Jack Nicholson – 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.

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: ★★☆☆☆

Quick Thoughts – Autumn Round-Up, Part 2

In November, I took a week’s vacation in Colorado, and I got to see a couple of classic movies at the Alamo Drafthouse in Littleton while I was out there.

After Hours (1985)

You know that Family Guy bit where Stewie keeps demanding Brian to name more songs named after girls? If you did a similar exercise with movies directed by Martin Scorsese, I don’t imagine too many people would name After Hours.

Obscurity aside, the movie is essentially a version of Homer’s Odyssey played out over a night in SoHo. All our protagonist (played by Griffin Dunne) wants is a little fun on a date with a girl he just met, and, once that fails, to just get home; but, despite all efforts, he can’t do it, and things only get worse as the night goes on. It’s the sort of meandering story that you think you have figured out until you don’t.

Honestly, I liked the movie well enough once it was over, but I don’t really see myself revisiting it in the future. I think I got more enjoyment out of spotting all the familiar faces (the cast is quite expansive) than the story itself, which is not to say I wouldn’t recommend it.

If you’re into darker comedies, New York-heavy movies, or are a Scorsese completionist, definitely give After Hours a whirl.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

The Shining (1980)

I’m sure I’ll take a lot of heat for this, but I think Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is vastly overrated.

Is the cinematography excellent? Of course; that’s a Kubrick staple.

Is it sometimes successful at being legitimately creepy? Yes.

Does it work overall as a movie? No.

I don’t need to get into plot points or performances; I’m sure if you’re reading this then you’ve either seen the movie already or are familiar enough with it through cultural osmosis.

What it all comes down to is that the character of Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson) as written and portrayed in this film begins the movie as a jerk, and ends the movie as a jerk. Regardless of any involvement of supernatural forces, he is essentially the same character throughout, which is to say he effectively has no arc, and if he doesn’t have an arc, then there is no real tension, and what is horror without tension?

All of this is not to say Kubrick is not an all-time great filmmaker. Clearly, he is. It’s just that in this particular area, he’s not as effective as, say, Alfred Hitchcock.

Rating: ★★½