And now at last, we reach the reason why for eight years Batman was thought to be gone from the movies forever. A movie that is perhaps so bad that we should be thankful. After all, they wouldn't have had to reboot the whole series by bringing us Christopher Nolan's modern masterpieces if this movie wasn't so incredibly awful. I'm talking, of course, about Batman & Robin. Whereas the rest of the early Batman movies had at least some shred of quality, this movie has none (apart from the five seconds where Mr. Freeze sheds a single tear and it freezes on his face, that was pretty good). I believe my high school English teacher said it best: "If you're four years old and you've never seen a movie before, Batman & Robin is pretty much the greatest movie ever." And with that, this is the epic finale of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."
I'd like to rip on the plot of this movie, but unfortunately I can't. The reason being that I can't remember it. Because it was stupid. Really stupid. Something about Mr. Freeze wanting to freeze the whole city for reasons unknown. In addition, Batgirl joins the crew for reasons unknown. I've never been a big fan of Batgirl as a character. Because although the idea of a female Batman is certainly pretty hot (in the spirit of female Jack Bauer on the past season of 24) the character is quite superfluous. Whereas Robin is supposed to represent Batman's redemption, (because if Bruce can raise him without hatred and fear, maybe he'll end up differently than Batman did) Batgirl basically represents the fact that the comics writers wanted to bring in a female audience. And that Joel Schumacher wanted to put Alicia Silverstone in a tight-fitting Batgirl outfit, something I'm not entirely against. However, and this is sure to upset the ladies in my audience, she's not really in any kind of shape to be fighting crime. She's by no earthly means overweight, but the same goes for any number of people who aren't capable of jumping around rooftops and beating up bad guys. Not that Clooney (as much as I like him in basically every other movie he's in) looks like he could beat up anybody either. (But that's the whole point of my dismay isn't it?) And on top of not being in good enough shape to be Batgirl, she also somehow manages to save both Batman and Robin at the end of the movie. Yeah, because some schoolgirl fresh from the classroom has the skills to save the world's greatest gymnast/martial artist and his sidekick, all because she found a costume in a drawer.
Now then, let's focus on the villains in the movie (and I use that term loosely, especially in wake of my 5 favorite villains series, where the word was used to describe very in-depth and interesting characters). Poison Ivy is, without a doubt, a fairly minor villain. But she's moderately interesting in that she's an environmentalist gone crazy (before that was the cool thing to do) and that she's a temptress who is able to seduce any man she comes across (except Batman of course. Scratch that, except Batman when the story is done correctly of course). Because of this, she's supposed to be a woman who is literally so attractive that the thought process going through every guy's head should be: "I know that if I kiss her I will either die or become one of her minions, but I don't particularly care." And who do they cast to play this Helen of Troy-esque woman? Uma Thurman. And with creepy plastic eyebrows no less. Now, I think Uma is a great actress, and I don't think she's unattractive. But a woman so attractive that I'd sacrifice everything just to be around her? I think not. They probably realized this when filming and for this reason wrote in a perfume she wears that does the job for her. I can buy that I guess, but she really shouldn't need a perfume. I'm not sure who I would have cast as her back then, but today I'd say they should cast Annie Wersching (the aforementioned female Jack Bauer from this past season of 24, I watched the whole season over the weekend). And why is she teaming up with a man who wants to freeze the whole city? I'll have to check with my mom later to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that plants die when hit by a freeze-ray (or a similar, naturally-occurring phenomenon).
Which brings us to Mr. Freeze. He's another one of my favorite villains from the animated series. In fact, the first episode to feature him, "Heart of Ice," won an emmy. And rightfully so, because it's really freaking good. In 20 minutes it examines a tragic man who was trying to save his dying wife and ended up being condemned to a sub-zero environment. Michael Ansara's voice on the show is just perfect: powerful yet weary. He is frightening one moment and mournful the next. The episode not only set the standard for Batman, but in many ways, it set the standard for a whole decade of excellent animated television. And what do we get from this character who was so well-developed in a mere 20 minutes when he appears on the big screen?
"FREEEEEEEEEZE! CHILLLLLLLL OUT!"
Holy crap could they have screwed up the character any more? I'm a fan of Arnold's many action movies, much like any guy, but this was just terrible. At least they kept the storyline about his dying wife, but the delivery is just terrible. Mr. Freeze is supposed to be a character whose sorrow was so great over the loss of his wife that his physical body became as frigid as his emotional state. Which is even more interesting when considering that this is not so different from what made Batman who he is. But instead of exacting his vengeance on those who wronged him, he decides it would be just as fulfilling having ice-skating henchmen that help him rob banks as he exclaims stupid one-liners that exhaust Roget's "cold" section. The fact that the Adam West TV show was so hokey that it was cancelled in a time of hokey television should be some indication that crap like that doesn't fly with people. And once again, his villainous plan is moustache-twirling at its worst. It would've been right at home in one of Roger Moore's Bond films or perhaps, Spy Kids 4: Not Child's Play Anymore. We sadly will never see Freeze done correctly, as he's too unrealistic for the new Batman films (which I'm fine with, so maybe I'll make some of my own someday).
And now, let's rip on Clooney's Batman. Oh wait, not just yet, I forgot about Bane! Probably because he's in the movie for about 27 seconds. Bane is certainly without much of a personality or backstory in any medium he's been depicted in, but he's very formidable. In the comics, he broke Batman's back. A new Batman had to step in for a while, and there was some question as to whether the real Batman would ever be back to peak efficiency again. On the cartoon, Batman almost got himself squeezed into a piece of origami by Bane. The only way to stop him is to cut off his supply of the venom that gives him his extraordinary strength. And even though he is literally in the movie for under five minutes, (no hyperbole this time, or whatever the opposite of hyperbole is...hypobole?) that's all it takes for Joel Schumacher to screw him up. Robin and Batgirl are pinned up against the wall by Bane, and they give a wimpy kick and knock his venom off of his head. The end. Every other time we see Bane anywhere, it takes a well-placed batarang to cut that thing loose. On the cartoon, Batman had to freaking stab that thing in order to survive. But in Joel Schumacher's vision, a kick that is flirting with being a spasm is all it takes to defeat Batman's strongest foe. My rule for formidable villains is: if neither I nor my eight-year-old cousin could defeat him, he's probably formidable. Bane fails, on every level.
Right then, now let's talk about Clooney. He has basically the complete opposite of Kilmer's problem. He's Bruce Wayne all the time. As such, he does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne (at least on face value, the character implications are wrong). But his Batman is just goofy to the point that I thought the actual villain in the movie was the Mad Hatter, who had given Batman some sort of mind-control device that made him think he was a Power Ranger. His motivation for being Batman seems to be comparable to mine, when I was four: he drives a cool car and has cool gadgets. So forget the fact that Batman is obsessed with the death of his parents, for Clooney he's just a rich playboy with a very expensive taste for adventure. In fact, in a behind-the-scenes interview Clooney said, "why would someone play Batman in a dark way? I mean, the guy is a multi-billionaire, he dates supermodels, and he drives an awesome car. Who would be sad about all of that?"
HE MISSED THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!
Clooney's Batman apparently woke up one day in his teens and said, "you know, it really doesn't hurt so much anymore. I mean, mom and dad wouldn't let me stay up to watch Laugh-In and they made me eat brussel sprouts. I'm gonna go give Brooke Shields a call." So he plays the character like a thrill-seeking billionaire. As such, the fight scenes are ridiculously silly, with no sense of danger whatsoever. Clooney not only lacks intimidation, but deliberately tries to not be intimidating. Everything about his performance, the city, and the story is fake. It's stylized to the point of being a parody of itself. And once again, this was written by the man who brought us Constantine, a film where the cancer-ridden hero saves the day by killing himself and using the devil's ego against him, conning him into stopping the apocalypse. How is it even possible that the man who wrote that also wrote: "Hey Freeze, the heat is on!" If the rumors are true and Clooney will indeed be playing the Lone Ranger, I think that would be excellent as long as he does the exact opposite of what he did in this movie.
Well there you have it, though I would certainly love to go scene-by-scene with each Batman film, talking about what I love and what I intensely dislike, (only love for the new ones, mostly dislike for the old ones) that will have to wait for my book. But I think my point is across. The films went in a very interesting progression. Tim Burton's first got a lot of things right, but it also got a lot wrong (including all of the Prince songs). His second film actually made the villains too dark and barely had any scenes with Batman (it's also a bit long). Schumacher's first outing had some pretty good scenes with Batman reflecting on his past, and Robin is done some small bit of justice, but the villains are way too stupid. Then Schumacher's second try just tosses everything out the window. If you took Clooney's Bruce Wayne, Kilmer's Batman, Tim Burton's directing, and the screenwriter of the last two in Constantine mode, you'd have a pretty good Batman movie. But thankfully, in 2005 we no longer needed to fantasize about how to Frankenstein a good Batman film into existence, because they finally got it right. And who knows? Maybe the people behind Batman Begins wouldn't have been quite so motivated to make the movie they did without a lot of the mistakes that came beforehand. And truth be told, it's much more fun to talk about how bad something is than how great it is. So I suppose I should thank Mr. Schumacher, because he unintentionally brought me some good times through his really, really bad movie.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Val Kilmer Thinks He's Hot Stuff, But Christian Bale Has Two Top Guns And They're Attached To His Torso
Riddle me this: where do I even begin to insult Batman Forever? It fails on just about every level possible. Let's start off with a few positives: Robin is actually done fairly well and Chris O'Donnell did a pretty good job playing him. Michael Gough does a good job as Alfred, which is why he is the only actor that stars in all four of the original movies. Nicole Kidman is in it, and she's pretty attractive. The end. That's it. Now let's rip it apart! This is part two of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."
Okay, let's deal with the giant mammarian chiroptera-shaped elephant in the room: bat-nipples. Even director Joel Schumacher has lowered his head in shame over the thought of these atrocities (and if he hasn't, he should). And they're slapped on verifiable Halloween costumes with enough fake abs to make even me appear to be capable of fighting crime. They're the physical representation of why the movie is bad: instead of Tim Burton's mistake, which was to capture the overall tone of the comics while tossing a lot of important things out the window, this movie (along with Batman & Robin) simply brings back the impossibly incorrect tone of the Adam West days and gives it a budget. The fight scenes are highly stylized and very silly, the film is rife with awful one-liners, and the city itself looks like an arcade game background on crack.
But I can forgive all of that, really. Because there are still the characters to deal with. Too bad they were butchered too. To begin with: The Riddler. I can't say as I'm a big Jim Carrey fan anyway (or a fan at all really) but at least when he's usually being annoying he's not annihilating one of my favorite villains in the process. Though some may perceive the character as a somewhat offbeat villain, and certainly silly given that the only exposure people have had to him was this performance, I always loved the character. If I turned evil, I would be The Riddler. Basically, he's a super genius who likes to flaunt his superiority so much that he leaves clues behind, both to enhance his narcissism by showing how smart he is and to see if anyone is worthy of deciphering his clues. He's not goofy. He's not imposing either. Basically he's a spindly geek who could never beat anyone in a fight, and usually doesn't even try because he lets his brain do the fighting for him (actually that sounds exactly like me, I should complete the transformation by wearing an all-green suit around). When Batman goes up against him, it's a battle of wits. He truly puts Batman's deductive reasoning and profiling skills to the test. And that incredible character, who is done so perfectly on the animated series, was turned into something even sillier than the Joker. He's a nutjob outfitted with neon lights who leaves clues that an eight-year-old could solve and yells "joygasm!" at one point. The sentence I'm currently writing was written twelve minutes after the previous one because I just fainted and hit my head. The character was reduced to a stereotypical "let's blow stuff up for the sole reason that I'm evil" mustache-twirling villain who just happens to wear a question mark.
Though I'm not like him in any way (at least hopefully not) Two-Face is another of my favorite villains, possibly my favorite Batman villain actually. Thank God they FINALLY did him justice in The Dark Knight with Aaron Eckhart's phenomenal, and largely under-appreciated, performance. The scene where he delivers what's probably my favorite line in the movie exemplifies everything they did correctly, and everything Forever got wrong: "In a cruel world, the only morality is chance." That line fully captures Two-Face's entire character flaw. Think about how distorted your mind would have to be to see no difference between killing someone and letting them live. He's a broken man, and he literally can't decide between holding onto the hero that he was, or the villain that he's become. So he flips a coin. That's powerful stuff, but Forever treats it like a gimmick. As much as I ordinarily love Tommy Lee Jones, and it was probably mostly the script's fault, his delivery is completely wrong. He flips the coin in a fashion that screams, "the script says I'm supposed to do this." In fact, at one point he keeps flipping until he gets the result he wants. That makes absolutely no sense, and it diminishes what has become one of the most well-known and interesting comic book villains of all time. And why pair him with The Riddler? This showcases the filmmaker's complete lack of understanding for the characters. The Riddler, narcissist that he is, would never work with anyone, let alone someone whose ability to make simple choices is determined by a coin. That's the complete opposite of The Riddler. They really made me feel as though they put all the villains who hadn't been done into a hat and pulled their names out. And much like the other costumes in the film, Two-Face's is way over-the-top. And whereas Christopher Nolan's description of how Two-Face should look for The Dark Knight was, "he should make people want to throw up if they saw him on the street" Joel Schumacher's was seemingly, "he should look like he just came from a kid's birthday party where they had face painting and he had to leave when the job was only half done because The Riddler needed him to wreak havoc on Gotham City."
All of that aside, the important question is, how was Batman? Well, truth be told, Val Kilmer's Batman is actually not too bad. His voice is appropriately gruff, and there are even one or two scenes related to Bruce's childhood that were probably remnants of a former, superior script. If they didn't give him lines and a plot that were so terrible, he actually would've been a pretty good Batman. But once again, the problem with Val (who I think is ordinarily a great actor, especially as Doc Holliday in Tombstone) is the same as Keaton in that Bruce Wayne is totally wrong. Whereas Keaton's Wayne was a misanthropic loner, Kilmer's takes it a step further. His Bruce Wayne voice is almost the same as his Batman voice. And at one point in the film he looks at an ink blot on the wall and says quite clearly in his Batman voice, "That looks like a bat." This is a step farther from the neon sign above Keaton's head, the one above Kilmer's head states:
NOT ONLY AM I OBVIOUSLY BATMAN, IF YOU CAN'T TELL THEN YOU'RE A MORON!
At least Keaton made an effort to hide his identity. Kilmer walks around in his expensive suit for the whole movie saying things such as:
"Man it's dark out tonight, just like my soul."
"My arm really hurts today, probably because I punched twelve drug dealers in the face last night."
"The death of my parents signified the death of Bruce Wayne, I became an expert at every fighting style and returned to Gotham City to don a cape as my alter ego, oh whoops, thought I was alone..."
As always, some slight hyperbole was involved with those quotes. BUT, he might as well be that obvious because if Jim Carrey can figure out you're Batman, so can the rest of the world. And whereas the action in the first two films was fairly well done, if not a bit cheesy simply because of the time period it was made during, the action in this film is incredibly campy. A big part of the Batman performance is how he handles himself during a fight. Christian Bale knocks people around tactically and quickly, crunching a lot of bones in the process. Kilmer (and once again, not entirely his fault) fights like he's in a stage play. Perhaps as though it's all happening live and he has to make sure not to actually hurt his fellow actors. They might as well have thrown in a few "biff" and "pows" because then it could've been an homage at least, instead of just plain stupid.
What's especially strange about this film is that there are a fair few good actors in it, the director has done some good work over the years, and the screenwriter also wrote Constantine, Cinderella Man, and has recently joined the writing staff of Fringe. So you'd think he would have come up with something good. Sadly, Batman Forever instead lives on as a movie with infinite potential that leaves the audience feeling like they've been doped by some of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. What's especially sad is that they made yet another Batman movie...and it's the worst of them all. Something so terrifyingly bad that it's taken years off of my life from stress. And I'll be discussing it in a future blog entry, same bat-URL, different bat-title.
Okay, let's deal with the giant mammarian chiroptera-shaped elephant in the room: bat-nipples. Even director Joel Schumacher has lowered his head in shame over the thought of these atrocities (and if he hasn't, he should). And they're slapped on verifiable Halloween costumes with enough fake abs to make even me appear to be capable of fighting crime. They're the physical representation of why the movie is bad: instead of Tim Burton's mistake, which was to capture the overall tone of the comics while tossing a lot of important things out the window, this movie (along with Batman & Robin) simply brings back the impossibly incorrect tone of the Adam West days and gives it a budget. The fight scenes are highly stylized and very silly, the film is rife with awful one-liners, and the city itself looks like an arcade game background on crack.
But I can forgive all of that, really. Because there are still the characters to deal with. Too bad they were butchered too. To begin with: The Riddler. I can't say as I'm a big Jim Carrey fan anyway (or a fan at all really) but at least when he's usually being annoying he's not annihilating one of my favorite villains in the process. Though some may perceive the character as a somewhat offbeat villain, and certainly silly given that the only exposure people have had to him was this performance, I always loved the character. If I turned evil, I would be The Riddler. Basically, he's a super genius who likes to flaunt his superiority so much that he leaves clues behind, both to enhance his narcissism by showing how smart he is and to see if anyone is worthy of deciphering his clues. He's not goofy. He's not imposing either. Basically he's a spindly geek who could never beat anyone in a fight, and usually doesn't even try because he lets his brain do the fighting for him (actually that sounds exactly like me, I should complete the transformation by wearing an all-green suit around). When Batman goes up against him, it's a battle of wits. He truly puts Batman's deductive reasoning and profiling skills to the test. And that incredible character, who is done so perfectly on the animated series, was turned into something even sillier than the Joker. He's a nutjob outfitted with neon lights who leaves clues that an eight-year-old could solve and yells "joygasm!" at one point. The sentence I'm currently writing was written twelve minutes after the previous one because I just fainted and hit my head. The character was reduced to a stereotypical "let's blow stuff up for the sole reason that I'm evil" mustache-twirling villain who just happens to wear a question mark.
Though I'm not like him in any way (at least hopefully not) Two-Face is another of my favorite villains, possibly my favorite Batman villain actually. Thank God they FINALLY did him justice in The Dark Knight with Aaron Eckhart's phenomenal, and largely under-appreciated, performance. The scene where he delivers what's probably my favorite line in the movie exemplifies everything they did correctly, and everything Forever got wrong: "In a cruel world, the only morality is chance." That line fully captures Two-Face's entire character flaw. Think about how distorted your mind would have to be to see no difference between killing someone and letting them live. He's a broken man, and he literally can't decide between holding onto the hero that he was, or the villain that he's become. So he flips a coin. That's powerful stuff, but Forever treats it like a gimmick. As much as I ordinarily love Tommy Lee Jones, and it was probably mostly the script's fault, his delivery is completely wrong. He flips the coin in a fashion that screams, "the script says I'm supposed to do this." In fact, at one point he keeps flipping until he gets the result he wants. That makes absolutely no sense, and it diminishes what has become one of the most well-known and interesting comic book villains of all time. And why pair him with The Riddler? This showcases the filmmaker's complete lack of understanding for the characters. The Riddler, narcissist that he is, would never work with anyone, let alone someone whose ability to make simple choices is determined by a coin. That's the complete opposite of The Riddler. They really made me feel as though they put all the villains who hadn't been done into a hat and pulled their names out. And much like the other costumes in the film, Two-Face's is way over-the-top. And whereas Christopher Nolan's description of how Two-Face should look for The Dark Knight was, "he should make people want to throw up if they saw him on the street" Joel Schumacher's was seemingly, "he should look like he just came from a kid's birthday party where they had face painting and he had to leave when the job was only half done because The Riddler needed him to wreak havoc on Gotham City."
All of that aside, the important question is, how was Batman? Well, truth be told, Val Kilmer's Batman is actually not too bad. His voice is appropriately gruff, and there are even one or two scenes related to Bruce's childhood that were probably remnants of a former, superior script. If they didn't give him lines and a plot that were so terrible, he actually would've been a pretty good Batman. But once again, the problem with Val (who I think is ordinarily a great actor, especially as Doc Holliday in Tombstone) is the same as Keaton in that Bruce Wayne is totally wrong. Whereas Keaton's Wayne was a misanthropic loner, Kilmer's takes it a step further. His Bruce Wayne voice is almost the same as his Batman voice. And at one point in the film he looks at an ink blot on the wall and says quite clearly in his Batman voice, "That looks like a bat." This is a step farther from the neon sign above Keaton's head, the one above Kilmer's head states:
NOT ONLY AM I OBVIOUSLY BATMAN, IF YOU CAN'T TELL THEN YOU'RE A MORON!
At least Keaton made an effort to hide his identity. Kilmer walks around in his expensive suit for the whole movie saying things such as:
"Man it's dark out tonight, just like my soul."
"My arm really hurts today, probably because I punched twelve drug dealers in the face last night."
"The death of my parents signified the death of Bruce Wayne, I became an expert at every fighting style and returned to Gotham City to don a cape as my alter ego, oh whoops, thought I was alone..."
As always, some slight hyperbole was involved with those quotes. BUT, he might as well be that obvious because if Jim Carrey can figure out you're Batman, so can the rest of the world. And whereas the action in the first two films was fairly well done, if not a bit cheesy simply because of the time period it was made during, the action in this film is incredibly campy. A big part of the Batman performance is how he handles himself during a fight. Christian Bale knocks people around tactically and quickly, crunching a lot of bones in the process. Kilmer (and once again, not entirely his fault) fights like he's in a stage play. Perhaps as though it's all happening live and he has to make sure not to actually hurt his fellow actors. They might as well have thrown in a few "biff" and "pows" because then it could've been an homage at least, instead of just plain stupid.
What's especially strange about this film is that there are a fair few good actors in it, the director has done some good work over the years, and the screenwriter also wrote Constantine, Cinderella Man, and has recently joined the writing staff of Fringe. So you'd think he would have come up with something good. Sadly, Batman Forever instead lives on as a movie with infinite potential that leaves the audience feeling like they've been doped by some of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. What's especially sad is that they made yet another Batman movie...and it's the worst of them all. Something so terrifyingly bad that it's taken years off of my life from stress. And I'll be discussing it in a future blog entry, same bat-URL, different bat-title.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Christian Bale Sweats More Testosterone Than Michael Keaton Has In His Whole Body
I mean, come on. Here's a thought process for you: who would be a great actor to play Batman, the intense avenger of the night? I know, how about Mr. Mom! Almost all of the Batman casting was terrible in the first four Batman films (along with everything else about them). Since that time, the only film casting that has been that level of bad came when they cast Ben Affleck in every movie that Ben Affleck has been in. But it wasn't just the casting, almost everything was bad. Until Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan came along and reminded us that Batman is and will always be the greatest hero of all time. But I'm not here to talk about how great Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are, because they speak for themselves. I'm here to rip on all of those guys that screwed up from 1989-1997. This is the first installment in the unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."
To begin with, I actually think the first Batman film is pretty good (but I can't include that in the unofficial title, it just wouldn't work). Obviously its quality decreased by half the very second the teaser trailer for Batman Begins came out (more like the casting news) but it still retains a lot of quality. Jack Nicholson's Joker still holds up really well in light of Heath Ledger's unparalleled performance. It's different, but it's quite well done and certainly the best part of the movie. Tim Burton is a great director, and there are some excellent scenes in the film, especially when the Batplane is silhouetted against the moon. In addition, Danny Elfman's score for the first two films is truly incredible, and the Batman Theme remains one of my favorite pieces of music. But they royally screwed up a lot of stuff too. And Batman Returns has no Jack Nicholson, and thus no redeeming value. I'd like to tell you all about both films in painstaking detail, but sadly that will have to wait for the book version. Instead, I'll just harp on some key points.
First off, they broke Batman's only rule. Batman kills people in these movies. But, as Tim Burton said in one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries: "Why do everything the way that it's done in the comics? Why not do your own thing?" Exactly! Why remain faithful to something that's been around for fifty years? (now seventy) Why go with the tried and true? Instead of following the guidelines of something that will be remembered long after the dust has left the bones of Michael Keaton's great-great-great-great grandchildren, why not just make up some stuff? Like this whole killing thing. Instead of having Batman refuse to become as bad as the man who murdered his parents, let's just forget that he has a psychosis so strong that it caused him to dress up like an overgrown mammal and beat up criminals on a nightly basis. And when he kills people, he shouldn't feel remorse. He should just smirk, as if to say, "Heh, I'm cool like Stallone. I just blew up that guy! Being Batman is sweet!"
Nightmares. It gives me nightmares that Batman kills people in those movies. If there's one rule you don't break, that's the rule.
And they let Kim Basinger into the Batcave. How did she weasel her way into that one? Probably not with her acting talent. Now, if they truly developed the Catwoman character (as in the total opposite of either Pfeiffer or Berry's performances) then I could probably buy that he would eventually let her into the Batcave. Because they have a lot in common, and he might someday trust her with his secret identity. But instead, they let Vicky Vale in. And why? Basically because she's blonde and hot (though I never liked her much). Scratch that, Alfred let her in, because I guess he thought if Batman had a ladyfriend in the Batcave then maybe he wouldn't be so upset anymore. Of course, then Batman might cease to exist, allowing the Joker, the Penguin, and even relative unknowns like Calendar Man to overthrow the city. But, the Batcave could use some redecorating so I guess none of that matters.
Interlude: I can't get a whole paragraph out of this, but the Batsuit looks like it's made of plastic. Which it probably was. Better than the bat-nipples, but still.
And as much as I love Tim Burton, his stuff isn't really "dark." It's kind of fake dark. Funhouse dark, if you will. Meaning that yes it's a dark story, but it's also very stylized and tough to take seriously. Which really works for Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even Sweeney Todd. But not for the character of Batman. I feel like Mr. Burton really doesn't understand the character. Because he figures, "oh he has a silly costume, and he lives in a fake city. So obviously it's not supposed to be taken seriously." Well sure, back when pot-bellied Adam West was hamming it up and Batman in the comics was beating up communist vampire aliens. But by the time the 80's rolled around, Batman had changed. The writers really started to examine the character psychologically. He no longer even resembles Bruce Wayne, he's completely consumed by Batman. He was formed by childhood trauma, festering rage, and fear. He's a truly dark character, who is in many ways every bit as mentally distorted as the supervillains he hunts down. Now that's a dark story, and it should be taken seriously. Instead, they chose to have one guy in a silly costume hunt down another guy in a silly costume, toss in some special effects, cast a blonde chick, and gave themselves a summer blockbuster.
But it didn't make 158 million dollars on its first weekend, not even with inflation!
Ahem, anyway, let's move on to the second of Tim Burton's outings: the incredibly inferior Batman Returns. First off, I hate when movies have "returns" in the title. That's pretty much like saying, "We wanted to call the movie Batman but that title was already taken by the first movie we made." A major problem with this movie is that Batman is barely in it. It's mostly about Catwoman and the Penguin. So, in addition to being non-creative, the movie isn't even aptly titled. Instead of Batman Returns, it should be called Penguin and Catwoman Arrive. Well, okay, but at least do the characters correctly! The Penguin is supposed to be a guy who would be a part of high society if not for his distorted appearance. Which means that he takes out his rage on aristocrats by stealing their artwork and statues and stuff. Not by dropping their children into toxic soup! That's ridiculous! Even the Joker wouldn't go that far. And he also outsmarts Batman at one point by putting a device on the Batmobile that allows him to control it. The only person that could ever outsmart Batman would be a clone of Batman (even then maybe not). And Catwoman is an environmentalist who takes things a little too far. She's certainly not a dominatrix chick. And she's also not supernaturally born, as she is in this movie where she falls from the top floor of a building and is revived by cats purring around her. Apparently we've been doing it incorrectly for years, instead of using medicine to treat people we should just get a bunch of cats to frigging purr around them.
As though that wasn't enough, Catwoman fries Christopher Walken by kissing him with an electric cable in her mouth. He's burnt to a crisp, but she comes back in the final scene. Because cats have nine lives! Get it? HA! It's funny! Man that was terrible. And for the little bit of time that Batman is in the movie, he's strapping bombs to bad guys, using corny one-liners, and yes, using an admittedly sweet Batmobile. His costume is better, but still bad. And all the stuff that was wrong with the first one is wrong with this one.
Which brings me to the main point: Michael Keaton. He's easily my second favorite Batman after Christian Bale, but that's because George Clooney's performance is only slightly above what Carrot Top's might have been. Keaton isn't a terrible Batman, he doesn't carry much intensity (the costume doesn't help) but he's not exactly silly either. And he doesn't really have too many muscles (certainly more muscles than me, but the Taco Bell chihuahua can make the same claim). Really he's just kind of there. Very stoic, kind of emotionless. So, his Batman performance is quite mediocre. The music is really what makes the character, without it the performance is almost wooden. But like I said, it was pretty good until Christian Bale came along. What I really have a problem with is his portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And this isn't entirely his fault, it's also the fault of the screenwriter (Sam Hamm I believe his name was, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but come on Sammy, you're killing me) and Mr. Burton. These people all thought that Bruce Wayne should be very misanthropic and uncomfortable at parties. They figured he should be hiding in the shadows at all times, and seem indifferent toward his guests. So basically, he plays a billionaire who hates crowds and humanity in general, who likes to be in the shadows, who collects weaponry, and who has a mysterious/nonexistent social life.
HE MIGHT AS WELL HANG A NEON SIGN ABOVE HIS HEAD THAT READS: I'M FREAKING BATMAN!
Bruce Wayne IS the secret identity. It took so long for anyone in Hollywood to realize what the fans knew all along. Bruce Wayne is the act, a persona who died in the alley with his parents. Bruce is everything Batman would have been: a womanizing socialite who's more interested in buying half the town than reading about the crime rate, let alone lowering it. That way, no one suspects that he's really the polar opposite. So when Keaton is walking around with a confused look on his face as Vicky Vale talks to him, and when he acts alone in a crowded room, he's doing everything exactly wrong.
I realize that people have an emotional attachment to the first film, because it was the best one for a long time. I have an attachment to it for the same reason, even if I didn't see it in theaters. I have fond memories of watching it with my dad, and I still enjoy a lot of aspects of it, especially Danny Elfman's immortal Batman Theme. But after years of really watching and analyzing the animated series (still the best representation of all of the characters), reading some of the major comics from over the years, and especially after Christopher Nolan's two films, it's really not a great adaptation. Not bad, but not great. And if I was around at that time (or around and not an infant I should say) and the only Batman in the media until that point was Adam West, I would've welcomed it as a breath of fresh air too. Batman Returns just straight up sucks though. Seriously, it's like Superman III bad.
To begin with, I actually think the first Batman film is pretty good (but I can't include that in the unofficial title, it just wouldn't work). Obviously its quality decreased by half the very second the teaser trailer for Batman Begins came out (more like the casting news) but it still retains a lot of quality. Jack Nicholson's Joker still holds up really well in light of Heath Ledger's unparalleled performance. It's different, but it's quite well done and certainly the best part of the movie. Tim Burton is a great director, and there are some excellent scenes in the film, especially when the Batplane is silhouetted against the moon. In addition, Danny Elfman's score for the first two films is truly incredible, and the Batman Theme remains one of my favorite pieces of music. But they royally screwed up a lot of stuff too. And Batman Returns has no Jack Nicholson, and thus no redeeming value. I'd like to tell you all about both films in painstaking detail, but sadly that will have to wait for the book version. Instead, I'll just harp on some key points.
First off, they broke Batman's only rule. Batman kills people in these movies. But, as Tim Burton said in one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries: "Why do everything the way that it's done in the comics? Why not do your own thing?" Exactly! Why remain faithful to something that's been around for fifty years? (now seventy) Why go with the tried and true? Instead of following the guidelines of something that will be remembered long after the dust has left the bones of Michael Keaton's great-great-great-great grandchildren, why not just make up some stuff? Like this whole killing thing. Instead of having Batman refuse to become as bad as the man who murdered his parents, let's just forget that he has a psychosis so strong that it caused him to dress up like an overgrown mammal and beat up criminals on a nightly basis. And when he kills people, he shouldn't feel remorse. He should just smirk, as if to say, "Heh, I'm cool like Stallone. I just blew up that guy! Being Batman is sweet!"
Nightmares. It gives me nightmares that Batman kills people in those movies. If there's one rule you don't break, that's the rule.
And they let Kim Basinger into the Batcave. How did she weasel her way into that one? Probably not with her acting talent. Now, if they truly developed the Catwoman character (as in the total opposite of either Pfeiffer or Berry's performances) then I could probably buy that he would eventually let her into the Batcave. Because they have a lot in common, and he might someday trust her with his secret identity. But instead, they let Vicky Vale in. And why? Basically because she's blonde and hot (though I never liked her much). Scratch that, Alfred let her in, because I guess he thought if Batman had a ladyfriend in the Batcave then maybe he wouldn't be so upset anymore. Of course, then Batman might cease to exist, allowing the Joker, the Penguin, and even relative unknowns like Calendar Man to overthrow the city. But, the Batcave could use some redecorating so I guess none of that matters.
Interlude: I can't get a whole paragraph out of this, but the Batsuit looks like it's made of plastic. Which it probably was. Better than the bat-nipples, but still.
And as much as I love Tim Burton, his stuff isn't really "dark." It's kind of fake dark. Funhouse dark, if you will. Meaning that yes it's a dark story, but it's also very stylized and tough to take seriously. Which really works for Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even Sweeney Todd. But not for the character of Batman. I feel like Mr. Burton really doesn't understand the character. Because he figures, "oh he has a silly costume, and he lives in a fake city. So obviously it's not supposed to be taken seriously." Well sure, back when pot-bellied Adam West was hamming it up and Batman in the comics was beating up communist vampire aliens. But by the time the 80's rolled around, Batman had changed. The writers really started to examine the character psychologically. He no longer even resembles Bruce Wayne, he's completely consumed by Batman. He was formed by childhood trauma, festering rage, and fear. He's a truly dark character, who is in many ways every bit as mentally distorted as the supervillains he hunts down. Now that's a dark story, and it should be taken seriously. Instead, they chose to have one guy in a silly costume hunt down another guy in a silly costume, toss in some special effects, cast a blonde chick, and gave themselves a summer blockbuster.
But it didn't make 158 million dollars on its first weekend, not even with inflation!
Ahem, anyway, let's move on to the second of Tim Burton's outings: the incredibly inferior Batman Returns. First off, I hate when movies have "returns" in the title. That's pretty much like saying, "We wanted to call the movie Batman but that title was already taken by the first movie we made." A major problem with this movie is that Batman is barely in it. It's mostly about Catwoman and the Penguin. So, in addition to being non-creative, the movie isn't even aptly titled. Instead of Batman Returns, it should be called Penguin and Catwoman Arrive. Well, okay, but at least do the characters correctly! The Penguin is supposed to be a guy who would be a part of high society if not for his distorted appearance. Which means that he takes out his rage on aristocrats by stealing their artwork and statues and stuff. Not by dropping their children into toxic soup! That's ridiculous! Even the Joker wouldn't go that far. And he also outsmarts Batman at one point by putting a device on the Batmobile that allows him to control it. The only person that could ever outsmart Batman would be a clone of Batman (even then maybe not). And Catwoman is an environmentalist who takes things a little too far. She's certainly not a dominatrix chick. And she's also not supernaturally born, as she is in this movie where she falls from the top floor of a building and is revived by cats purring around her. Apparently we've been doing it incorrectly for years, instead of using medicine to treat people we should just get a bunch of cats to frigging purr around them.
As though that wasn't enough, Catwoman fries Christopher Walken by kissing him with an electric cable in her mouth. He's burnt to a crisp, but she comes back in the final scene. Because cats have nine lives! Get it? HA! It's funny! Man that was terrible. And for the little bit of time that Batman is in the movie, he's strapping bombs to bad guys, using corny one-liners, and yes, using an admittedly sweet Batmobile. His costume is better, but still bad. And all the stuff that was wrong with the first one is wrong with this one.
Which brings me to the main point: Michael Keaton. He's easily my second favorite Batman after Christian Bale, but that's because George Clooney's performance is only slightly above what Carrot Top's might have been. Keaton isn't a terrible Batman, he doesn't carry much intensity (the costume doesn't help) but he's not exactly silly either. And he doesn't really have too many muscles (certainly more muscles than me, but the Taco Bell chihuahua can make the same claim). Really he's just kind of there. Very stoic, kind of emotionless. So, his Batman performance is quite mediocre. The music is really what makes the character, without it the performance is almost wooden. But like I said, it was pretty good until Christian Bale came along. What I really have a problem with is his portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And this isn't entirely his fault, it's also the fault of the screenwriter (Sam Hamm I believe his name was, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but come on Sammy, you're killing me) and Mr. Burton. These people all thought that Bruce Wayne should be very misanthropic and uncomfortable at parties. They figured he should be hiding in the shadows at all times, and seem indifferent toward his guests. So basically, he plays a billionaire who hates crowds and humanity in general, who likes to be in the shadows, who collects weaponry, and who has a mysterious/nonexistent social life.
HE MIGHT AS WELL HANG A NEON SIGN ABOVE HIS HEAD THAT READS: I'M FREAKING BATMAN!
Bruce Wayne IS the secret identity. It took so long for anyone in Hollywood to realize what the fans knew all along. Bruce Wayne is the act, a persona who died in the alley with his parents. Bruce is everything Batman would have been: a womanizing socialite who's more interested in buying half the town than reading about the crime rate, let alone lowering it. That way, no one suspects that he's really the polar opposite. So when Keaton is walking around with a confused look on his face as Vicky Vale talks to him, and when he acts alone in a crowded room, he's doing everything exactly wrong.
I realize that people have an emotional attachment to the first film, because it was the best one for a long time. I have an attachment to it for the same reason, even if I didn't see it in theaters. I have fond memories of watching it with my dad, and I still enjoy a lot of aspects of it, especially Danny Elfman's immortal Batman Theme. But after years of really watching and analyzing the animated series (still the best representation of all of the characters), reading some of the major comics from over the years, and especially after Christopher Nolan's two films, it's really not a great adaptation. Not bad, but not great. And if I was around at that time (or around and not an infant I should say) and the only Batman in the media until that point was Adam West, I would've welcomed it as a breath of fresh air too. Batman Returns just straight up sucks though. Seriously, it's like Superman III bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)