Batman Begins - Review

1997's Batman & Robin managed to take in an acceptable, if not less-than-expected, profit at the box office, but the near-unanimous derision from audiences forced Warner Bros to rethink the direction of the next movie. Plans for a fifth film, then titled Batman Triumphant (which, and I am not joking about this, was going to cast Howard Stern as the Scarecrow), were scrapped in the wake of Batman & Robin's negative response. Re-thinking the direction of the series, many filmmakers pitched their various ideas and concepts. Some of which included a prequel based on the Batman: Year One comic, a live action adaptation of Batman Beyond, a crossover film with Batman vs Superman, and other concepts courtesy of directors such as Darren Aronofsky and Lee Shapiro. It was eventually announced that the new take on Batman would be helmed by director Christopher Nolan, with a script co-written by Nolan and David Goyer. The film, eventually titled Batman Begins, would be a series reboot with no continuity to the Burton/Schumacher films and would re-explore the origin of Bruce Wayne/Batman with a darker and more serious tone. I remember following news of the film's development, and to be honest, it was hard to get excited about a new Batman movie. Many were convinced that the series would never recover after the failure of Batman & Robin. It didn't help that the equally appalling failure of the Halle Berry vehicle, Catwoman, was released shortly prior to the Bat-reboot. In order for Batman Begins to make up for the sins of it's predecessor, it was going to have to be one hell of a good film. The film was finally released on June 15, 2005, and it became clear that that Dark Knight finally got a respectable film!

Christian Bale stars as the new caped crusader, re-exploring the origin of the Dark Knight and the events that made him the fearless protector of Gotham City. The film shows Bruce a young, 10-year-old boy, living a luxurious life in Gotham, despite the city having fallen to corruption and organized crime. After his philanthropist parents were gunned down in front of the young Bruce, he grew up bitter, angry, and guilty... with a mind bent on revenge. Seven years go by, and when the vengeful Wayne finally gets his chance to take his revenge, someone else beats him to the punch. He then leaves Gotham to travel the world and study the criminal mind, where he is then taken in by a man named Ducard, who represents an ancient Ninja order known as The League of Shadows, led by a mysterious man named Ra's Al Ghul. Sharing Bruce's hatred from crime and evil, Ducard trains Bruce to conquer his anger and inflict fear on the faces of his enemies all while pushing him to his physical limits. After his training is complete, Bruce rejects the League of Shadows offer to lead their army once he discovers that their plans for justice involve killing their enemies, and worse yet, their next target is Gotham city. After temporarily sabotaging their plans, Bruce returns to Gotham to save the city from corruption and crime. Upon returning, Wayne unleashes his alter-ego, Batman, created to strike fear into hearts of Gotham's criminals and remove the corrupt element from Gotham.

Anywho, Batman Begins was by no means the first live action Batman movie, but it was the first one to get it right! Finally, we had a live action Batman movie that didn't shortchange the main character for the villain. Not to mention, it's led by an incredibly creative and insightful director who seemed invested in the characters and mythos behind them. Removing the surreal fantasy element from the previous films in favor of gritty realism (well, as realistic as a superhero can get), this is easily the most human and believable film adaptation of the Caped Crusader. Batman Begins details the development of the Batman persona, along with the rage and guilt that drove Bruce Wayne to create such a mantra. Some have argued that showing this much of the main character removes a lot of the mystery and intrigue that made Batman so interesting in the first place. Personally, I can see where they're coming from, since usually I'm the first one arguing for less is more and that the less we know about someone, the more interesting they are. That said, for this particular film, I disagree. If it weren't for Christian Bale selling the hell out of the role, I might have agreed (more on the performances later), but this movie does a bang up job fitting in it's explanation of why such a character would exist. Batman isn't just a means for a borderline-psychotic individual to go out and beat the living crap out of thugs every night (though it's implied that's part of it too), but he's a symbol for the criminals running the city to fear. In a city as corrupt as Gotham, Bruce Wayne states that a dramatic example is needed to remove such a criminal element, so in a strange sort of way, it makes sense. It at least made enough sense for me to buy this concept, and to understand why someone would be led to make such dramatic choices.

*Just to let you know, I am going to reveal some major spoilers. Since just about everyone on the planet has seen this movie, it probably doesn't matter, but just in case, you've been warned.

Christian Bale portrays the Dark Knight here, and is by far the best actor to ever step into the costume. It helps that this time, he's given more to do than just look awesome in a cool costume, but as I mentioned, he really makes this character believable. From the very beginning, we get a real sense of the dread that drives Wayne. You understand his motivation, and root for him the entire way. Batman here, isn't a perfect and unstoppable fighting machine, but rather a very skilled, if flawed, individual who learns from his mistakes and takes the time to improve himself. As Thomas Wayne said to his young son, "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." That is the theme that drives the movie, and Bale makes it work. He starts off as flawed loose cannon and throughout the film, learns to become the true Caped Crusader we all hoped to see.

It's also nice to see prominent supporting characters like Sgt. Jim Gordon (played by Gary Oldman, and no he's not commissioner yet) and Alfred (Michael Caine) get something to do. In this film, Gordon is one of the last remaining good cops in the city. As one of the few trustworthy enforcers, Batman recruits the reluctant Gordon into helping him with his cause. Oldman might be the best actor in this film, despite being one of the few idealistic and relate-able characters, he understands why such a dramatic example like Batman is needed and why he chooses to go along with it. Michael Caine brings a tough, no-nonsense, though very likable presence to Bruce Wayne's trustworthy butler, Alfred Pennyworth. He's not just a loyal servant here, but a surrogate father to Bruce that's both supportive and tough we he needs to be. You might even say that he is the one who teaches Batman how to be Bruce Wayne. While he may not always agree with Bruce's psychotic plans, he's always there to aid and help him when he falls. I also have to give a special shout-out to the always great Morgan Freeman, here play Batman's equipment supplier Lucius Fox.

The villains here don't exactly stand out as much as previous Batman flicks, but to be honest, I think that's kind of a good thing. When they're on screen, the actors do a commendable job portraying them and bring a natural sense of threat that you would expect. There's just nothing amazing about them, though that's hardly a critique, they still do a solid job. The big spoiler here (don't say I didn't warn you) is that Bruce's mentor Ducard (Liam Neeson) was actually Ra's Al Ghul the whole time. Neeson was mainly known for playing upstanding mentor characters prior to this (oh, and Oskar Schindler too) and he initially does that as Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul. By the time the third act roles around, he makes his villainous turn, still keeping his cool composure while showing his true colors. As the mentor and trainer of Batman, he makes for an intimidating foe and provides a necessary adversary to Batman.

The secondary villain is ironically the one that made more of an impression (for me at least). The character is Dr. Johnathan Crane aka The Scarecrow (played by Cillian Murphy), a mentally disturbed psychologist who plays twisted mind games with his patients. Using a special gas compound of his creation, the Scarecrow inflicts violent hallucinations upon his victims, driving them insane. Murphy is a talented actor with a penchant for playing crazy villains (also see the 2005 thriller Red Eye) and he brings that same sensibility as the Scarecrow here. He's not a particularly physically imposing villain, but he makes up for that with his wits and intelligence. In the world of cinematic psycho psychologists, he's no Hannibal Lecter, but he makes a strong impression here. Neither one of these villains are quite excellent or perfect adaptions of their comic book counterparts (like most of the film, they're somewhat more grounded in reality). Nonetheless they are solid characters and help contribute to the film's overall greatness. In short, nothing amazing, but they did their jobs well.

The only actor that doesn't quite work is Katie Holmes as the assistant district attorney, Rachel Dawes (one of the few characters without comic book origins). She was a childhood friend of Bruce Wayne and one of Gotham's few morally upstanding citizens. There's nothing inherently wrong with her character, it's just that Holmes doesn't quite live up to the rest of the cast. I don't think she's terrible, but I can't help but feel like there's just something fundamentally missing from her performance, though I can't quite put my finger on what that might be. Maybe it's that she just looks too young to be a DA or maybe that many of her deliveries just come off as a bit awkward. Like I said, she is far from terrible, but compared to the rest of the stand out cast, she just comes off as lacking.

From a technical side, the film is pretty damn awesome. Chicago was used as the filming location for Gotham, and through the excellent cinematography, Gotham has never looked better. That said, I am kind of curious as to why there was so much shaky cam during some of the action scenes... it just made them seem a little to erratic and hard to follow. I don't know how much of this was shot on location and how much was shot in a studio, but the look of the film maintains the gritty realism aesthetic and overall works. The action scenes are, like I said, sometimes plagued by excessive shaky cam but most of them work. There's at least one stand out fight scene and an awesome chase scene involving the Batmobile (yes, I know it's called the Tumbler here... but I don't care, its the freaking BATMOBILE!) Special effects wise, the film is damn near perfect. What I love about this movie is that it struck a near perfect balance of practical effects and cgi. Most of the stunts are actually performed by the actors and the car stunts are mostly what you see, most uses of cgi are used either for brief touch ups or to create some creepy Scarecrow gas hallucinations (which are awesome by the way). The only other minor nitpick I have is with Batman's new costume. While it's neat that they actually made a costume where every piece and bit has a purpose, the heavy black rubber material makes it kind of hard to buy Batman being this super-agile ninja and master of hand to hand fighting (though this has been a problem since the 1989 films.) A minor nitpick admittedly, but nothing major.

Finally, we come to the story. I admit that this particular script has a few issues, but overall I was very impressed. It's a character driven narrative that puts Bruce Wayne at the forefront of the story and for once, NOT the villains. Most of the supporting characters have an integral role in the plot too. Sgt. Gordon and Alfred, as I mentioned before, are not just a bit players here, but rather play an important role in Bruce Wayne's plans. Rachel Dawes is still more or less a damsel in distress and love interest for Bruce, but she's nonetheless a strong character who you end up rooting for, and isn't as cliche as most love interests in these kinds of movies. The movie is a bit long, and does tend drag a bit in some places, plus some might be disappointed that Christian Bale doesn't officially take up the Batman role until approximately one hour into the film, but these are relatively minor nitpicks that didn't bother me too much. It gave the characters, well Bruce Wayne anyways, a chance to develop and grow. They all felt like they were building up to something bigger and better, and I don't mean just the exciting finale, but rather the inevitable sequels. While some might be upset that the film's ending doesn't provide a whole lot of closure, it nonetheless set us up for an exciting trilogy that, when I saw it for the first time, got me very excited for what was to come. So aside for a few dull moments and a few plotholes, it kept me entertained.

So yeah... Batman Begins was pretty awesome when it came out and it still is. If you're one of the very few people in the world who hasn't seen it, check it out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Batman & Robin - Review

Batman Forever was exactly the kind of movie that Warner Bros was hoping for... a profitable, kid-friendly, summer blockbuster that led to lucrative merchandise sales, a high grossing box office take, and generally struck a chord with audiences (though most fans of the comic were not as impressed). So after it's success, the studio quickly rushed another film into production. Joel Schumacher returned in the director's chair, with George Clooney as the new Bruce Wayne/Batman and Chris O'Donnell reprising his role as Dick Grayson/Robin. Two new villains were introduced, Arnold Schwarzenegger the ice-cold killer, Mr. Freeze, and Uma Thurman as botanic beauty, Poison Ivy. Also introduced is Alicia Silverstone as Barbara Wilson aka Batgirl (well... an in name only version of Batgirl). The movie was released in 1997 to abysmal reviews and near-unanimous derision from audiences. Often considered one of the worst movies of all time, Batman & Robin came dangerously close to not only ruining Batman movies but superhero films in general. Is it really as bad as it's reputation proceeds it to be? Lets find out...

Bruce Wayne aka Batman (George Clooney) continues to defend the city of Gotham now with Dick Grayson aka Robin (Chris O'Donnell) as a fully fledged partner. Two new villains have set their sights on the city. The first of which is Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a scientist-turned-madman who ensnares his victims in a block of ice with his high tech freeze ray gun. Mr. Freeze was once a brilliant cryo-scientist named Dr. Victor Fries. When his beloved wife was diagnosed with a rare and fatal illness, he put her in a cryogenic freeze, preserving her life while he researched and developed a cure. After a freak accident, he fell into a tank of cryo-chemicals. While he survived the incident, the chemicals mutated his body, requiring him to live in a below freezing environment in order to survive. Wearing a cryo-suit powered by diamonds, he turned to a life of crime and waged war on the city of Gotham. The second to appear is the venomous Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). Mirroring a similar origin to Mr. Freeze, Ivy was once known as Pamela Isley, a genius botanist and environmentalist. When she stumbled onto her boss performing illegal experiments with her supplies and research, she was doused in poisonous chemicals and left for dead. She arose as the beautiful plant-infused Poison Ivy, who kills her victims venom filled smooches. Meanwhile, tension arises between Batman & Robin, with the latter frustrated of constantly being in the former's shadow. All the while, Wayne and Grayson take in a new houseguest, their butler Alfred's niece, Barbara Wilson (Alicia Silverstone), who eventually discovers the secret of the batcave and takes on the mantle of Batgirl, and aids the two in taking down Ivy and Freeze.

It's interesting to watch movies that have reputations as the worst ever. On the surface, it's easy to see why this movie has that reputation. The acting, the direction, the script is all pretty much terrible, but there's something more sinister about this one.When you get right down to it, comparing a big budget blockbuster like Batman & Robin to some of cinema's other worst outings like Troll 2, The Room, Birdemic, or Plan 9 From Outer Space is not really a fair comparison. Those other films are bad for many of the same reasons I just mentioned, but the difference between them and this is that they were lower budget indie flicks made by people who lacked the necessary skills and knowledge needed to make a film. Plus, as bad as they were, there was a sense of passion behind them, a certain drive from the creators to make those movies and tell a story... and despite being terrible, they can be kind of intriguing to watch, maybe on a so-bad-its-good level, but also in a train-wreck sort of way to see passionate individuals try hard and fail miserably sort of way. Batman & Robin, on the other hand, is bad is in the worst possible way. The film fails on the basic merits of filmmaking, but what really makes it awful is that the people behind the film really didn't give a damn. The comic had been running for years, and had millions of dedicated fans who grew up and admired this character. To treat the property as an assembly line, corporate produced, two-hour toy commercial, insults the legions of fans, the creators of Batman, and the previous movies (as flawed as they were). It's basically like the studio was saying "we don't care about the fans enough to create anything worthwhile" despite numerous comics with great stories and a stellar animated TV series that was breaking boundaries and WINNING EMMY AWARDS AT THE TIME OF THE MOVIE'S RELEASE!!!!! There is NO FUCKING REASON this movie should have been this bad!!! 

Okay, putting beside the bias I may have for the characters and previous, there's just no escaping that this movie doesn't work. Joel Schumacher returns as director and once again brings forth the campy sensibilities from Batman Forever, only this time taking it to the next level. It took everything that didn't work in the last three movies and removes anything that did. The plot is non-existent, the dialogue is painful, the actors are miscast, the production design is ugly, and the action is embarrassing. The film gets criticized for it's largely campy direction, and for good reason. I'm not saying that camp is inherently a bad thing. It can be fun and enjoyable, hell there are tons of campy movies that are very entertaining, but there's a time and place for everything. The 60s series was campy, but the comics had rather humorous overtones at the time anyway, plus a darker and more faithful adaptation probably wouldn't have been as well received at the time. The previous three movies (of admittedly varying degrees of quality) had moments of good storytelling and enough of a darker edge to give the films some artistic merit. Batman & Robin using it's campy demeanor to tell dumb jokes, stage awkward action scenes, create lousy costumes (complete with bat nipples), and neglect it's duty to... you know, tell a story. The movie is just a mess.

The dramatic hook with this movie is that Alfred the Butler is dying. I get that Alfred was more than just a butler to Bruce Wayne, he was a surrogate father to Bruce after his parents were killed. Still, as the thematic plot for the movie... it's boring as hell. In a world with mutated supervillains, traumatized victims of circumstance, and evil plots galore, there were a million potential storylines to go with and they chose the one about the aging butler dying... that's a missed opportunity if I've ever heard one. Also, once again, in the tradition of these movies, the villains upstage the main character. Mr. Freeze was largely a pretty gimmicky villain with not much to him, though the Emmy winning animated series episode, Heart of Ice, reinvented his origin in spectacular form as the tragic lab accident victim trying to save his wife's life. To the film's credit, they actually did take that said backstory and apply to the Mr. Freeze here, unfortunately instead of developing that element of the character, they instead have him spending the entire movie spitting out embarrassingly bad one-liners, at least 90% of which are dumb ice-related puns. Some of which include... "The Ice-Man Cometh!!!" or "Alright everyone, CHILL!!!" and even "FREEZE IN HELL BATMAN!!!" (honestly, what does that last one even mean???). Poison Ivy is even worse. All she is here is a glorified eco-terrorist and femme fatale, chewing the scenery with equally lame dialogue and not doing anything even remotely threatening. Oh, and by the way, it's true that fan-favorite villain Bane is here too... as an in-name-only form. Instead of a super-smart bruiser with a severe steroid addiction from the comics, he's a mostly mute, henchmen thug, with an IQ of 5, who spends the whole movie grunting and growling. Honestly, it's like they were going out of there way to screw these villains up.

The cast is what frustrates me the most. It's not just that they're all uniformly bad (thought they are), it's that every actor has been good in something prior to this. George Clooney doesn't have an ounce the intimidating presence required to be the Dark Knight. As Batman, he's out cracking almost as many bad lines as the villains. As Bruce Wayne... he doesn't come off as the kind of guy who acts like a douche to deter people from suspecting him to be Batman... he just comes off as a douche. Chris O'Donnell isn't given a damn thing to do here expect bitch and whine throughout the movie's runtime. Alicia Silverstone is awkward and stale as Batgirl (and why the re-imagined her as Alfred's niece instead of Commissioner Gordon's daughter is beyond me), not one of her lines comes off as believable. As for Arnold as Freeze... it seems pointless to criticize the dude's acting at this point. Even if they did give him more to do than just shout dumb ice puns, I doubt he would have stepped up to the occasion. Arnold can be fun in other films, don't get me wrong. Many of his films are pretty enjoyable (Predator, Total Recall, True Lies, etc.) and some are even excellent (Terminator & Terminator 2), but this isn't one of those times. As for Uma Thurman... let's just say that it's a good thing she's got an in with Quentin Tarantino or else her career would truly be in jeopardy. It's fortunate that these actors have rebounded in some way after this movie... though I can't think of anything worthwhile that Alicia Silverstone has done since. Well, this film was bound to kill at least one person's career.

It's no exaggeration here folks, Batman & Robin really is as bad as it's reputation proceeds it to be. It's not just a bad movie, it's an embarrassment, a travesty, and an insult to the decades of comics and fans that came before it. It came dangerously close to killing not only the Batman film series, but the superhero genre as a whole. I was trying to think of a good zinger to close this review on, but none really sounded appropriate. So instead, I'm going to quote the great Mike Nelson from his Rifftrax rant on this film, "We come to the end of one of the worst movies ever created by humankind. Oh you can shower, you can scrub, but the stink of this one won't come out easy. The best of luck to you as you toss and turn at night trying with all the strength God affords you to forget the horrors contained within!" Couldn't have said it better myself.

My Score: Half Star out of 5!

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 Returns - Review

Tim Burton's Batman was a cultural phenomenon. Not only was it the second highest grossing film of 1989 (falling just a bit short of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), but it also started a renewed interest in superheroes as lucrative film properties, kicked off the career of Tim Burton, and paved the way for better and more serious adaptations of the Batman property (namely the excellent animated series that could premier a few years later). Tim Burton, however, had mixed feelings about the movie. His animosity toward the final product plus the rather difficult production made him reluctant to return for a sequel. He was eventually persuaded by Warner Bros. to return, this time with the promise of total creative control. While the original blended elements of gothic fantasy and film noir, Batman Returns dropped most of the noir references in favor of bizarre and surreal imagery. In other words, Batman Returns is basically the first Batman movie crossed with the 1931 horror classic, Freaks. The movie succeeded at the box office, but the dark imagery made the merchandising element increasingly difficult. Parents group protested against the film's violent nature, limited the number of marketable action figures and cancelling a proposed Happy Meal tie-in with McDonalds. Even today, reception to this film is pretty divided, with some praising the darker style and others stating it became too weird too fast. I have to admit, this was the one I was most curious about revisiting. Does it hold up or are the naysayers on to something?

Batman Returns takes place shortly after the previous film (though the exact time in undisclosed). After killing the Joker, Batman (once again played by Michael Keaton) continues to clean up the streets of Gotham. He soon takes on two new foes, the Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). The Penguin was born with sever birth defects. His ghastly appearance terrified his aristocratic parents and as an infant, was abandoned to the sewers of Gotham, where he spent most of his living life. In the sewers, the Penguin stumbles onto some highly illegal schemes of corrupt business moguel, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). The Penguin, intent on returning to the surface, blackmails Shreck into helping him make his return and be embraced by Gotham's citizens before hatching an evil plan.. After returning, he allies with Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, a once shy woman pushed to her limit (literally) after nearly being killed by Shreck (her boss). Reborn as the sensual feline-style vigilante, she and Penguin plot to stopping the Caped Crusader. With two supervillains and a league of psychotic henchmen taking the street, Batman hurries to discover the Penguin's evil plot and expose his evil intentions. 

Batman Returns is an oddity. This is, no doubt, one of the strangest and most bizarre sequels I've seen, not just because of it's strangely absurd art direction, but mainly because of the vast differences from the original. While the first Batman was more or less a traditional action movie with a stylistic edge, Batman Returns is an oddly structured ugly duckling story with elements of surreal fantasy. Throw in some gang members dressed like circus clowns, some amazingly grotesque make up effects, all clashing with blatant sexual overtones whenever Catwoman is involved, it's pretty freaking bizarre. I might have been able to accept all of that, but what really puts it over-the-top is the inclusion of Christopher Walken... lets be honest here folks, nothing out-weirds Christopher Walken (though I don't mean that in a bad way, Walken is one of my favorite actors). I'm not necessarily saying that any of this is inherently a bad thing. Weird can be good... hell, weird can be great. Tim Burton has made a career specializing in the bizarre and most of his movies turned out pretty awesome. Some of my favorite films of all time are very out there too, namely A Clockwork Orange, Videodrome, Pi, and many others. A film being weird is neither inherently bad or good, but there has to be more to it than just that.

What's frustrating about this movie is that parts of it are great while others are abysmal. As a matter of fact, it basically has all the same pros and cons of the first movie, only in greater scale. The style is something to behold, giving us an interesting introspective into the twisted mind of the director. Oh, it's insanely over-the-top, but the sheer artistic vision along with the undoubtedly daunting execution is hard not to admire. It also portrays a very sympathetic depiction of it's villain. The Penguin is an interesting character too, beneath the rage and hatred that's been building up his whole life, there exists a subconscious longing to be loved and accepted. It's an interesting depiction, as the movie doesn't force you to sympathize with the character right away, but nonetheless portrays him as a tragic victim of circumstance that is, at times, somewhat heart-wrenching. Danny De Vito really sells this role too. It's hard to think of another actor that could have been as well cast for this part (well, maybe Bob Hoskins). A short, stout, gritty man with a heart full of rage and anger... yeah that's De Vito for you. 

As for what doesn't work in this movie... actually, pretty much everything else. Once again, Batman plays second fiddle to the villains, only this time it's even worse. Batman has been relegated to basically a mindless vigilante now, going around and actually killing most of his enemies (if you've read Batman comics, you know that in most interpretations, the Dark Knight has a very strict "no killing" rule). Most of his severely limited character development, like before, is triggered by an out-of-nowhere epiphany at the start of the third act. The only really interesting thing happening with Bruce Wayne is the romance between him and Selina Kyle. The two, both borderline-psychotic outsiders, have an interesting relationship as out-of-costume lovers and in-costume enemies. As standalone characters, however, there's just not much there. While Pfeiffer is incredibly sexy in that catsuit and definitely has fun with the role, there's just not much to her character. Catwoman has never represented much more than sexuality in the first place, and clearly they didn't feel the need to mess with that. Plus, once again the story just barely functions as a coherent narrative. Scenes barely connect while certain story elements are left oddly unexplored. For instance, there are some bizarre supernatural undertones to Catwoman's character, but they are barely explained. Wayne himself is barely explored, once again leaving his compulsory development for the third act. Out of all the things you would hope they would have address from the first movie, that was it... but no luck. It's one of those odd narratives that has some great elements but sloppy execution.

I've heard some people describe Batman Returns as a pretty good fantasy movie but a terrible Batman movie. That is actually a pretty fair assessment. It almost seems like Tim Burton was invested in telling the ugly duckling story of the Penguin but could have cared less about Batman himself. Hell, with a few minor re-writes, they could have easily make the Penguin a hero and Batman a villain. The whole thing actually rings quite similar to Edward Scissorhands, which Burton had ironically just finished directing before this. The plot just doesn't find a balance and, like the first film, the movie suffers for it. At the very least, the film benefits from the presence of the awesomely strange, Christopher Walken. Taking what was essentially a by-the-numbers corporate jerk, Walken brings his trademark eccentricities to the role and makes him very entertaining. How can anyone not love Christopher Walken... he's just plain awesome. 

Summing up... Batman Returns works in parts, but just becomes too freaking weird and off-beat to work as an entire movie. Its dark, strange, and incredibly creative, and for those with a sick mind (like me), it's enjoyable in a "what the hell am I watching" kind of way. Don't get me wrong, it never crosses the boundaries of a PG-13 rating, but it does push it to the limits. That said, Batman Returns is just too messy and uneven to truly work. In the end, it's just pretty average. 

My Score: 2.5 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