up and chew the scenery. And a lot can be said for the American "hoo-rah" moments following the 9/11 tragedy. Overall a good film... but nothing noteworthy.
Then there was Spider-Man 2 and 3... the levels of betrayal can't even begin to be calculated. Spider-Man 2 really was a victim of trying to incorporate too much of the comics into one movie. There were elements of the Neogenic Nightmare plus the love dodecahedron between Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Jay Jameson, and Harry Osborne. Then there was the main plot involving Doctor Octopus which had a lot of dramatic weight starring Alfred Molina who was superbly cast as Otto Octavius. Spider-Man losing his powers and dealing with his guilt over losing Uncle Ben. There was just too much going on and none of it ever got the time it deserved and often resolved in a very unsatisfying way. For example Spider-Man getting his powers back because he wanted them. And that's it. Very disappointing movie.
The first two Spider-Man movies made a lot of money and for some reason had Marvel fans still wanting more. But the reason they wanted more can be summed up in one word: VENOM!!! And that's what we got in Spider-Man 3... kind of... A brief explanation: Venom is to Spider-Man what the Joker is to Batman, Lex Luthor is to Superman, or peanut butter is to chocolate. Two amazing characters with very distinct and diametrically opposed personalities locked in mortal combat with each other. They help to define each other in ways that weaken the other without their presence. Spider-Man is quick, nimble, a smart mouth, and brilliant. Venom is vicious, cruel, muscular, and the very definition of sadism. And in this movie Venom is played by that scrawny dude from That 70's show. (Topher Grace)
If that wasn't enough when Peter was possessed by the Venom Symbiote he became a laughing stock. Tobey Maguire looked rediculous. In the comics it turned Peter Parker into a punk. A guy who was far more likely to punch someone in the mouth or even torture a bad guy. There was a lot of Jekyll and Hyde type drama and in Spider-Man 3 that kind of drama was virtually a comedic subplot with Peter Parker strutting down the street looking emo. Then there was the other sub-plot involving the Sandman... and again the Peter/Mary Jane love subplot... and also a Harry Osborne/Green Goblin subplot... It lacked any kind of focus, there was too much going on, Venom was a HUGE disappointment, and nothing about the movie was at all faithful to the comics. It was a betrayal to an incredibly loyal and finicky fanbase.
So, with the success of the Avengers and various other Marvel Comics movies, a reboot was definately in order.
Not to say the movie didn't have to oversome some obsticles. The first that I've already said, the older Spider-Man franchise isn't that old. So, the story is going to share a lot of the same plot points. The death of Uncle Ben, Peter balancing the demands of being Spider-Man with being a high school teenager, his rivalry with Flash Thompson, etc. It does give the movie a very "sameness" feel to it. That is something they tried to overcome with a new villian, a new love interest, emphasis on Peter's parents, and a gigantic upgrade in acting talent. Acting legends Sally Field and Martin Sheen are brought in to play Uncle Ben and Aunt May, Andrew Garfield plays Spider-Man much more as a wise cracking kid, DENIS LEARY had a great role as Captian Stacy, and then there's Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.
Despite a really bad role, Emma Stone really took what she was given and made it into something watchable. I've become a big fan of hers after seeing movies like Zombieland and Easy A. If you haven't seen them yet, they are some of the kinds of comedy they just don't make when people go see garbage like Ted or American Reunion. Then I saw The Help and I'm sold. I'll watch any movie if Emma Stone is in it.
But then there's the story. It is a much more gritty version than the Sam Raimi movies. It takes it a lot more seriously but does have some great comedic moments. The problem is that there are a lot of plot holes it tries to hand wave away as either set-up for the next movie or just never addressed. It's a tight story but man there were times I was just scratching my head. Too many things "just happen". Much of the story really doesn't get over that "sameness" hurdle. It never sets itself apart from not just every other action movie or comic book movie, it doesn't even break the formula from recent MARVEL movies. Every fight scene is largely predictable, the dramatic scenes are more hammy than legitimate drama, the love story often feels forced, and they leave many things unresolved coupled with an ending credits teaser to generate interest in the sequel.
Bottom Line: It's a good movie, but it's nothing special.
Then there was Spider-Man 2 and 3... the levels of betrayal can't even begin to be calculated. Spider-Man 2 really was a victim of trying to incorporate too much of the comics into one movie. There were elements of the Neogenic Nightmare plus the love dodecahedron between Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Jay Jameson, and Harry Osborne. Then there was the main plot involving Doctor Octopus which had a lot of dramatic weight starring Alfred Molina who was superbly cast as Otto Octavius. Spider-Man losing his powers and dealing with his guilt over losing Uncle Ben. There was just too much going on and none of it ever got the time it deserved and often resolved in a very unsatisfying way. For example Spider-Man getting his powers back because he wanted them. And that's it. Very disappointing movie.
The first two Spider-Man movies made a lot of money and for some reason had Marvel fans still wanting more. But the reason they wanted more can be summed up in one word: VENOM!!! And that's what we got in Spider-Man 3... kind of... A brief explanation: Venom is to Spider-Man what the Joker is to Batman, Lex Luthor is to Superman, or peanut butter is to chocolate. Two amazing characters with very distinct and diametrically opposed personalities locked in mortal combat with each other. They help to define each other in ways that weaken the other without their presence. Spider-Man is quick, nimble, a smart mouth, and brilliant. Venom is vicious, cruel, muscular, and the very definition of sadism. And in this movie Venom is played by that scrawny dude from That 70's show. (Topher Grace)
If that wasn't enough when Peter was possessed by the Venom Symbiote he became a laughing stock. Tobey Maguire looked rediculous. In the comics it turned Peter Parker into a punk. A guy who was far more likely to punch someone in the mouth or even torture a bad guy. There was a lot of Jekyll and Hyde type drama and in Spider-Man 3 that kind of drama was virtually a comedic subplot with Peter Parker strutting down the street looking emo. Then there was the other sub-plot involving the Sandman... and again the Peter/Mary Jane love subplot... and also a Harry Osborne/Green Goblin subplot... It lacked any kind of focus, there was too much going on, Venom was a HUGE disappointment, and nothing about the movie was at all faithful to the comics. It was a betrayal to an incredibly loyal and finicky fanbase.
So, with the success of the Avengers and various other Marvel Comics movies, a reboot was definately in order.
Not to say the movie didn't have to oversome some obsticles. The first that I've already said, the older Spider-Man franchise isn't that old. So, the story is going to share a lot of the same plot points. The death of Uncle Ben, Peter balancing the demands of being Spider-Man with being a high school teenager, his rivalry with Flash Thompson, etc. It does give the movie a very "sameness" feel to it. That is something they tried to overcome with a new villian, a new love interest, emphasis on Peter's parents, and a gigantic upgrade in acting talent. Acting legends Sally Field and Martin Sheen are brought in to play Uncle Ben and Aunt May, Andrew Garfield plays Spider-Man much more as a wise cracking kid, DENIS LEARY had a great role as Captian Stacy, and then there's Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.
Despite a really bad role, Emma Stone really took what she was given and made it into something watchable. I've become a big fan of hers after seeing movies like Zombieland and Easy A. If you haven't seen them yet, they are some of the kinds of comedy they just don't make when people go see garbage like Ted or American Reunion. Then I saw The Help and I'm sold. I'll watch any movie if Emma Stone is in it.
But then there's the story. It is a much more gritty version than the Sam Raimi movies. It takes it a lot more seriously but does have some great comedic moments. The problem is that there are a lot of plot holes it tries to hand wave away as either set-up for the next movie or just never addressed. It's a tight story but man there were times I was just scratching my head. Too many things "just happen". Much of the story really doesn't get over that "sameness" hurdle. It never sets itself apart from not just every other action movie or comic book movie, it doesn't even break the formula from recent MARVEL movies. Every fight scene is largely predictable, the dramatic scenes are more hammy than legitimate drama, the love story often feels forced, and they leave many things unresolved coupled with an ending credits teaser to generate interest in the sequel.
Bottom Line: It's a good movie, but it's nothing special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)