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

Artwork by Brant Day


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.

Original Release Date: June 23, 1989

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: ★★☆☆☆



Original Release Date: June 19, 1992

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: ★★☆☆☆



Original Release Date: June 16, 1995

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)



Original Release Date: June 20, 1997

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.

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘HEY, ARNOLD!’: A Schwarzenegger Marathon – See You At The Party

Since the doors first opened in August of 2013, Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers has hosted four fantastic actor-centric marathons: Caged, Stallone Zone, Van Dammage, and Burt Day (aka Cristina Cacioppo‘s Westchester curtain call).

Enter 2017.  New Year.  New programmer.  New marathon.

Lovingly curated by Justin LaLiberty, “Hey, Arnold!” was an epic half-day celebration consisting of five mystery Schwarzenegger films, all on 35mm prints, spanning ten years of the prime of his career (and sparking such debates as “Which Arnold is better: beard or no beard?”  …Actually, that’s not a debate at all.  Bearded Arnold is clearly superior).

And if that weren’t enough, there was, in fact, a giant cake (which was delicious, by the way) to celebrate his upcoming 70th birthday, among other surprises.

At this point, the man himself needs little introduction, so let’s jump in.

 

Movie #1: ‘True Lies’ (1994)

It sounds weird to say because he’s been so influential (for better or worse), but, since his directorial debut in 1981 (which he’d rather you forget), James Cameron has put only eight feature films under his belt, which makes the fact that Arnold has starred in three of them even more significant.  Frankly, I’d say True Lies is the last Cameron movie worth watching, but that’s a different discussion.

This was the longest film of the day (and second longest of Arnold’s career, behind T2), which was good, because when you’re stuck to your seat for ten hours, you’d rather get the biggest chunk out of the way first.

Anyway, True Lies is a movie I’ve seen the third act of perhaps dozens of times, as it was a cable staple of the 2000s, so it was definitely worth seeing in it’s entirety, as there was much I either didn’t remember or straight up hadn’t seen (like the fact that a good chunk of the move is in Washington D.C.).

A remake of the 1991 French hit La totale ! (which I totally did not learn just now), True Lies is a top notch 90s action thriller that’s also unafraid of laying the comedy on thick.  I particularly enjoy the long, slow push-ins on Arnold’s steely eyes when he knows something the person he’s talking to does not.  It’s also a surprisingly grounded film given its over the top nature.  Honestly, the only element that took me out of the movie was the fact that Charlton Heston’s character had a patch over his obviously scarred eye, as if he walked in from the set of a different movie.

Really though, the magic of True Lies, other than the action set-pieces and ‘splosions, is that just about everyone in the cast is used appropriately, from Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, to Tia Carrere and Art Malik, to Tom Arnold (fantastic in this) and the now late (sadly) Bill Paxton, everyone’s playing a part they can easily dive into.

It may not be the biggest and baddest Arnold movie in terms of a testosterone-fueled thrill ride, but it’s a very good action/comedy that a lot of people can appreciate (and that doesn’t even include the one-liners [Spoiler]).

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Movie #2: ‘The Running Man’ (1987)

Ah, the far, distant, post-apocalyptic future of 2017!

You won’t hear me say The Running Man is bad, because it’s not.  It’s got a solid backbone of a Steven E. de Souza script (just look up his resume; it’s ridiculous), and a cast that’s chock-full of great character actors and action men.  I just can’t help but wonder if the movie could have been something more with a more visionary director at the helm.  Not that I blame Paul Michael Glaser.  Reportedly, producer Rob Cohen went through four other directors (including Andrew Davis, who got production off the ground but quickly went over budget and behind schedule; and who later would direct Arnold in Collateral Damage) before hiring Glaser to basically just get the movie done.

The final product of The Running Man is still eminently entertaining and audience-pleasing, even if not every visual concept works perfectly (it also receives bonus points for giving us some bearded Arnold, if only briefly).  Arnold is great, the rogues gallery is great, and the casting of Richard Dawson as an evil version of himself is a move that feels years ahead of its time (you could argue the movie stands on his shoulders more than anyone else; not to mention it leads to one of my favorite incidental lines from Aqua Teen Hunger Force).

The Running Man may not be an all-time great piece of science fiction (like another movie we’ll get to), but it’s no less influential (Hunger Games, anyone?), and, above all, it’s fun, especially with an audience.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Just before The Running Man started we all received one of these glasses, which was a generous and welcome surprise:

 

Movie #3: ‘Kindergarten Cop’ (1990)

This movie’s something of a miracle.

I mean, I don’t know about you, but if you pitched me Kindergarten Cop, a comedy/action film starring Arnold as an undercover police officer posing as a substitute kindergarten teacher (who has no experience) in order to track down the estranged family of a fugitive criminal, I’d tell you straight up that this concept has failure written all over it.

And yet, somehow, it works.

How much credit should go to whom, I don’t know, but given Ivan Reitman’s track record with Ghost Busters, wrangling that film together from three or four disparate creative visions, I’m going to bet he gets the lion’s share.

Anyway, Kindergarten Cop isn’t perfect.  It’s a bit uneven and a bit clunky at times (understandable given the elements it’s trying to hammer together), but, what little action there is is well executed, the comedy mostly works, and, again, it gets bonus points for some bearded Arnold action.

Frankly, the film’s biggest strength is that it never goes completely over the top (except maybe when Pamela Reed suddenly puts on an Austrian accent to maintain cover, but that’s not unforgivable).  There’s enough subtlety and realism in the plot, the characters, and, especially, the children, to hold everything together when a different movie would just come unglued.

It wasn’t my favorite of the day, but I’ll be less inclined to flip the channel on it in the future.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #4: ‘Eraser’ (1996)

The world of film is not without its binary planets that eventually spin off onto different trajectories.  For example, the Coen Brothers collaborated with Sam Raimi earlier in their careers, but it was they, not Raimi, who went on to near-constant critical acclaim in the proceeding decades.

Similarly, Frank Darabont began his career writing with Chuck Russell, but it was he, not Russell, who went onto direct such films as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, whereas Chuck went on to direct The Mask.  Not that we have anything against Chuck Russell, because he also went on to direct a little movie called Eraser.

Every Alamo Drafthouse actor-centric marathon features at least one movie that throws people for a loop, and I’m going to say Eraser is the left field pick in this case, if for no other reason than one of my friends and I had completely discounted it as a possibility (mostly on account of the CGI reptiles).

However, I have to say, Eraser earned its keep.

It may not have been the best movie of the day, nor the best movie of Arnold’s career, but Eraser has a lot going for it.  Good villains, solid supporting characters, and enough mid-Nineties action to keep you going for a couple of hours.  Whatever elements that haven’t aged well are smoothed over by a rather impressive top-to-bottom cast (including James Caan, James Coburn, and James Cromwell, just to name a few) all putting in solid shifts.

It’ll hurt your brain if you think about it too hard, but, like most of Arnold’s movies, if you’re down for a fun ride, Eraser delivers.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #5: ‘Total Recall’ (1990)

This film was the pièce de résistance, both for the day itself and for me personally, as I’d never seen it before.

Paul Verhoeven as a filmmaker (and perhaps in his life in general) is nothing if not provocative (I mean, if you haven’t seen Elle…it’s provocative), though, by his own standards, Total Recall may be his least provocative movie (you know, outside of all the horrific gore).

What Total Recall is, however, is an extremely successful sci-fi/action film; an all-time great, in my frank opinion.  I won’t claim to be an expert, but it’s generally accepted that Philip K. Dick is a difficult writer to translate from page to screen (e.g. Blade Runner‘s 10,000 different versions), but I’m going to take an educated guess that Total Recall is the best filmed adaptation of his work (or at the very least in the running for such an honor).

In all seriousness though, this is a big, bad, beautiful movie, full of amazing visuals (shot in Mexico, which worked well for Arnold before), bloody violence, and a wry sense of humor, while also featuring a good hard sci-fi story with plenty of twists and turns.  Total Recall is also a touch philosophical, asking the question of what makes us who we are, which I appreciate.

Naturally, of course, there’s more than a few familiar faces from Verhoeven’s other work (most notably Ronny Cox, Sharon Stone, and Michael Ironside).

On the one hand, I don’t know why it took me so long to see this one, but, on the other, I’m glad I got to see it for the first time in the same way everybody else did nearly three decades ago.

It’s a real treasure.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

So, that’s it; that’s all.  A great day all around.

Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers for hosting and Justin LaLiberty for curating, and to all the servers, runners, cooks, and bartenders who took care of all of us in the audience.  My “Mind Eraser” cocktail (whatever was in it) was quite enjoyable.

Unlike in the past, we know what next year’s marathon will be, and I couldn’t be more excited: Russellmania, here we come!

Classic Four-Play: ‘Stallone Zone’ – Good Old American Action

Stallone Zone

I’ve made no secret of my love for Alamo Drafthouse [Yonkers].  In the past year it has become one of my favorite places to trek to (I do have to cross a big important river to get there), especially for classic films and classic film marathons (except for that time I totally bombed trying to underplay a Nic Cage impression, but c’est la vie), not to mention great food and drink.

Again I say, if you have one near you and you’ve not been there. you’re doing yourself a disservice.  Go check it out at your earliest convenience.

Anyway, if you haven’t realized it by now, my latest excursion there (now more than two weeks ago; hurray for expediency) was for Stallone Zone, a marathon of four surprise movies starring (if not also written and directed by) Sylvester Stallone (all on glorious 35mm prints), curated by Drafthousers Cristina Cacioppo (who chose the films) and Austin hipster-type Greg MacLennan (who brought the prints, and many other wonderful visual goodies).

Now, let’s be real, you have to be in a certain mindset to truly enjoy a typical Stallone movie, and I’m perfectly fine going there, because I like having a good time.  Stallone represents escapist entertainment at its adrenaline-fueled peak.  Quite frankly, Stallone Zone was probably the most fun I’ve had in one day so far this year, and that’s the honest truth; and myself and all the friends I brought can’t wait to see what’s on tap for the next Drafthouse marathon.

But, I digress.  On to the movies.  These’ll be a bit shorter than my typical reviews since I have almost a handful to get through, not to mention there’s probably not much meaningful prose I can add after 20+ years.

Movie #1: Tango & Cash (1989)

Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky [and Albert Magnoli (Uncredited)]
Written by Randy Feldman
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell, Teri Hatcher, Jack Palance, Brion James, James Hong, Marc Alaimo, Philip Tan, Michael J. Pollard, Robert Z’Dar, Lewis Arquette, Edward Bunker, Michael Jeter, Clint Howard, Adolfo ‘Shabba-Doo’ Quinones, Glenn Morshower, Billy Blanks, Geoffrey Lewis
Soundtrack: Harold Faltermeyer

How serious Russian filmmaker Andrei Konchalovsky ever got involved with this project (more on Russian cinema later), the world may never know, because this is action-comedy at it’s finest.  I dare say this movie is proto-Hot Fuzz, because it’s definitely not a parody, but it knows what it is and makes no apologies for never getting too, too serious.

Stallone wonderfully plays against type as the uptight and slightly foppish Ray Tango while Kurt Russell does his usual thing with a little more lightheartedness as the fast and loose (if not downright slovenly) Gabriel Cash.  Throw in Jack Palance (and his lovely mice…over and over so you don’t forget) as your main villain and a whole tanker-truckload of snappy one-liners, and you’ve got a recipe for some big, burly laughs and a lot of [occasionally over-the-top and] enjoyable action.

I had watched this movie only once before, and I was surprised at how much I had forgotten about, but was delighted to see again.  I don’t know if John J.B. Wilson people had less of a sense of humor about themselves in 1989-90, because this movie was panned enough at the time to earn three Razzie nominations, but who cares about that now?  I certainly don’t.

★★★★☆ (Remember, this is an action-comedy.)

Movie #2: Paradise Alley (1978)

Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Lee Canalito, Armand Assante, Frank McRae, Anne Archer, Kevin Conway, Terry Funk (yes, THAT one), Tom Waits (yes, THAT one), Joe Spinell, Frank Pesce, Frank Stallone
Soundtrack: Bill Conti

If you go to a Drafthouse marathon like Caged or Stallone Zone, you can always count on at least one really obscure pick, and this time it was Paradise Alley.  I don’t want to say too much about this film in terms of the plot, as I’d suggest you just watch it to check it out, but this movie is so Stallone that he even sings the theme song.  Apparently this was actually the first movie he wanted to make,  but it wasn’t something he could get financing for until after Rocky was a raving success.

The basic premise is that three brothers in post-WWII Hell’s Kitchen are scraping their way through life (this is the first half of the film, and I won’t lie, it’s a little bit tedious at times, but it’s worth it and it does make sense from a dramatic and narrative perspective), until finally they get an opportunity to make some real money by working together.

This is another role where Stallone plays against his usual type in the sense that his character isn’t really likable, but don’t worry, there’s a bit of an arc.  Honestly though, as Stallone-centric as this movie is, it’s the supporting cast that really makes it, particularly Armand Assante in his first major film role.  The dynamic dynamic of the three brothers is crucial, but the menagerie of other characters is also a big help to making the story and the compact world it’s set in come alive.

It’s not a perfect film by any stretch, but I do recommend Paradise Alley, if only based on the strength of its second half (which is much more action-packed).

★★★½

Movie #3: Demolition Man (1993)

Directed by Marco Brambilla
Written by Peter M. Lenkov and Robert Reneau (Screenplay and Story), and Daniel Waters (Screenplay)
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, Sandra Bullock, Nigel Hawthorne, Benjamin Bratt, Bob Gunton, Rob Schneider (Uncredited), Denis Leary, Jesse Ventura (Bit Part), Jack Black (Bit Part), Glenn Shadix, Grand L. Bush, Steve Kahan, Troy Evans, Don Charles McGovern, Bill Cobbs
Soundtrack: Elliot Goldenthal

So, this is a very interesting movie, because it’s a popcorn action flick built upon the framework of a really solid science fiction premise (I suppose Robocop would be another good example, though Paul Verhoeven’s satire is much more biting).  Some people might say the future is played too cheesy here, and, yeah, it goes a little too far with that at times, but on the whole the fact that it seems off-putting actually works in the movie’s favor, because you’re seeing things through the eyes of our primary characters; and let’s face it, if you suddenly woke up 36 years into the future, you’d probably think everything and everybody was pretty weird.

From a visual perspective, obviously the action scenes are great (the opening sequence leaves quite an impression), but the overall look and feel of the future is very well done, and still holds up pretty well 20+ years later (except for all the Oldsmobile references, but, you know that?  Go watch 2001 or 2010 again and try to hate on them in the same way; yes, I just compared those to Demolition Man).

This movie has another great pairing of stars as well, except unlike Tango & Cash, Stallone is up against Snipes in this one, and there’s pretty strong action hero/villain chemistry between them, not to mention some good old-fashioned fish-out-of-water comedy.

Not much else to say about this one; just classic 90s action.

★★★½ Stars
(★★★★★ for the sweet S.A.P.D. hats we all got as part of the package)

This picture is what you call a “segue”.

Movie #4: Rocky IV (1985)

Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers, Brigitte Nielsen, Tony Burton, Dolph Lundgren, James Brown (yes, THAT one), Michael Pataki
Soundtrack: Vince DiCola

Forget Ronald Reagan.  Rocky Balboa was the man who single-handedly defeated Communism.

Whatever you think you know about this film, you really haven’t seen it unless you’ve watched it on the big screen with a pumped-up group of fans.  By this point in the day (it was well into the night actually), the Stallone Zone audience was so into everything that the festivities were less like a film screening, and more like a live concert, with the crowd cheering for every fan favorite and greatest hit.  A couple of my friends and I were even doing air toms during one of the famous training montages.

Speaking of montage, there are no less than five montages in this film (you easily lose count after a while).  Maybe it’s as simple as Stallone wanting to play tastemaker because he really liked the bands on the soundtrack, but in the absence of a thorough explanation, I offer a radical hypothesis:

Perhaps Stallone is such a proficient student of film that he used the opportunity of a movie where his character fights a big Russian in “the heart of the Soviet Union” to pay tribute to early Russian cinema, as montage editing was pioneered in the late 1910s and 1920s by Soviet filmmakers Lev Kuleshov and Sergei Eisenstein.

Or maybe that’s all wrong.  It doesn’t matter.

Rocky IV is great because it makes you feel great, and if you don’t like it, you hate America.  End of story.

Ⅳ out of Ⅴ Stars.

 

Hearts on Fire, baby.