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.

Movie Review – ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ – What Could Go Wrong?

Directed by Jon Watts

Written by Jonathan GoldsteinJohn Francis Daley (story and screenplay), Jon WattsChristopher Ford (screenplay), and Chris McKennaErik Sommers, based on the comic book by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko

Cast: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau. Gwyneth Paltrow, Zendaya, Donald Glover, Jacob Batalon, Laura Harrier, Tony Revolori, Bokeem Woodbine, Tyne Daly, Abraham Attah, Hannibal Buress, Kenneth Choi, Selenis Leyva, Angourie Rice, Isabella Amara, Martin Starr, Garcelle Beauvais, Michael Chernus, Michael Mando, Logan Marshall-Green, Jennifer Connelly (voice), Christopher Berry, Tunde Adebimpe, Tiffany Espensen, Chris Evans, Kerry Condon (voice), Andy Powers

Soundtrack: Michael Giacchino

Generally speaking, I like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and, based on a limited sample size, I think Jon Watts is a quality filmmaker.

From that alone, you’d think I’d have nothing but excitement for Spider-Man: Homecoming, but it’s unfortunately more complicated than that.  The fact that there are six credited screenwriters (more than any other MCU film) is a bit unnerving, but much bigger than that is the fifteen years of baggage.

Spider-Man as a cinematic property has a rather checkered history (to say the least) since the “original” Sam Raimi film in 2002 (which, frankly, is the only other Spider-Man movie I’d recommend outright).  That trilogy ended in disaster with the notoriously awful Spider-Man 3, and an attempt to reboot the character with another trilogy barely five years later was prematurely terminated with the equally disastrous Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 2014.

What has happened in the meantime is somewhat mysterious, but, for whatever reason, Sony finally cried uncle and began leasing out its star IP to Marvel Studios for inclusion into the MCU, starting with 2016’s Civil War, and continuing at least through 2019.

This was cause for celebration among fans worldwide, but I’m slightly more cynical, because the fact that Sony still has [what I assume to be] a sizable stake in it makes me nervous.

However, much like with Baby Driver, my fears were quickly allayed once the actual movie started.

To say that Spider-Man: Homecoming is the best Spider-Man film ever made is like saying Jaws is the best killer shark movie.  It’s just that obvious (and, at first blush, I think it easily makes my top five MCU movies, if not top three).  This is not to say it’s entirely perfect, but, it does have have an actual plot, and characters, and action that’s in accordance with the story.  These things may seem trivial to point out, but given how many movies these days feature bare-bones frameworks to hang action upon (and then, on top of that, aren’t even fun), I do not take these elements lightly.

Also, boy oh boy is it refreshing to see a [non-sequel] superhero movie that isn’t an origin story, particularly for a character that’s had theirs told multiple times already (why D.C. feels it necessary to take us down Crime Alley incessantly, I’ll never know).

As far as the cast goes, it’s pleasantly jarring to see young actors in a high school movie who look like they really could be (if not actually are) in high school, Tom Holland naturally being the head of the class; he’s terrific in this (although I did rather enjoy Zendaya’s performance, even if she’s not in the movie nearly as much as expected).  In addition, you’ve got Michael Keaton and Robert Downey Jr. putting in quality shifts, as well as a colorful group of supporting characters (I’d say something about Marisa Tomei, but she just doesn’t get a lot of screen time, so there’s not much for me to comment on).

Most importantly though, the movie is simply a joy to watch.  It blends action and humor like few of its contemporaries, while still maintaining a genuine sense of weight.  Some of the high school stuff and some of the end action is a bit much for me, but, on the whole, I really have to hand it to Marvel.  Just when I think I’m about to begin tiring of them, they find another way to keep it fresh, in this case being able to successfully craft a smaller, more intimate story in an undoubtedly larger universe.

Spider-Man: Homecoming, for a comic book/superhero movie, is very much down to earth in the way that For Your Eyes Only is down to earth relative to other James Bond movies.  There’s a climactic ending, to be sure, but there are no blue lasers shooting up into the sky, and no vast terror plot to destroy humanity.

Truly, Homecoming is about our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
It’s an MCU movie, so of course you’re not leaving during the credits (it’s totally worth it).

Shout out to Mondo for the sweet glassware once again.

Quick Thoughts – November Round-Up, Part 1

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)

It seems like every major holiday gets plenty of love from the motion picture industry, except Thanksgiving.

I mean, other than Blood Rage (aka Nightmare at Shadow Woods), that fake [TOTALLY NSFW] trailer from Grindhouse, and Prisoners, I can’t think of a single other movie that takes place around the true American holiday.  And that’s not to say that this movie even is a Thanksgiving movie, because it’s really more about one man’s quest to get home for the holiday (and the traveling partner he happens to get stuck with).

I’m going to guess that Planes, Trains & Automobiles doesn’t hold up for everyone, but it still works for me, and if you’ve ever had a nightmare travelling experience, I’m guessing it’ll work for you, too.  Somewhere, perhaps rotting away in a vault, is a two hour cut of this film that I’d love to see (you can tell because the trailer has a ton of stuff that’s not in the final cut), but the version we have available is a nice, tight ninety-minute comedy that never overstays its welcome, no matter how much our two leads get on each others’ nerves.

I know it’s cliche because I overuse it myself, but they don’t make movies like this much anymore.  The comedy genre, not unlike horror, has been largely relegated to the discount bin, only being made if the studio can do it on the cheap.  In contrast, this movie has scope, and a budget to back it up.  After all, no airline, railroad, or rental car company would lend their likeness only to be depicted as incompetent, so the production had to essentially create their own.

But, hey, comedy comes down to comedy, right?  Fortunately, John Candy and Steve Martin are at peak performance with their respective shticks (an over-talker for Candy and a curmudgeon for Martin), but they’re also both adept at keeping things real when the moment calls for it.

This is a very good comedy film (particularly one that doesn’t involve science fiction or supernatural elements) from a decade that’s chock full of good to great ones.  It may leave you with more questions than answers (like, who is Del Griffith, really?), but I suppose it’s more about the journey than the destination.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

I remember watching this on Netflix a while back and thinking it was just okay, but upon further review (perhaps having my expectations more properly calibrated), Assault on Precinct 13 is a pretty good little movie.

Taking huge inspiration from the Howard Hawks-directed, John Wayne-starring siege westerns (Rio Bravo, El Dorado, and Rio Lobo) and upgrading the setting to modern day (as of 1976) Los Angeles, 13 is the tale of a ragtag group consisting of a CHP lieutenant, a pair of secretaries, and a few prisoners, trapped inside a nearly-closed police station and fighting for survival against a seemingly endless storm of gang members bent on revenge.

It’s not a perfect movie, but I give it ample credit for squeezing as much out of its low budget as it possibly could have (especially that wonderful synth score), and there’s one scene in particular, love it or hate it, that few would dare to even try these days.

The action might be a bit clunky (although there is That One wonderful shot), but the tension is expertly built, and the characters are interesting enough to get you through.  Even without much star power at work, I give Assault on Precinct 13 a solid recommendation (you know, just don’t expect Commando).

Rating: ★★★½

All the President’s Men (1976)

People will probably try to discredit me for saying this, but All the President’s Men doesn’t hold up that well.

Yes, it’s an important story in American history, and, yes, it demonstrates the value of a free and unfettered press, but, if you weren’t alive and conscious at the time of Watergate, there’s a lot you might miss.

I’m going to compare this movie to a similar one made nearly four decades later, that being Spotlight.  Now, I admit, I may be generationally biased here, but, the way I see it, Spotlight assumes you don’t know anything about the story, so, as it plays out, things that are significant feel significant because the movie has explained why they are significant.  All the President’s Men doesn’t necessarily play out like this, so, if you don’t know certain names, places, or abbreviations, things could fly right over your head without you even knowing.

However, the film does boast an impressive cast, Robert Redford in particular is wonderfully subtle, and, like Spotlight, the cinematography is probably underrated (lots of split diopter shots, which I’m always a fan of).

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Misery (1990)

Like All the President’s Men, Misery is a William Goldman screenplay adapted from an existing book.

Unlike All the President’s Men, nothing in Misery ever happened (that we know of).

I’ve said this before in relation to Coming to America, but everybody involved with Misery was firing on all cylinders.  Rob Reiner was coming off of directing When Harry Met Sally, William Goldman’s previous screenplay was The Princess Bride (also directed by Reiner), James Caan gives a magnificent performance in something of a comeback role, and Kathy Bates skyrocketed into the public eye with her Oscar-winning portrayal of Annie Wilkes; not to mention Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen doing top-notch character work.  Also, this was cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld’s last movie as a director of photography before moving to the big director’s chair, and it’s some of his finest work; mostly claustrophobic (it’s of little surprise that Misery was recently adapted for the stage, given the mostly limited setting), but also panoramic when called for.

Many great thrillers are dark comedies at heart (Hitchcock knew this well, and the Coens are still doing it), and this one is no exception.  As horrifying as things become, there’s usually a spoonful of sugar mixed in to keep things from veering into complete, well, misery territory.

Given the hit-or-miss nature of Stephen King film adaptations, Misery is clearly among the best (and Reiner hit paydirt twice, also directing Stand By Me).

It’s a work of art, plain and simple.

Rating: ★★★★½

The Paper (1994)

Ron Howard has made so many movies and worked with so many people that you probably don’t even know (or realize) half the stuff he’s directed.

The Paper likely falls into that category.

Howard’s filmography is largely dominated by Tom Hanks, but before they made their big Splash together (Oh, no.  Am I turning into Gene Shalit?), there was another comedic actor who helped put “Ron Howard: Director” on the map, that being Michael Keaton (in another little movie you might not know called Night Shift).

I’m going to call The Paper a “Kitchen Sink Dramedy” because, while the movie clearly has a sense of humor, there are so many dramatic elements thrown in that I couldn’t possibly list them all here (just to name a few: job interview, cancer, wrongful arrest).  And, if all that wasn’t enough, everything takes place in a 24-hour period (like After Hours but with an actual point, I think).

And it’s not just the script that’s fully loaded, as the cast list is long and distinguished (including Jason Robards as a newspaper executive…sounds familiar), with a heavy mix of established stars, “that guy” actors, and now notable people in before-they-were famous roles (not to mention one shot that’s literally just a wall of cameos).  An ensemble if there ever was one.

The Paper is far from a perfect film, and I imagine it would be a bit too cornball for some to handle (frankly, the movie is achingly Nineties), but I recommend it, especially for those curious about the business of newspapers (it has a reputation among journalists of being true to life despite its over-the-top nature).

Rating: ★★★½

Quick Thoughts – Oscar Round-Up

Truth be told, I don’t really get that much into the Oscars.

I can’t even remember the last time I sat down and watched them, if ever.

That said, people are talking about them, as always, so let me throw my two cents in.

Much like, when going into last year’s World Cup, all I really wanted was for the US to just beat Ghana, all I really wanted from the Oscars this year was for ‘Boyhood’ not to win Best Picture, and it didn’t, and I’m happy about that.  So, pretty much everything else is gravy, but I’ll get into that later.

Now, honestly, I haven’t seen ‘Boyhood’, and I don’t know if I’ll ever see it.  It’s an interesting idea, to be sure, and, as far as I know, it’s a first for a feature film, but it’s not like something similar has never been done before by anyone (because, apparently, this is a thing).  Not to mention, from what I hear from people I trust, Richard Linklater was apparently not the right filmmaker to get the most out of this concept.  I mean, sure, it’s somewhat impressive that they were able to gather the same people together for twelve consecutive years to work on this project, but the fact that something takes a long period of time to complete does not make it automatically better than other projects.

You know what really impresses me?  That fact that something like ‘Birdman’ was shot in 30 days.  That’s what I call pushing the art form.  And that’s one big reason why I’m glad it won Best Picture.  That and I found it to be completely captivating from start to breathless finish.

So, yes, ‘Birdman’ for Best Picture would have been my pick.

I was also glad to see J.K. Simmons win for Best Supporting Actor (although I don’t think ‘Whiplash’ was worthy of even a nomination for Best Picture), ‘American Sniper’ for Best Sound Editing (although, again, not a Best Picture nominee in my mind), and ‘Interstellar’ for Best Visual Effects (long live the practical!).

Also, as down as I am on ‘Boyhood’, I’m happy for Patricia Arquette for winning Best Supporting Actress (from what I hear she’s the best thing about the movie), if for no other reason than it means we don’t have to live through another Meryl Streep victory (I’m gonna go out on a limb and say she didn’t deserve it this year anyway).

Now, as far as disappointments, I wish ‘Guardians of the Galaxy‘ had won for Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and, on a more serious note, I really wish Michael Keaton had won for Best Actor.  I mean, come on, it was probably his last (and only) best shot at winning; Eddie Redmayne still has the rest of his career to nick one!

Anyway, like I said, overall, I’m happy that something other than ‘Boyhood’ won for Best Picture, and I’m especially happy that it was ‘Birdman’.

That’s all I got.