Danny Elfman – People Talking

Bat-Mania QUADRUPLE Pack – ‘Batman’ (‘89) – ‘Batman Returns’ – ‘Batman Forever’ – ‘Batman & Robin’

To be honest, as much as I love the Caped Crusader, I’ve never really been a fan of these movies.

Oh, I’ve enjoyed so many things they’ve inspired, like Danny Elfman’s original score, The Animated Series, the roller coasters, the stunt shows, etc., but the Burton/Schumacher series of films never did much for me as movies.

However, since I’ve seemingly reviewed every other live-action Batman movie except for the Adam West one, and also reviewed the greatest Batman movie of its generation, Mask of the Phantasm, it only seems fitting to give these a once over, too.

Bombs away.

1989.
A Number.
Another Summer.
The biggest movie summer ever by many estimations.

After all, you had, in order: new Indiana Jones, new Star Trek, new Ghost Busters, new Karate Kid, new Lethal Weapon, new James Bond, and both new Jason and Freddy, all in the same summer. Not to mention successful original films like Dead Poets Society, When Harry Met Sally, Turner & Hooch, Parenthood, The Abyss, Uncle Buck, and, of course, UHF (just kidding, it bombed; but it’s still worth watching).

Into this drops Tim Burton’s Batman, and, other than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in the worldwide box office, it dominates and out-grosses all comers.

Why? Heck, I don’t know. I’d no sooner put Tim Burton in charge of Batman then I’d put Sam Raimi in charge of Spider-Man; but then I’m not a cocaine-addled Hollywood executive.

In all seriousness though, in the wake of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, and seeing that a comic book figure could be eminently successful on the silver screen, I think Dark Knight fans were just eager for their first taste of live-action Batman since 1968.

And, to be fair, the first twenty-five minutes are quite good; the misdirect introduction down Crime Alley is a good starting point, and the movie sets up like it’s going to great places, but, once the shooting starts at Axis Chemicals, the warts really come to light.

For one, the action is clumsy, and second, the script is some major weak sauce. I’ve heard the screenplay was being written as they were shooting, but what was the story they wanted to tell? As far as I can see, the last ninety minutes basically consist of two men fighting over a woman. That’s your superhero movie? A romantic comedy in Halloween costumes? Not to mention none of the one-liners other than “I’m Batman” have any punch. Also, making things personal with The Joker is a hack move. That was already cliche by 1981 (and still cliche in 2015).

Speaking of, couldn’t they have named Jack Nicholson’s character something other than “Jack”; I mean, what is this, a sitcom? I admit, I’m a little biased because to me he’s Jack Nicholson in every movie; sometimes it works (often, actually), sometimes it doesn’t, but to me he feels like the wrong choice here. I just see Jack Nicholson imitating Cesar Romero and I don’t find it special.

And another thing, while there is a good amount of investigating in this film, barely any of it is done by Batman. You know, that guy? The World’s Greatest Detective?

Now, to be positive, the Bat costume and Bat vehicles are unquestionably iconic, and I think Michael Keaton is fine in the “lead”, though largely wasted. And it’s no secret that Danny Elfman’s score holds the movie on its shoulders like Atlas, but the Prince songs stick out like a sore thumb as they don’t match the aesthetic of the film at all.

One last thing, as much as I ordinarily love and champion the use of miniatures, this movie is not the effects team’s finest hour.

All-in-all, not unlike Top Gun, Batman is one of those Eighties movies that’s culturally iconic, but when you look past the veneer, it’s really not very good; and as a Batman fan, I find it even more disappointing.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Did you know that Tim Burton is really into misfits, losers, and freaks?

Did you?

Did you know that?

I’d compare both of Tim Burton’s Batman films to Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, in that he seems deeply uninterested in Batman and would rather devote screen time to telling literally any other story (or stories, plural).

In the case of Batman Returns, he gets one thing right though: Catwoman.

Michelle Pfeiffer is great. She absolutely nails her role and may very well give the best individual performance of any of these four films.

Beyond that, this movie pushes things into fairy tale fantasy land, which might be okay if it was fun, or bright, or colorful, but it’s Burton’s dark fairy land, with all the black-and-white spirals and Elfman “la-la-la-la” score.

Despite the in-universe continuity, it may as well be totally unrelated to the previous film, but it’s no improvement either way.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

I mean, If you’re going to go comic book, you may as well go for it.

Out with Burton, Keaton, and Elfman; in with Schumacher (God rest him), Kilmer (who would have made a fine Dark Knight from the beginning), and Goldenthal (who created an admirable B-theme to Elfman’s A-theme for the Caped Crusader).

So, this movie has obvious problems, and, like Batman Returns, it’s over-laden with characters, but at least it takes an interest in its hero; and, while it’s somewhat annoying to have yet another movie with yet another romantic subplot, it’s nice to see Bruce Wayne actually care about someone else other than Alfred and the belle du jour.

Of course, I’m talking about Chris O’Donnell’s character of Dick Grayson AKA Robin. In fact, his whole introduction is one of the best parts of the movie, and his arc and how it affects Batman gives the film some much-needed heart. I would have loved to have seen Keaton handle this sort of material in either of the first two, but it just wasn’t there for him.

That said, the movie is no masterpiece. Jim Carrey is hit-or-miss as The Riddler, and I’m not sure Tommy Lee Jones had any real idea what he was doing as Two-Face.

But, we get more of a sense of scale from Gotham City compared to the Burton films, and many of the effects benefit from advances in technology, but also just execution.

Still, I don’t really give it a general recommendation.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

I remembered this movie being bad.

I didn’t remember it being this bad.

There are moments that are funny-bad (you can find super-cuts of them on YouTube), but this isn’t a movie like The Room. It doesn’t even earn that much kudos, in no small part because it’s TWO HOURS LONG.

To give it a modicum of praise, I think Uma Thurman realized what level of schlock she was in, and she does her best to have fun with it, but even so much of what she has to work with is just groan-worthy.

It’s a punishing slog; that’s it.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

P.S.
Even though I didn’t love any of these movies, I still loved spending time at The Mahoning Drive-In Theater. It may have been a little wet on Friday night, but the show carried on just fine. They truly are a beacon in these dark times.

Movie Review – ‘Justice League’ – Avert Your Eyes

Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by Chris Terrio (story and screenplay), Joss Whedon (screenplay), and Zack Snyder (story)
Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, Connie Nielsen, J.K. Simmons, Ciarán Hinds (voice), Amber Heard, Joe Morton, Lisa Loven Kongsli, Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, Doutzen Kroes, Brooke Ence, Ann Ogbomo, Samantha Jo, Holt McCallany, Marc McClure
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman

Alternate title for this piece (or the movie): Why Can’t We Be [Super]friends?

I really shouldn’t even dignify this movie with anything resembling a full-length review, so I’ll try not to.

At no point in time did I ever have high hopes for this film, and in its wake I definitely don’t have high hopes for the DCEU as a whole.

Justice League is as big of a mess as Rogue One (if not more so). The only difference for me personally is that I don’t have nearly as much emotional attachment to the property, so I’m not nearly as angry or disappointed, but I still have to call a turd a turd.

The biggest problem with Justice League is that it is approximately 4,657 movies in one (hyperbole intended).

It’s almost as if these characters should have starred in their own films before appearing all together.

You know? Maybe build it up a little bit?

Why DC didn’t bite the bullet on this and instead attempted to microwave everything in order to “catch up” to Marvel is entirely beyond me. I mean, despite being pilloried by the critics at nearly every turn, these movies are still somehow doing good business, couldn’t they have put in the effort to make them good, too?

Back to the subject at hand (though this is a franchise-wide issue), Justice League, in addition to having a myriad of elements (especially tones) that don’t quite fit together, has so many visuals that are just plain ugly to look at that I could hardly believe my eyes. I may not be a film-making expert, but I do know that this was a two-hour movie that cost $300 million. It should not look as bad as it does, and yet it does.

Now, I’ll admit, there were a few tiny bits and pieces here and there that I did find enjoyable about Justice League, but mostly I was either bored, or trying not to be sick. Even if you’re somehow a DCEU completionist, this movie still isn’t worth your money to see theatrically.

It’s a mess. An ugly, boring mess.

What more do I need to say?

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
There are multiple stingers, because D.C. is now in full Marvel mode (they wish).

P.P.S.
Naturally, and as usual, thanks to Alamo Drafthouse for the cool glassware (which is better than the movie).

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 2

‘Judgment Night’ (1993)

People who know this movie seem to have a soft spot for it, but I just don’t see what they see.

Now, I am slightly bending the rules here, because while I did technically see this in a theater, it wasn’t a film print or any kind of high resolution projection; it was on VHS, which makes sense from a nostalgia perspective given just how 90s ‘Judgment Night’ is, but it makes my job as a reviewer much harder, because so much picture quality is lost (not to mention the whole pan-and-scan issue). That said, I think my thoughts are generally still valid, but, feel free to take them with a grain of salt on this one.

My biggest issue with ‘Judgment Night’, besides feeling its length, is the fact that it demands to be taken so, so seriously, and I just can’t give it that kind of credence. I don’t think any of the performances are special (not even Denis Leary), the script doesn’t offer much in terms of actual surprises, and, most importantly, I never felt connected enough to any of the characters to really care if they made it or not. Also, I’m not normally a super nit-picky guy, but the fact that the movie is supposed to be in Chicago, and is so obviously like 90% L.A., it did take me out of the movie just a bit. I feel like I should be more into movies that take place over the course of one night, but the evidence isn’t stacking up that way (e.g. ‘After Hours‘).

However, just because I didn’t really like ‘Judgment Night’ doesn’t mean I don’t think it should get better treatment on home format. Honestly, with the amount of horrible schlock getting restored and re-releaseed on Blu-ray these days, you’d think somebody would take a flyer on this one, especially since it appears to have an audience and features so many notable actors. I’d sure be willing to give it a second look then.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

‘Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure‘ (1989)
‘Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey‘ (1991)

I had never seen either of these before, and I was a little worried about being able to connect to them. After all, I already have a history degree; what do I care if these bums can’t ace their presentation? But, I have to give credit to writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon for coming up with a delightfully bonkers concept, and directors Stephen Herek (who has a really interesting filmography, at least for his first fifteen years directing) and Peter Hewett for committing to it and having fun with it, while not overly winking at the audience. The vapidness of the Bill and Ted characters belies the cleverness of the movies themselves.

‘Excellent Adventure’ is a fun romp through history, as our heroes bounce around time (and geography), accumulating “personages of historical significance” along the way, eventually bringing them back to present day Southern California (and the mall), which leads to a lot of fun fish-out-of-water humor (I particularly enjoyed Napoleon at the water park). The movie (and its sequel) also plays with the notion of time travel as a screenwriter’s convenient friend, as in our heroes being privy to necessary items just in the nick of time (kind of hard to explain, but if you see the movie, you’ll know exactly what I mean). There’s also a lot of humor outside of the main plot, like how Bill’s stepmom was a Senior when they were Freshmen, and other students’ presentations (“San Dimas High School football rules!”).

But how do you top time travel? ‘Bogus Journey’ answers this question by sending Bill and Ted to HELL (and other places in the spirit realm/afterlife). In all honesty, ‘Bogus Journey’ is a rare sequel that lives up to (and almost exceeds) the original, by expanding on the already existing concepts while also adding its own flavor. However, as generally fresh as it is, it also might be the most sequel sequel to ever sequel, seeing as how it has the bad guys from ‘Lethal Weapon 2‘ and ‘Die Hard 2‘, respectively, but this is just me having fun. One of my favorite moments is the humorous homage to the “game with Death” from Ingmar Bergman’s ‘The Seventh Seal’ (you’ll definitely know this when you see it).

All-in-all, these two films make a great double feature (partially because they clock in around ninety minutes each). They’re funny, they’re clever, and they look and sound surprisingly good (I definitely would not call them chintzy). Sure, maybe they’re not ‘Back to the Future’, but what is? I’m pleasantly surprised to be able to recommend them.

(Also, I don’t know if this is a major point of discussion, but I’m definitely a Bill guy over a Ted guy.)

Dual Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Sleepy Hollow’ (1999)

Speaking of giving credit where credit is due, I have to give it up to Tim Burton on this one. It’s no secret that I’m generally not a fan of his, but ‘Sleepy Hollow’ works pretty well for me (which I’ll come back to).

However, as he’s wont to do, Burton goes too far in a few places. As much as I enjoy the ensemble cast, and as much as I enjoy Christopher Walken himself, the sight of him with razor-sharp teeth is absolutely ridiculous. Also, the whole subplot of Ichabod Crane as a child is more than a bit overdone, not to mention it feels like a poor excuse to get Burton’s then-girlfriend Lisa Marie into the film (for those unaware, she came before Helena Bonham Carter, and that’s all I’ll say about that). And, naturally, there’s Danny Elfman’s score, which I’m not going to say is all bad, but there are some elements that evoke the stereotype of a “typical Elfman score” that, culturally, we’ve become so familiar with.

All that said, the movie is pretty enjoyable. The ensemble cast, as I mentioned, is wonderful, from Martin Landau in an uncredited cameo, to Michael Gambon and Miranda Richardson, to, of course, Johnny Depp as Police Constable (and nascent criminologist/medical examiner) Ichabod Crane.

‘Sleepy Hollow’ does an admirable job of putting a fresh face on a classic story that’s been done many times over, while also throwing in knowing nods to past adaptations. And, not unlike the recent ‘Train to Busan‘, I think the movie could be described as “general audience horror.”

Definitely one for the Halloween watch-list.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 1

‘Suture’ (1993)

All I knew about ‘Suture’ going in was that it was something of a neo-noir, and it was shot in black and white (which is one of the most appropriate creative choices I’ve ever seen). Beyond that, I didn’t know what to expect.

Given certain factors (like the “state of race relations” at the moment), I’m not sure if ‘Suture’ would be better received now, or more poorly received, because there’s a central conceit to the movie that if you don’t pick up on, it’ll go right over your head, and that is that Dennis Haysbert plays a White man. Mind you, he’s not in any make-up or prosthetics with the intention of looking this way, but he plays the brother of a White man, and according to dialogue, they have a quite a familial resemblance.

I don’t want to get into any spoiler specifics, because I liked this movie and would recommend it, but I will explain that the point of casting someone like Haysbert in that role is to make it clear that he is not his brother, because the key theme of ‘Suture’ is not only identity, but what it is inside of us that lets us know who we are individually.

So, yes, it’s something of a heady movie, perhaps a wee bit pretentious, but as long as you understand the central conceit, it’s not all that complicated, and there’s no question that Haysbert carries the film on his shoulders with aplomb. A fine performance from a fine actor.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘The Hunger’ (1983)

After seeing this one, I now understand why Paramount executives were so concerned when the first dailies that came back from ‘Top Gun’ were nothing but magic hour shots from the deck of the USS Enterprise, because if I were to describe ‘The Hunger’ in one phrase, it would most definitely be, “Too art-house for its own good.” (‘The Hunger’ and ‘Top Gun’ are Tony Scott’s first two movies, in case you wonder what I mean.)

Like ‘Wolfen‘, ‘The Hunger’ is based on a novel by Whitley Strieber, and much like how ‘Wolfen’ is about wolf creatures that aren’t werewolves, ‘The Hunger’ is about vampires that don’t have fangs. It’s weird.

Now, like I said, the movie is too art-house for its own good, and in that respect it’s too frustrating to recommend (not to mention there’s a lack of emotional connection for the audience), but I will give it props for perhaps the best old age makeup I’ve ever seen, used on David Bowie.

Frankly, the experience of this movie is not unlike 2014’s ‘Godzilla‘, in that once the most interesting character is dispatched (Bryan Cranston/David Bowie), there’s no need to watch anymore.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

‘Blazing Saddles’ (1974)

Seeing this movie on the big screen (in honor of the recently passed Gene Wilder) after seeing ‘Sausage Party‘ this summer just reinforced my assertion that trying to compare the latter to the former is absolutely ridiculous, because ‘Blazing Saddles’ is everything that ‘Sausage Party’ isn’t. It’s consistently funny, it’s actually clever, and it deals with racism in a very real way (while still making you laugh).

I don’t know if Mel Brooks ever sat down and thought to himself, “Someday, I’ll be the king of parody movies,” like it was an actual goal, or if that’s just how his career progressed, but ‘Blazing Saddles’ was the start of all of it (for the record, ‘Spaceballs‘ is overrated, ‘High Anxiety‘ is underrated). And what makes ‘Blazing Saddles’ great (besides, you know, everything), like all great parody or homage movies, is a love of the source material. It’s one thing to sit back and make fun and take potshots at something you think is inherently silly, and it’s another to mine humor out of something you genuinely enjoy, which is true of most of Brooks’ work because he’s a lover of cinema.

Anyway, even if you’re not a fan of Westerns yourself, I can’t recommend ‘Blazing Saddles’ highly enough. Every performance from the headliners down to random extras is spot on, I think most of the humor still holds up (and some is still quite shocking), and it’s a movie with a hugely important message that never, ever gets preachy about it.

Rating: ★★★★★

‘Gang Related’ (1997)

It’s safe to say that Tupac is basically Hip Hop Elvis, right?

A rapper, a dancer, a poet, and an actor, he left quite an impression on the world before (and after) his death at the age of 25. It seemed fitting to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of his passing with a look at his final film performance.

Circumstances aside, ‘Gang Related’ is a decent movie. I’d actually call it three quarters of a pretty great movie before it kind of falls apart towards the end. Tupac and Jim Belushi play homicide detectives who have been using seized drugs to lure unsuspecting buyers to their deaths, then taking the money and covering up the murders as “gang related.” One night, however, they kill somebody they really, really shouldn’t have, and that’s when things get complicated.

Anyone who was into ‘Breaking Bad’ will particularly appreciate the dramatic twists and turns of ‘Gang Related’, especially in the area of characters trying to cover up their crimes when pretty much everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

In terms of performances, I’m not going to lie and say that Tupac is super special, but given the heavy hitters he’s sharing the screen with, he more than holds his own (James Earl Jones, for one, isn’t in the movie very long, but his commanding presence makes up for lack of screen time). I mean, if somebody saw Tupac’s performance without knowing who he was, I doubt they’d suspect he wasn’t exactly an actor by trade.

Also, props to Jim Belushi. Again, his performance isn’t perfect, but it’s effective enough to carry the movie; and his character does get darker as time goes on, which he handles well.

If I have one particular criticism of ‘Gang Related’, it’s that you definitely feel its length, but it’s entertaining enough to watch one time.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

‘Mars Attacks!’ (1996)

It seems like they’ll make a movie out of just about anything these days, but 20 years ago Tim Burton made a movie out of a trading card series (usually it’s the other way around).

I have to admit, I’m not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Tim Burton, and this particular movie doesn’t help my opinion of him at all.

At face value, ‘Mars Attacks!’ seems like a great idea: a simultaneous pastiche of 1950s alien B-movies and later Hollywood prestige pictures (the kind with more movie stars than you can shake a stick at, e.g. ‘The Towering Inferno‘). The problem lies with the execution. There are so many baffling creative decisions, I hardly know where to begin, so let’s just discuss a couple.

Number One: Why does Jack Nicholson have two roles?

Look, I get that Tim Burton loves Jack Nicholson so much that 1989’s ‘Batman’ should really be called ‘Joker’, but he’s one of the most recognizable people in the history of ever. You can put some sunglasses and a wig on him all day, everybody is still going to know it’s Jack Nicholson, because Jack plays Jack in every movie, and twice in this movie. Peter Sellers in ‘Dr. Strangelove‘ he is not.

Number Two: Why, why, why so much CGI?

I get mad when I see period piece movies obviously shot digitally rather than on film, and this is a similar gripe. I’m sure CGI in the mid-90s was super expensive, so why, especially when making a film based on 1950s B-movies, would you choose that option rather than investing in stop-motion animation and rubber puppet monsters? This is especially egregious when you consider that Burton had just recently written and produced a little movie called ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’, which was done entirely in stop-motion animation. Unforgivable.

Ultimately, as is so often the case, the biggest issue with ‘Mars Attacks!’ is the tone. To say it’s all over the place is an understatement; certainly a far cry from other successful horror comedies. At one point, the film cuts to a clip of ‘Godzilla vs. Biollante‘, and I immediately said to myself, “I wish I was watching that movie.”

I will admit though, the very end is a good bit, but I’m also a total mark for Tom Jones, so, there it is.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆