Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Review

BvS? No, more like just BS! But seriously, this movie blows.

Man of Steel - Review

Considering the state of cinema in this day and age, it's always important to keep one's expectations somewhat in line. That's not to say that, considering the rising prices of movie tickets, one shouldn't expect a quality flick whenever they go out to the movies... that's perfectly reasonable. That said, if you expect that every film you pay to see to be some kind of a masterpiece... well, you're most likely setting yourself up for disappointment.  I mention all of this because the hype surrounding Man of Steel has been pretty immense. I certainly don't envy the pressure Zack Snyder must have felt in bringing back Superman to cinematic world. I mean, this isn't some offbeat or semi-famous superhero... this is Superman we're talking here. He's arguably the most well-known, influential, and flat-out important character to ever grace the medium of comic books. That's not even the half of it though. For starters, there hasn't been a truly worthy Superman film to hit theaters since 1980's Superman II. Not to mention, DC Comics hasn't exactly been on fire with it's movie adaptations outside of Nolan's Batman films. The only other DC movie to recently grace the silver screen was 2011's Green Lantern... AND IT SUCKED! To top it all off... this movie also shoulders the responsibility for a jumping off point for a in-continuity DC movie universe AND a Justice League movie! That's a lot of responsibility to bare, and most filmmakers probably wouldn't be up to the task. So yeah... the hype on this film has been quite substantial, to say the least. I'm going to do my best to review the film strictly on it's own merits, but I'd be lying if I told you that my affinity for comics, appreciation for the Superman legacy, and the state of DC's movie division didn't, in some way, affect my opinion for this movie. With all that said, how does Man of Steel fare?

Man of Steel is a complete reboot of the Superman film series, with absolutely no continuity within the previous Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh timeline. The film opens up on the planet Krypton, a distant world on the verge of total apocalypse after the depletion of it's natural resources. Knowing of the planet's imminent destruction, the high ranking scientist, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer), send their newborn son, Kal-El, to planet Earth, to ensure his survival. Amidst all the chaos on Krypton is a conflict started by General Zod (Michael Shannon), a military leader who is bent on taking control of Krypton and preserving it's name, even by violent means. After murdering Jor-El, General Zod and his small band of soldiers, are banished to the Phantom Zone and sent into the depths of space. After Kal-El's ship leaves Krypton, he lands on Earth in the town of Smallville, Kansas. Here, he is taken in by Jonathan & Martha Kent (Kevin Costner & Diane Lane), local farmers who name him Clark and raise him as their son. As Clark grows older, he develops incredible powers including incredible strength, speed, and senses. Knowing that he is not of this world, Clark spends most of his youth as an outcast, discouraged by his parents from using his powers until the time is right. When Clark reaches adulthood (played by Henry Cavill) he becomes a drifter, travelling from town to town working random jobs, helping people when he can, but keeping a low profile. This all changes when he meets an ambitious reporter from the city of Metropolis named Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who earnestly seeks information about this mysterious man with incredible strength and a penchant for saving the day. Soon after meeting Lois, Clark learns of his origins and takes on the mantle of Superman, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman's destiny suddenly becomes more real, as General Zod and his army make their way to Earth with their sights set on planetary destruction...

I'm going to do something here that I don't normally do. Even though I mentioned that I was aiming to give this film a strictly objective review without any bias from previous Superman films/shows/comics/etc, I feel it's best to at least mention where I'm coming from, at least on the film end. The 1978 film, Superman: The Motion Picture directed by Richard Donner, was the first comic book film to receive a big budget studio treatment. While comic book movies had existed beforehand, this was the first property to receive such a lavish treatment, from it's large budget, recognizable cast, and groundbreaking special effects. Newcomer Christopher Reeve played the Man of Steel, and became synonymous with the role. Even today, he is generally considered by many (myself included) as the best actor to take up the cape. The film itself is, even to this day, by all accounts excellent, and still one of the best superhero films of all time. 1980's Superman II was a worthy follow-up, adding Kryptonian enemies into the mix along with some memorable action scenes. While some of the special effects haven't aged well and a few parts drag a bit, it's still a pretty great film on it's own right. 1983's Superman III took a more comedic direction, adding comedian Richard Pryor to the cast, while providing Superman with a new set of foes. The film was... pretty bad actually. While it had a few decent scenes, it never was as engaging as it's predecessors, plus the film's attempt at comedy completely backfired when it turned out the jokes were painfully unfunny (an unfortunate mark on Richard Pryor's near-flawless comedic record). As for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace... the less said about that disaster the better. After the abysmal failure of the fourth entry, the series remained in development hell for nearly 20 years, with filmmaker after filmmaker trying (and failing) to resurrect the franchise. Names ranging from Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, McG, JJ Abrams, and others all tried (whether as a director, writer, producer, or whatever) in to bring Superman back to the screen. It wasn't until 2006 when Superman made his return in... Superman Returns, a pseudo-sequel to the Richard Donner flicks directed by Bryan Singer. The film was... okay overall. It benefited from some strong direction, good special effects, and an enjoyable supporting cast. Unfortunately, it suffered from questionable story-choices, a miscast Lois & Clark, and too many similarities to it's predecessors. So yeah... despite a strong start, Superman has had kind of a bumpy ride on the screen the last few years.

So after all that, how's Man of Steel? Overall, it's pretty good... not perfect, but a damn good effort and, for the most part, a worthy entry to the iconic series. Is it the best in the series? No, not even close. The first two still loom pretty high, but this entry is miles better than parts III & IV (granted, that's not saying much), and does improve on some of the flaws from Superman Returns (that said, there were some things in that film that were done better than this). Still, while it's fairly unavoidable, it's unfair to judge a film based on how it compares to it's predecessors and/or source material. Judged strictly on it's own merits, it's well-made from a technical standpoint yet kind of flawed, though ambitious, from a narrative perspective. What works and what doesn't wasn't totally obvious right away, and I had to sit on this film for a bit to give a fair review. After a week of contemplating, I think I've got it.

I've mentioned before that, as much as I like Nolan's Batman films, I'm not exactly on board with the influence they've had on films today. It seems like pretty much every genre film these days has to be dark, drab, and edgy... and Man of Steel is no exception. Listen, I'm not saying that all Superman films have to be lighthearted and campy, or that there haven't been darker themed stories in previous Superman comics... it's just that it seemed like whoever was responsible for this film (whether it be Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, or whoever) tried to combine darker Batman-like themes while still trying to incorporate Superman's uplifting themes of hope, justice, patriotism, etc. The end result is... kind of messy and unfocused. Most of the film is so somber, drab, and melancholy, that it's attempt to portray tones of heroism and hope often fail to connect. That's not to say that there aren't certain elements of the story or individual scenes that don't work. The flashback scenes of Clark's upbringing in Smallville are pretty good, even if they do contain a few cliche'd or overdone tropes. I also really dug the opening set on Krypton, which arguably contained the film's most memorable scenes. At times, the story works, but as an overall narrative... it's kind of disappointing.

For all of the film's flaws, the strong cast helps to elevate it. Henry Cavill makes a strong impression as the new Superman, showing some promising dramatic ability and holding his own in the action scenes. Because of the film's somber tone, he spends most of the movie in a depressed or angry state, and doesn't really give him the chance to truly explore his character's personality. Michael Shannon pretty much owns his scenes as General Zod in a memorable scenery-chewing performance. Shannon has always been an underrated character actor, and I'm hoping his role as Zod will lead to bigger and better parts. Russell Crowe turned out to be a good choice as Jor-El, giving an enjoyable portrayal of Kal-El's Kryptonian father, and helping to forget his bland performance in Les Miserables. Two of the stand-outs were Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Martha & Jonathan Kent (Clark's Adoptive Parents), making the best of their relatively small parts with some of the film's standout scenes. The only actor who comes up a little short would have to be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Amy Adams, and she generally does a good job here as Lane, but her character is one of the film's most underdeveloped, and as a result Adams has a hard time making any real impression. Plus, the chemistry between her and Cavill is pretty much non-existent.  Any of their on screen "romance" (and I use that term loosely) is forced, rushed, and thrown in basically as an afterthought. The rest of the cast is across the board good, no real complaints acting-wise.

Director Zack Snyder has received... let's say "mixed" reactions toward some of his previous film efforts. He was mainly showered with praise for his surprisingly decent remake of Dawn of the Dead and the good-but-not great adaptation of Frank Miller's 300. His adaptation of the "un-filmable" graphic novel Watchmen polarized audiences, but I'm in the camp of people who pretty much loved what he did with the film. His most recent film, Sucker Punch, while ambitious and well-intentioned, didn't quite strike the chord I think he was going for and is generally seen as a failure. Still, while he hasn't quite made a masterpiece yet, there's a lot about his directorial style that I've liked. In an industry plagued by remakes, imitations, and lack of originality, Snyder has always attempted big, audacious, and risky projects bringing his unique visual style to the final product. While Man of Steel's story was hit and miss, Snyder's direction did a lot to bring something interesting to the film. For starters, the guy has an incredible eye for visuals. While the film did include a little more shaky cam than I would have appreciated, it was still full of beautifully composed shots, incredible effects, and a general artistic style that honored it's source material and tried something new. For once, I didn't feel like the film was simply trying to capture the feel of the 1978 and instead tried changing it up... that's commendable. The scenes on Krypton were probably my favorite, in how they designed a planet that was reminiscent of the classic look but also felt unique. I was a little disappointed by the new Fortress of Solitude though, mainly how they changed it from a cool-looking alien-ice castle into a fairly generic spaceship, albeit with a few nifty Kryptonian influences. As for the action... it's pretty much incredible. It runs a bit long at times, namely in the finale, but between some great cgi, expertly paced fights, and big explosions, there's more than enough to satisfy any action junkies looking for their fix. From a strictly visual perspective, the film is not quite perfect, but pretty close.

So is Man of Steel the Superman film we've all been waiting for??? No, but we're getting there. The script had it's issues, both in narrative and tone, but there were some good ideas and promising set-ups. That said, the cast was solid, the action was exciting, and the visuals were pretty spectacular. To no surprise, the film ended with strong hints toward a sequel, and while I don't think this film was perfect, there's a lot to work with and much potential for another. If you haven't seen Man of Steel yet though... I'd say check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Top 10 Superhero Movies

I've been on a real superhero kick lately haven't I? Well, when your a big superhero nerd like myself, it's hard not to buy into the hype every summer when studios like to release their high profile comic book-inspired blockbusters to the public. Though between Batman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, Chronicle, and not to mention the other films I've been revisiting on Blu-Ray the last few months, I'm starting to feel a bit superhero-ed out. So... let's finish off the summer with a list of my ten favorite superhero films of all time.

It was tough to compile this list. I'm such a nerd when it comes to comic book movies that I've got tons of favorites and in some ways, it felt like choosing which kids I liked better. There were a couple films that just barely missed the list, so if your favorite isn't here, keep in mind that it probably was a finalist but just lost by just a hair. I decided to do only one film per franchise, so the list wouldn't be full of numerous sequels or remakes taking the credit. Also, with apologies to The Avengers, while despite being an awesome movie, I need to see it one or two more times to fairly evaluate it among the following (since most of these I've seen more than once). But enough stalling, here are my Top 10 Favorite Superhero movies.

10. Unbreakable (2000)
It's weird to think of a time when M. Night Shyamalan wasn't the laughing-stock of the film industry (doesn't that seem like forever ago). Still, prior to his critical flame-out, the guy was putting out some pretty creative and interesting takes on established genres, and his interpretation on superhero mythos is my personal favorite of his directorial efforts (yes, I like this one more than The Sixth Sense). Focusing less on action in favor of character-based drama and suspense, Unbreakable's analysis on the birth of a hero brings real-life sensibilities to the notion of the formation of a super powered individual. While the ending is a little on the nose and leaves far more to be desired, the top notch performances from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson along with M. Night's stylistic direction and script makes the film one hell of a movie. It's an often underrated and forgotten film that is definitely worth checking out.

9. Iron Man (2008)
A perfect film it's not, but Iron Man nonetheless succeeds hugely thanks to an interesting take on the superhero genre plus a memorable performance from Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The first third of the movie is great, the second act isn't too shabby, but the final third is just okay. It was kind of neat to see a superhero who wasn't trying to save the world per se, but rather just cleaning up his own mess after putting that said world in danger. Jeff Bridges gives his all as the villainous Obadiah Stane aka Iron Monger, but his character was kind of one-note and predictable. That said, the great action, sweet effects, and Downey Jr's incredible presence as Stark elevated this film from just good to pretty damn awesome. Oh, and it didn't hurt that this film kicked off the Marvel connected universe and the countdown to The Avengers.

8. Captain America: The First Aveger (2011)
I know that this film tends to somewhat divide audiences. There are lots who loved it but also plenty who considered it cheesy and corny. Personally, I'm in the camp that absolutely loves it. It's a superhero film plus a WWII epic, how could I not like that? Yes, the movie has some campy overtones, but that's exactly the reason why I dug it so much. Taking inspiration from WWII-era serials, the film blends both retro and modern filmmaking aesthetics, creating a film that has all the fun of an old time picture show and a modern summer blockbuster. It finds a near-perfect balance between it's retro/campy appeal plus some legitimate human drama. It also boasted a great cast led by Chris Evans as the titular Captain, along with some great visuals and stellar costume design. What else can I say, but I just love this movie.

7. Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
It's really a shame that the Hellboy movies aren't as popular as they could be, since these are some of the most creative and entertaining superhero flicks out there. Guillermo Del Toro is one the most visionary filmmakers working today, and he brings his artistic eye seen in his previous effort, Pan's Labyrinth to these films too. Hellboy II picks up where the first film left off, digs deeper into it's characters and mythos through stellar art direction, visual effects, and it's great cast. Ron Pearlman's performance as Hellboy is always a blast to watch, as he blends the character with a great balance of wit, toughness, and humanity... and that's saying a lot when you consider that Hellboy is, at his core, a demon. Either way, these films are pretty damn awesome and if you haven't seen either one, definitely check them out. Hopefully we'll one day get a third flick to complete the trilogy.

6. Watchmen (2009)
It's a real testament to the talent of a director (in this case Zack Snyder) when he can not only adapt a graphic novel that has often been called "un-filmable" but also make it into a pretty incredible film on it's own right. I don't want to overstate the film too much, as there are a few elements of the novel that (as predicted) don't translate quite perfectly to screen as one would like. Still, just the fact that Watchmen made it to theaters in such glorious style is damn-near a miracle. The movie looks fantastic, with a style and aesthetic consisting of beautiful art direction, excellently composed cinematography, and some sweet action. While the story and some of the actors have a few hiccups, it still manages to convey most of the legendary graphic novel's themes and messages without ruining any of the characters. Oh and Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach... Hell Yeah!!!

5. X-Men: First Class (2011)
There had been four live action X-Men films prior to this prequel. The first two were quite good, the third was just okay, and the fourth (the Wolverine spin-off) was pretty bad actually. The fifth film, a prequel entitled X-Men: First Class, was admittedly pretty damn awesome. Despite being plagued by a rushed production schedule and some hit-and-miss visual effects, the film found a winning combination of a great cast, great story, and great style. The friendship between Charles Xavier aka Professor X and Eric Lencher aka Magneto was the highlight of the film, featuring an uneasy alliance between two powerful mutant individuals whose ideals couldn't have been more different. More than that, Matthew Vaughn's slick direction, which borrowed heavily from golden age 007 flicks, led to a great sense of style, some awesome action scenes, and strong performances from it's talented cast. What can I say, but this was just a first class flick.

4. Superman (1978)
While it's no secret that many superhero movies made before the 90s haven't exactly aged gracefully (though there are exceptions), the original Superman still holds up remarkably well. The first big budget superhero flick, the film's tagline was, "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly"... and we still do. A great cast, memorable set pieces, an amazing musical score, and some classic scenes, this adaptation is still flying high Christopher Reeve's memorable performance as the Man of Steel is enjoyable both as Superman and Clark Kent. The film also benefits from the enjoyable villain, Lex Luthor, played by Gene Hackman who in addition to being the villain also adds some comic relief. I also dug the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane (played to perfection by Margot Kidder), as the two shared some great chemistry in a romance that doesn't overshadow the main story. It also doesn't hurt to have Marlon Brando as Supes father, Jor-El, because Brando is just that much of a legend. Finally, I have to mention the outstanding musical score by the great John Williams. Everytime I hear that classic Superman theme, I get goosebumps, it's just perfect. Superman, admittedly, hasn't aged flawlessly, but there's no doubt that what works in this film... really works! It was awesome then and it's awesome now.

3. The Incredibles (2004)
Comedic legend Mel Brooks once said that the best movie parodies are done out of a love of the content being spoofed. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Pixar's animated superhero satire. The film, about a family of super powered individuals thrust back into action after trying to live a quiet suburban life, clearly wears it's love for comic books on it's sleeve. It pokes fun at the genre's cliches, but it does so by laughing along with those cliches as opposed to at them, and still manages to deliver a fun and exciting superhero epic complete with all the action you would expect out of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. Best of all, the film boasts an outstanding script compliments of writer/director Brad Bird with fully realized three dimensional characters and themes of family relationships and companionship. Throw in some stand-out voice over work from it's talented cast plus Pixar's always impressive animation, and you have a winner. Not just a good satire, but a damn great film in it's own right.

2. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The first Spider-Man flick, released in 2002, struck a chord with audiences and critics mainly through B-Movie director Sam Raimi's knack for creating a world blending 60s comic book sensibilities and stylized modern filmmaking aesthetics. The sequel, released two years later, took everything that worked in the first while improving on everything that didn't. We get a solidly character driven narrative as Peter Parker (played once again by Toby Maguire) struggles to balance his everyday life as himself and his responsibilities as the web-slinger. Best of all, the film introduced one of Spidey's most famous comic book foes, Otto Octavius aka Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina), as a once decent man turned to villainy after a terrible tragedy. Doc Ock's sympathetic backstory made him a dynamic and intimidating foe, leading to a good hero/villain rivalry. Throw in some absolutely bad-ass action scenes (that train scene is still one of my favorite movie action scenes of all time), Raimi's trademark cinematography, and some legitimate suspense mixed with fun comic book sensibilities, and you have one of the best comic-to-screen translations of all time.

1. The Dark Knight (2008)
Yeah... I know this was an obvious choice, and as much as I would have liked to think of something a little more out of the box, there's just no denying that The Dark Knight set and continues to hold the standard for the genre. Taking inspiration from gritty crime genres and throwing in the Caped Crusader, The Dark Knight wasn't a spot-on adaptation of Batman comics, but rather a fully realized film that honored the themes and virtues the comics had stood for. It's a constantly suspenseful crime saga with an outstanding cast, commendable story, intriguing characters, mind-blowing action, and one of the greatest villains to ever grace the screen. Heath Ledger's iconic performance as the Joker is nothing short of legendary, taking bits of inspiration from previous incarnations while still bringing his own touches to create a villain that was both familiar, unique, scary, funny, and all around perfect. I have no doubt that someday, a talented team will make a new superhero flick that will top this one, but until that day comes, The Dark Knight will continue to reign supreme as the undisputed champion of superhero flicks.

So these are my top 10 favorite superhero films to grace the silver screen. Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think and leave a comment.

And just because I feel bad for leaving some out, here are a couple of honorable mentions.
The Avengers, Kick-Ass, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, V For Vendetta and The Rocketeer.

Batman Forever - Review

The third entry of the Batman film series, known as Batman Forever, saw one of the strangest changes in tone in direction I've ever seen in a direct sequel. Lessening the darker and adult themes of the first two films, Batman Forever saw a return to the campy themes of the 60s TV series while only retaining an element or two of it's predecessors's darker vibes. The reason for that is pretty easy to understand. When Batman Returns was released in 1992, it struck a bad chord with concerned parents. For a series that had such a prominent child fan-base, many parents objected to the excessive violence and darker overtones of the film. While the film still struck box office gold, it made merchandising incredibly difficult. As a result, toy and other merchandise sales fell short of expectations. So for the new movie, Tim Burton was removed from the director's chair and replaced with Joel Schumacher in an effort to make a more child-friendly and marketable Batman film. The result was Batman Forever... a rather odd piece of cinema that tends to receive fairly mixed opinions from audiences. I have to admit that my feelings for this movie have continued to change over the years. I loved it as a kid, hated it as a teen, and as an adult... actually I hadn't seen it in years. Re-watching this one, to say the least, was an interesting experience. For the first time, I had the opportunity to truly experience this film as an adult. After removing the nostalgia goggles, here's what I thought of Batman Forever.

Taking place some time after Batman Returns (it's not explicitly state though), the Dark Knight (now played by Val Kilmer) continues to protect the streets of Gotham City from the criminal underworld, now taking on two new foes. The first of which is Harvey Dent aka Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), a former District Attorney for Gotham turned criminal madman after a mobster through acid onto the left side of his face, leaving him horribly scarred. Dent blamed Batman for failing to stop the mob attack, and as a result went insane, developing a split personality and deciding the fate of his victims by flipping his special coin. Batman's second enemy arrives in the form of the brilliant though completely insane Edward Nygma aka The Riddler (Jim Carrey). Nygma was once an employee of his idol, Bruce Wayne, but when Wayne himself rejected Nygma's invention, a brain manipulating entertainment device, he took it personally and vowed revenge on the billionaire philanthropist. Taking on the mantra of The Riddler, he leaves clues and puzzles for Wayne to solve all while causing havoc on the city streets with Two-Face. Meanwhile, Wayne romances Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), a psychiatrist who helps Wayne conquer his tragic past as well as his struggling identities. All while this is happening, Wayne takes in a young man named Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell), a circus acrobat whose family was murdered at the hands of Two-Face. Bent on revenge, Grayson soon discovers the secret of Batman and becomes determined to join him in his mission of protecting the city. 

Eeesh... it's easy to see why so many superhero films prefer to include only one villain. When you throw more than that into the mix, the plots feel so cluttered and messy that it becomes next to impossible to actually tell a coherent story... and this is no exception. It's really too bad, since this is honestly the closest a Batman movie has ever truly tried to explore the darker themes and psyche of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego. Dr. Meridian helps understand why he took on the mantra of Batman, why he feels the need to protect the city, and to deal with the fear and anger he has been facing since witnessing his parents' deaths. The interactions between Wayne and Grayson have their moments too. Wayne sees a lot of himself in the young Grayson, a young man determined to get revenge on the psycho that killed his family is all too familiar for Bruce. It is this, along with his previous status as a lone crime fighter, that he remains reluctant to take in a partner. By the time Grayson takes up the mantle of Robin, it's a pretty cool result. This is actually some pretty interesting stuff. When the movies decides to focus strictly on these aspects, it's actually pretty good. You really get a feel for the pain both Bruce and Dick face in their struggles and it makes for a decent movie. 

Unfortunately, when the movie breaks away from the Bruce/Dick/Chase storyline, it becomes damn near unbearable. While it had basically become a staple of the Batman movies by then to focus more on the villains than the title character, this time it's even worse. In the first movie, while it focused too much on the Joker, that movie at least had the benefit of Jack Nicholson's enjoyable (if flawed) performance to carry the movie. In Batman Returns, the Penguin's disturbing subplot may have seemed out of place for a Batman film, but it at least was an intriguing look at a tragic and disturbed character (in any other movie, it might have been pretty good). Here, the villains have the unfortunate quality of being both boring AND annoying, and believe me that's no easy feat. It's not like there wasn't material to work with here either. Two-Face was one of the comics' most interesting and tragic foes, a once passionate cruasder for good fallen by the hands of the criminal underwold. A character with a split personality has all kinds of interesting "Jekyll and Hyde" possiblities, but the movie never goes there. Instead, he's relegated to an over-the-top cackling villain with no depth or any real determinate personality. The Riddler isn't much better. Like Two-Face, he has also been resorted to more of a punch line, spitting out stupid one-liners and chewing the scenery. The riddles and puzzles he's constantly leaving make no sense and contribute little to the plot. Oh, and about those one-liners... THEY ARE PAINFUL!!! This movie has some of the lamest and dumbest dialogue I've ever heard, even by comic book standards, they're just embarrassing. The only thing positive I can say about it is that the lines aren't quite as painful as to what would come in the next film (but I'll save that for the next review). Eeesh... what a wasted opportunity. So much potential resorted to cheap jokes and dull characters. 

The cast kind of corresponds to what I had written in the above paragraphs. The actors are really only as good as the characters are written. Val Kilmer isn't half bad as the new Caped Crusader. While the script has a few interesting character beats, it doesn't have quite enough to truly let Kilmer sink himself in the role, but for what he was presented with, he does it well. Nicole Kidman isn't too bad either. While her primary job is as a love interest and (at one point anyway) damsel in distress, she makes the most of what she was given. At the very least, she makes some contributions to the plot here and there and wasn't there exclusively for sex appeal (though there's plenty of that too). Chris O'Donnell sells his role as Dick Grayson adequately, as you really do feel the pain he's going through coping with the loss of his family. He is a little older than the traditional Robin (in most interpretations, Grayson was around 10-12). Once he actually becomes Robin, he isn't really much of a superhero, but then again he was just starting out. Overall, these actors aren't too shabby.

Now, as for Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey... ugh. Jones is an excellent actor, and with an Oscar under his belt, he was a potentially great choice for Two-Face (not that this matters, but the role was originally contracted to Lando Calrisi-- I mean... Billy Dee Williams, who played Dent in the first movie). Unfortunately the script doesn't give him a damn thing to do except cackle hysterically and do, what is essentially, a lousy Joker impression. This is a major letdown, especially when you consider just how interesting of a villain Two-Face was in the comics and other adaptations. Jim Carrey as the Riddler... oh God! Jim Carrey was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time, so there's no wonder why Warner Bros wanted him to be in this film. Unfortunately, his portrayal of the Riddler is pretty much Ace Ventura if he were a villain. He brings his trademark comedic schtick to this role, and even for a character that's been portrayed as a bit over-the-top before, increases it to 11. He's neither funny nor is he threatening, instead he's just grating! He chews so much scenery that he completely steals the show... only in the worst possible way. It's like he felt the need to one-up everyone, resulting in a performance that's as annoying as it is infuriating. It's really a shame that these villains fail so miserably, especially considering the promising back-stories and actors.

In terms of technical execution... I'm kind of torn here. Like I mentioned, most of the Gothic elements from the previous two films have been replaced here in favor of a colorful campy style. Ultimately, that boils down to an aesthetic preference, but personally, I just found it to be an ugly and very questionable choice. The original went with a noir-themed aesthetic because the style was previously used in film to illustrate themes of corruption, crime, and gritty anti-heroes who teetered on the edge of darkness themselves (which is basically Batman in a nutshell). This colorful neon-heavy style was clearly an effort to give it more of a comic book come-to-life feel but that kind of aesthetic only works on the pages of a comic... as a live action film, it just looks weird and unpleasant. The action scenes have their moments, but I can't think of many truly stand-out stunts or money shots to separate this flick from the barrage of big budget blockbuster that swarm theaters every summer. That's not to say that the action scenes are bad, actually most of serve the movie just fine, they just either ring to similar to the previous Bat-flicks or other action movies. As for the costumes... this was the first movie to introduce the infamous appearance bat nipples on both the Batman and Robin costumes. It's something fans love to mock... and yeah, they are kind of strange. That's mainly since don't serve much of a purpose or function, and just add to the odd choices for this movie. So the technical execution is hit and miss... the production values are high, but the odd directorial choices are very distracting.

So that's Batman Forever... and it's not very good. I can't quite call it terrible, since the movie actually does have a few interesting moments. Still, they just don't make up for cheesy dialogue, annoying villains, and bizarre art direction. Watching it... there's just no denying that this film sold out too much of the comic's darker themes in favor of more a more kind friendly and marketable blockbuster. Though, if there's one compliment I can offer to this film, it's this... what would come next would make this one look like a masterpiece!

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Batman - Review

Lately, I've been itching to review a movie that isn't fresh on everyone's mind. Not to mention, it's been a while since I've done a franchise/series review. Seeing as how the third and final instalment of Christopher Nolan's seminal Batman trilogy is two weeks away (CAN'T WAIT!!!), I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the two movies that came before it. After making that decision, however, I came across Tim Burton's take on the Dark Knight from 1989. It had been years since I had seen that one, as well as the three films that followed. So then I thought... how about reviews of the previous live action Batman movies starting with 1989's Batman and ending with The Dark Knight Rises (with apologies to the animated movies, film serials, and Adam West movie... most of which are actually quite good, but I just don't have time to review them all). That said, does the 1989 version hold up or is it just an outdated summer blockbuster? Let's take a look! Without further ado... here's my review of Batman.

Let's start with a little intro for this one. This particular adaptation of the long-running DC comic is actually quite interesting, though more for it's history and impact on the pop culture and less for the movie itself. The character had gone through many revisions, interpretations, and changes since it's conception in 1939. The comic, plus it's various other media adaptations, had been everything from dark and gritty to campy and goofy. In fact, around the time of this movie's release, the most resonant version of Batman on the public's mind was still the campy Adam West series from the 60s, despite the comics receiving a far darker overhaul shortly after the series' cancellation. Even in pre-production, there was mass speculation on whether this movie would take a comedic or more serious direction. When the movie finally made it into production, with Burton (then a barely known up-and-comer) directing, it was decided that the darker re-imaginings of the character would make their way to the big screen. The hype was substantial, with Michael Keaton cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman who, oddly enough, was known for comedic roles (a highly controversial casting choice prior to the film's release), Jack Nicholson as the Dark Knight's arch-nemesis The Joker, and Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, Batman's love interest. Batman would go onto receive generally positive reviews from critics and audiences, making it one of the biggest blockbusters of the summer. So yeah... Batman was kind of a big deal.

The movie takes place in the dark and gritty metropolitan Gotham City. With sky-rocketing crime rates, Gotham's only protection is a mostly corrupt police force. Despite valiant efforts from the good-intentioned District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams), and well-meaning police commissioner, Jim Gordon, the city becomes increasingly unsafe. That is until a masked vigilante who dresses as a bat arrives to clean up the streets. Photographer Vicki Vale and Reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) enter the scene, determined to find this mysterious "Batman." While Vale romances Batman's alter-ego, billionaire Bruce Wayne, the criminal element rises as a new homicidal maniac takes to the streets. Jack Napier, once a violent mobster, falls into a vat of chemicals and turns into anarchy embodied, the clownish psychopath known as The Joker. Can Batman stop the Joker and eliminate the criminal element of Gotham or will the Joker's crazy murderous antics get the best of him?

A little disclaimer before I start actually reviewing the movie... as challenging as it may, I aim to give this movie a strictly neutral review as it's own film and to limit comparisons to the sequels, reboots, comic, or TV series connections. And now, on with the review.

I think the last time I actually watched this film from start to finish was something like four years ago (though I did grow up watching this one on VHS back in the day). With a new perspective, it's kind of interesting to see how much of it works and how much of it fails pretty miserably. I could say that it's strictly style over substance, but personally, I don't like that saying. On top of it being a total cliché, it also totally undermines the importance of style in a film (don't get me wrong, substance matters way more, but style can't be ignored either). A stylishly creative film lacking in any real sense of depth may not be a "good" movie, but it can at least be entertaining... which is more or less what Batman is. This is one of those films that meets the bare minimum standards for a passable plot... one that's thoroughly formulaic and has a few noticeable holes, but the characters are interesting enough and the basic setup has enough meat to keep you invested. A borderline psychopath who fights crime dressed as a bat takes on a homicidal clown with a permanent smile... yeah, I can get into that. 

Unfortunately, the story fails in many of the dos-and-don'ts of basic screenwriting. The first issue... for a movie called Batman, you might be surprised to know that he really isn't the focus of the story. Instead, the film spends waaaaay too much time focusing on the Joker, going so far to giving him more screen-time and a far more detailed backstory. 
While Nicholson is fun as the Joker (more on the performances later), this really becomes a problem. Aside from a brief flashback scene of the young Bruce Wayne witnessing his parents' murder, there's barely a hint of backstory given to Bruce Wayne himself. Some might say this makes Batman more mysterious and dangerous, but that's not really enough. We rarely get a true sense of the dread, rage, and raw emotional energy that drives him to become the Caped Crusader. He has some odd character beats that give him a bit of an edge as almost even a borderline psychopath himself, but they come off as more odd and out of place than anything. When he is asked why he took up the cape, his only reply is simply, "I don't even know why I do this." Another example is one of the most off-beat scenes, Bruce Wayne (not as Batman) confronts the Joker and has this out-of-nowhere flip out, despite little provocation or logical backing. Granted it leads to one of the few true moments of character development, but with so little character building before hand, it just leads you to think, "What the hell was that?" I know this is nitpicking, but there's just something fundamentally missing when a movie fails to provide any competent character development to it's main character.

As for the rest of the story... it's just kind of a mess. The plot has a few noticeable holes and inconsistencies that become pretty distracting. For instance... there is a scene where Batman is flying the Batwing, locks his weapons onto the Joker (who just stands there btw), fires approximately 15 shots, and doesn't even scratch the guy. Another question I always had was why did it take so long for Batman (a "Master Detective") to figure out that the Joker's hideout was at Axis Chemicals (the place where Batman knocked Jack into the chemicals in the first place)??? Even when your not nitpicking the plotholes, there's just not much to this story. The Joker's master plan of poisoning Gotham's cosmetic supplies is kind of boring. The fact that the Joker killed Wayne's parents... also kind of lame. I suppose that makes for a decent rivalry between Batman and Joker, but it's introduced very late into the film and again comes kind of out of nowhere. Plus, comic books are known for having large and sprawling worlds... the fact that Joker is the murderer of Wayne's parents just makes that said world seem smaller and way too coincidental. There's more I can nitpick here, but honestly... I think I've complained enough.

Okay... so I just spent the last few paragraphs pretty much ripping this story to shreds. Despite all that... I actually do enjoy the film. Flawed plot aside, the sheer sense of style actually does make this movie quite entertaining. The re-imagined Gotham City is essentially a combination of Gothic fantasy and 40s film noir. It looks great, and gives the setting a darker and somewhat more dangerous edge. Then you have the costumes, which for the most part are pretty awesome. While Batman's thick rubber costume severely limits Keaton's mobility (a problem that continues to this day with the Dark Knight's live action costumes), it has a neat look to it. The design for the Batmobile is arguably the best of the series and the Batwing is pure awesomeness (even if it's weapons can't target for shit). Throw in a couple of cool action scenes, some fun gadgets for Batman (or as the Joker says, "Those Wonderful Toys"), and some enjoyably over-the-top henchmen, you get your money's worth. Oh... one more thing. Danny Elfman's musical score is hands-down the best soundtrack Batman has ever received. The orchestral music compliments the film's artistic style almost perfectly. The main theme for the character quite frankly has yet to have been outdone (yes, even in the Nolan films). Though in case you were wondering what I thought of the Prince songs randomly added into the film... yeah, I could have done without those.

Finally, we come to the cast. As I mentioned, the decision to cast Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader was met with near-unanimous derision from fans prior to the film's release. An actor known primarily for comedies was definitely an odd choice. That said, the decision to cast against type worked to it's advantage. Despite all the script flaws with the character, Keaton is what makes the character. As Bruce Wayne, he is unassuming, bringing an arrogance and eccentricity to the character whenever he's around other people. He acts like a goof but not to a point where it's too over-the-top. When's he's not putting on a show, Keaton brings that darker edge to Wayne that makes you want to learn more about this guy (which I will again reiterate pissed me off when it doesn't happen). As Batman, he does the whole silent guardian of the night surprisingly well. I don't quite buy him as a master of hand-to-hand fighting, but he definitely has that same darker edge that makes it work. I don't think Keaton is the best Batman, but I did enjoy this interpretation.

As for Jack Nicholson as the Joker... it's Jack being Jack. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of Nicholson, and seeing him bounce around as the iconic villain is certainly fun. It was certainly a darker interpretation when compared to Caesar Romero's campy depiction of the 60s TV show, but there is an undeniable lack of real suspense with the character. Maybe it was Burton, maybe it was the unnecessary back-story, or maybe it was Nicholson, but aside from a few stand out scenes, I really think this version of the Joker is a tad bit overrated. That said, it's not a bad performance (I don't think Nicholson is capable of giving a bad performance), just nothing special. As for the rest, no real complaints there. Kim Basinger makes an enjoyable Vicki Vale, the romantic interest and occasional damsel in distress. Michael Gough is a suitable Alfred, as the butler/father figure to the orphaned Bruce Wayne. The rest are pretty insignificant, but they do they're job well.

So... that was a very long review. Thanks for reading it all! Summing up, this version of Batman has some very noticeable problems, but it works well enough to warrant a viewing (for the 5 people in the world who haven't seen it). You might be a bit disappointed if you were a fan back in the day to see that it doesn't hold up as well as you might expect, but overall it's pretty enjoyable. If nothing else, I'm glad the movie exists. If it hadn't, I doubt we would have seen the explosion of quality comic book movies that would come a decade later. Check it out!

My Score: 3 out of 5

Jonah Hex - Review

Since I ranked this as the 2nd worst film of 2010 a few months back (2nd to the Nightmare On Elm Street remake), I decided it would be a good idea to write a proper review for this sad excuse for a movie. What is interesting about Jonah Hex is that in the same year True Grit showed audiences the right way to make a Western, this piece of crap showed everyone the wrong way. Just how bad is this movie? Oh, where do I begin?

Loosely based on the DC comic character, bounty hunter Jonah Hex (played by Josh Brolin) is more or less your typical Western anti-hero: a gritty, brutal, and vengeful vigilante. After his family is murdered by Quentin Turnbell, a soldier Hex fought alongside in the Civil War, Turnbell brands Hex's face and leaves him for dead. Having survived the murder attempt, Hex develops a unique ability... an ability to communicate with the dead. Now, Hex goes on a quest to avenge his family and bring Turnbell to jus... geez, is there even a way to make this movie not seem so freakin' lame!

Aside from the whole "communicating with the dead" element, is there anything in this movie that hasn't been in ALMOST EVERY WESTERN MOVIE EVER MADE!!! You've got the gritty anti-hero, the asshole villain, the bureaucratic politician douche-bags, and love interest who happens to be a prostitute with a heart of gold. In all fairness though, a lot of westerns have made good on simple and typically unoriginal premises. Plus, Jonah Hex clearly isn't trying to be an accurate or straightforward Western movie, but rather a more sci-fi/action themed movie in a Western setting... though that presents the next glaring issue, that kind of crossover has seldom worked.

Anyone remember 1999's Wild Wild West, the Will Smith vehicle remake of a 60s TV show? If you don't, let me sum up the movie right here... IT WAS F**KING AWFUL!!! Since Jonah Hex works off of a similar premise, you can imagine how this would turn out. Its a barrage of cheesy ideas combined with horrendous filmmaking. Cheesy doesn't have to be a bad thing sometimes. If someone approached this material like a self award corny-but-fun action movie, it could have been entertaining. Only problem, they take the script way too seriously, and it becomes a joke in and of itself! The story is a generic premise with more holes than a golf course. Storylines go unresolved, plot elements are not explained, and almost every character is one dimensional. I can't say how faithful it is to the comics since I've haven't read them, but the overall reaction from fans of the series is that it deviates quite substantially (namely that his power to talk to the dead was not present in the comic). So in short, its a weak script with little respect for its subject matter... that's pretty bad.

Lets get one thing out of the way first... Josh Brolin as Jonah Hex. Brolin is probably the most ideal candidate for this role. His resume is comprised of a number of excellent performances (some western themed) including to No Country For Old Men, Milk, and even True Grit (which was released after this movie). And make no mistake, Brolin is the ONLY good thing in this movie. He's pretty much a badass, has some cool moments, and approaches this character with the right amount of intensity. The character is pretty bland by typical writing standards, but compared to the paper-thin depth of the supporting cast, Brolin's depiction of Hex is the only thing in the movie that actually works. Its a shame to see this kind of performance in a movie like this, because no matter how good one is, he will inevitably be brought down with the rest of the movie's excessive awfulness.

Now lets take a look at the supporting cast shall we. John Malkovich plays the villain, Quentin Turnbull. Will somebody answer me this... does Malkovich even try anymore? The guy has some really good performances under his belt, so its not like he's a bad actor. It just looked like he was phoning in a performance in this because he just didn't care (can't say I blame him). Must have only been here for a paycheck I suppose. Then we come to Will Arnett, the funnyman best known as Gob in the series, Arrested Development, here going for a more serious role as Lieutenant Grass. He actually looks like he was trying, but like most of the supporting cast, fails to engage his character in any believable or convincing way.

Finally, I guess I need to talk about Megan Fox. She plays Lillah, the aforementioned whore with a soul and love interest to Hex. First thing I have to mention, I go so sick of hearing all of those jokes made at her expense... people were saying things like, "She's finally playing a character that she could do well... a prostitute!" The jokes bothered me for two reasons... first of all, hearing them all the time got really old real fast. Second and most importantly, they propel an incredibly negative perception about Fox's acting ability that quite frankly has been wrong from the start... that Fox actually possesses the ability to play ANY role well, even that of a prostitute (hehe, had you going there for a second, didn't I?). No, I have absolutely nothing good to say about Fox. I can't think of any actress who has gotten by on nothing but sex appeal as much as Fox. She is easily one of the worst actresses working in Hollywood today. Nothing about her performance works! She is just awful!

You would think that with a bigger budget summer film like this, the technical execution would at least be passable... but nope! It looks like the team had originally intended this to be an R-Rated movie, but decided to change it at the last minute to a PG-13. As a result, the editing is an abysmal disaster! I can't think of another movie off the top off my head that had so many sloppy cuts and continuity errors. It wasn't even little cuts here and there that you have to be looking for to notice. No, it was right there, in your face, like the only way to not notice them would be to close your eyes. Almost every attempted action scene is ruined because of such amateur editing. On top of that, the camerawork is standard, the sets are basic, and everything else is pretty much middle of the road.

Overall, Jonah Hex is pretty awful. This is easily one of the worst comic book adaptions I can think of. It's right up there with Catwoman, Howard the Duck, and Batman & Robin. The only other positive thing about this movie I can think of is that the runtime is only 80 minutes... so you won't suffer long.

I give Jonah Hex a 1.5 out of 5!