Insert Shallow Pun Here

Titanic

1997

D: James Cameron

**********

Pros: Special Effects, Directing, Acting, Music

Cons: Story, Immature Romance, Hype, Inaccuracies

 

 

         Today is the 25^th anniversary of one of the most controversially popular movies ever made.  Being a red-blooded man, I count myself among those who believe it to be overrated.  Despite its overwrought praise, its emotionality and romance is shallow to the point where it inspired a great meme and one of the greatest reddit posts ever.  What’s even more frustrating is that is the movie that James Cameron got a best picture for, not Terminator or Aliens, a perfect microcosm of the Academy’s blatant genre bias.  It’s also worth-noting that 1997 had two far more deserving works: Amistad and Princess Mononoke.  The first movie was about a boat, and the second one was an actually intelligent ersatz FernGully.

        Enough ink has been spilled over why the romance in this movie is shallow (the aforementioned reddit post illustrates this beautifully), but the strange thing is that many people make Titanic out to be the new Citizen Kane, simply for its contemporary faddishness in the  critical community.  Still, it can be argued that the movie works in a barbaric, primal way that makes it somewhat like a female version of John Wick.  The idea of reflecting on a past fling and what could have come from it, even in the face of a committed real life marriage, could be justified as an immature expression of female love in the same way that murdering scores of people for taking away token reminder of one’s dead wife is such for the male.  Still, nobody pretends that John Wick is high art.  

         One thing that could sum up the movie’s problems is that, through some hackish knee-jerk, Cameron thought that movie about the Titanic needed to have villains, as illustrated by the caricature that is Billy Zane’s character.   A better movie would not need to make the rival for the heroine’s affections a bad person to illustrate that she’s wrong for her.  In fact, the movie would be more inspiring if the parties involved with the love triangle got over that and helped each other survive the disaster, even to the point of self-sacrifice.  Heck, even a much maligned cartoon about wolves has better romance in which the two characters already know/like each other and the conflict is depicted as a valid conflict of interests. 

         The worst part of the movie is its villainization of William Murdock. While real-world evidence is ambiguous, the movie describes him as being a “practical man” who might accept a bribe for lifeboat privileged.  It’s generally a pet peeve of mine for historic biopics to slander real-life heroes “for dramatic effect.”  It’s especially frustrating that these are the type of movies that win Oscars.

        Still, the movie is surprisingly watchable and well-executed to the point where I do believe that Cameron deserved his Best Director award.  The visuals are epic and the movie features great CGI for the time.  James Horner’s score is great, and I admit that I liked “My Heart Will Go On.”

        I could argue that the movie might be a great story if taken as a slight tragic comedy from the point of view of Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton).  The man dedicates so much effort to finding this historic diamond, bringing this crazy old woman (Gloria Stuart) and listening to her crazy, farcical story, only for her to dump the diamond whose location she claimed to have not known into the ocean.  I particularly like movies in which the straight man resigns to laughter experiencing nothing but madness, as Lovett does in the alternate ending after listening to some crazy old lady's rationalization her craziness.   

The Thrilling End to the Craig Trilogy

Skyfall

2012

D: Sam Mendes

**********

Pros: Characters, Dialogue, Cinematography Music, Javier Bardem

Cons: Some Logical Problems with the Plot

 

 

      Skyfall takes over after its solid predecessors, Casino Royale and the unjustly maligned Quantum of Solace, in the Craig Continuity and effectively extends this origin story.  This was a relief considering that director Sam Mendes was previously known for overrated proto-woke works like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road; turns out he’s just very good at making movies in general.  Still, the movie does seem to treat British patriotism, even at its kitschiest, with affection, while Americana seemed to have been depicted as a pathology in Mendes’ previous films.

     The movie takes a break from the Quantum arc and focuses on a villain who has a vendetta against M (Judi Dench).  This particular antagonist, Raoul Silva, is one of the best in the franchise, although a lot of that has to do with Javier Bardem’s insane levels of charisma; I’m not sure he’d be quite as good without the actor. Silva is also somewhat similar to GoldenEye’s Trevelyan: a former MI6 agent who was betrayed by the government and holds a vendetta for a one of the heroes, all while acting as a good nemesis to Bond because of his skills and background.  M’s past consequentialism resulted in her selling Silva out to the Chinese government years ago as part of a deal based on the excuse that he was acting outside his brief.  Unlike Trevelyan, Silva sees Bond as a potential ally.  Like many Bond villains, Silva is based on a real life celebrity, in this case Julian Assange.  Personally, I don’t think he deserves such a cool character based on him; I’m not that red-pilled.  He has a memorable, but subtle disfigurement that, when revealed, is enhanced by Thomas Newman's chilling score.  

       The inciting action of the plot involves the failure of Bond and his young field partner Eve (Naomie Harris) to stop a man from getting away with a disk full of contact information for all the British spies abroad. This results in a massive scandal for M, and culminates in her getting into trouble over all the spies’ being executed by national enemies.  For some reason, she recites poetry during her hearing.  

        The movie also partially deconstructs the franchise by showing Bond’s facing some consequences for his mistakes, although it possibly takes it a bit too far.  He pridefully refuses to get out of the way to make an open shot for Eve in the first scene, and that results in the plot.  He goes into hiding for a while after his presumed death and returns after seeing the ravages of Silva’s plan on the news.  For some reason, MI6 decides send into battle against Silva, fudging his requalification to give him a false pass, despite his struggling during the physical, failing his marksmanship test during which he loses his temper and advances toward the target and still misses it, and ragequitting the psych eval the second his childhood home comes up.  It seems that Bond’s importance as a protagonist is too important for MI6 to heed logic.  This gets even more absurd when this happens again in No Time to Die.  They just need to stop giving this loser breaks.  In contrast, GoldenEye doesn’t sacrifice Bond’s competence for him to face some personal consequences from his job; he inevitably makes enemies that were once friends.

        In order to further the theme of Bond’s drama as a central point in the movie, Bond spirits M off to his own childhood home in order to stage a final showdown with Silva.  He even enlists the help of Q (Ben Winshaw) and M’s assistant Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) to subtly guide Silva to the place.  One would expect him to hide her in some random place that could not be guessed, but he asserts that he’ll have the advantage.  Of course, you’d think a person as obsessive and intelligent as Silva would have preemptively scouted this area, just as another Javier Bardem character would.  

        Despite the flaws, the movie’s plot is effectively character-driven.  It marks a transition in Bond’s life in which he has to choose loyalty to country over feelings and get over his past (he symbolically demolishes his home). While M is ultimately killed in the confrontation, Bond faces a new present, in which he has fully transformed into the Bond We Know and Love; the movie ends with Eve’s being revealed to be Moneypenny, and Mallory’s becoming the new M, complete with the traditionally styled office.  

         The one problem with the Bond We Know and Love, however, is that he’s not that compelling a character, and the Craig Continuity seemed to realize this because it kept hitting the reset button on his origin story.  This worked surprisingly well for the first three movies to the point where I think Skyfall works better as the finale of a good trilogy, but unfortunately they persisted into the clumsy retcon that was Spectre and the equally flawed No Time to Die, which killed Bond off as a tragic character.  The former, now that EON had regained rights over the word “spectre,” recast Quantum, as somehow being a front from SPECTRE while rationalizing Silva as a one of its operatives, albeit a strangely unreliable one.  It makes little sense for them to hire someone with sympathies to Bond when the organizations entire motivation, outside world domination, was to screw with our hero.  The feeling of the Craig movies was slightly frustrating because you were hoping for the fun-and-games Bond to finally come into play while secretly knowing it would not be that great.  Still, the Craig continuity is the most consistently well-executed of the franchise, and even the bad ones are at least watchable. 

          The movie features a mixed bag of fanservice.  Although it was very satisfying to find out that Eve was Moneypenny, the chaste romantic tension between the two characters, which always contrasted effectively with Bond’s promiscuity, was somewhat spoiled by one sexually tense scene between them.  Also, I did not find Ben Winshaw’s Q to be particularly enjoyable, even though he improves somewhat in the next movie.  When he issues Bond a small radio and an underpowered WW2-era pistol, he indulges in a bit of fan disservice by taking a subtle dig at the use of cool gadgetry in the previous films by having Q say that we don’t do silly things like exploding pens any more. 

 

 That’s strange considering that it is useful for spies to have devices disguised as common objects to the point where they did this stuff in real life.  And yet the movie features a rather forced example of fanservice in the form of the weaponized DB5.  The movie makes it unclear whether or not this is Bond’s private car or an MI6 company car dating back to the 60’s (M is aware of the ejector seat, for one thing).  The regressive fanservice continues in Bond’s being officially issued a PPK, a practical power upgrade in the books.  It has a faddish smartgun feature to boot.   

          One moment of cringe occurred when Eve explains how the experience in the intro put her off field work and Bond reintroduces lame puns to the franchise by saying “At least you gave it your best shot.”  One of the things I was really enjoying about the Craig movies up to this point was the refreshing lack of stupid humor.  Oh well, at least it wasn’t a sexual double entendre.  Still, the dialogue is generally very witty and keeps the movie enjoyable.  

          The movie also has a lot of good style points.  In addition to solid action, it also features great cinematography by the legendary Roger Deakins.  It’s strange how such a popular long-running franchise would never sweat such a thing; in fact, up until Skyfall, the most artfully shot Bond movie was actually the 1967 Casino Royale spoof.  As usual, the music is good, but Skyfall is special in that Adele's excellent intro theme not only broke the series’ curse of Oscar snubs, it also broke the Academy’s 30+ year stretch between deserving Best Song winners.

Books

REVIEWS: NOVELS

REVIEWS: COMICS

The Dark Knight Returns   10

REVIEWS: MISC.

Literally Me

Blade Runner 2049

2017

D: Denis Villeneuve

**********

Pros: Cinematography, Plot, Acting, Score

Cons: Plot interferes with first movie’s

NOTE: I recommend watching the first Blade Runner before reading to avoid potential spoilers. 

 

           When I heard about an upcoming sequel to Blade Runner, I was skeptical as it seemed to be a bad idea: a 30-year sequel to a respected piece of cinema that stood on its own merits.  Turning a great movie into a franchise is usually a cynical cash grab that threatens diminish the work’s appeal.  However, I became more optimistic upon learning of the people making it.  Denis Villeneuve had already secured a reputation as one of our best current directors, Hans Zimmer was doing the score (mostly modifications of Vangelis’ original), and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins was also part of the project, for which he won his long-overdue Oscar.  Another good omen came with the casting of Ryan Gosling.  While he’s very effective at playing stoic and occasionally intense characters, his primary strength is his ability to pick good movies; it’s almost always a good sign when he’s involved.  It’s a bit sad that his demeanor’s relatability to introverts has turned into a meme.

        Gosling plays K, a Nexus-9 replicant Blade Runner operating in Los Angeles 30 years after the events of the first movie.  In the interim, a massive technology blackout has occurred, justifying the lack of records on the previous movie's plot while explaining the subsequent rise of the Tyrell Corp’s replacement: the eccentric megalomaniac Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who has been described by Leto as a “Elon Musk if he wasn’t such an underachiever” in a statement about Musk I can’t decide is an insult or irony.  At first, I was put off by Leto’s strange performance, but I later accepted it.  

       The world of this sequel maintains the style of the first movie while updating it with more advanced technology and user interface.  Deakins works with production designer Dennis Gassner to make well-lit, trendy minimalist interiors that still do justice to the cyberpunk aesthetic while giving us the dark look of futuristic Los Angeles.  The scenery refreshingly consists of mostly practical effects, and the sound design also enhances the atmosphere. There are plenty of interesting ideas abound with the setting and at least one deceptively realistic one.  I was ready to praise the movie for its depiction of a field of white warehouses’ imitating the pattern of farmlands in a cyberpunk perversion of agriculture, but it turns out it’s a real place.

       The movie’s plot begins when K tracks down a renegade Nexus-8 replicant named Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista) and finds a suspicious box buried on the property.  The contents of the box are supposedly game-changing; the remains of a female replicant (Rachel from the first movie) who had somehow given birth.  K’s superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) recognizes this as a risk to the current order and orders him to track down the loose ends (a possible missing child) to make sure that this does not inspire rebellion among the renegade replicants.  On the other hand, Wallace, whose company identified the specimen’s DNA, desires the ability to breed replicants as a stepping stone to a self-sustaining, but disposable, work force needed to spread his empire to the stars.  He orders his replicant enforcer Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) to recover the evidence.  

       Luv is one of my favorite parts of this movie.  She’s a great villain bolstered by Hoek’s performance.  At first, I thought that her occasional tear-shedding was an awkward attempt to add some unearned depth to a sardonic killing machine, but I later learned that that was a result of survival instinct; she’s afraid of her master, who shows no remorse toward killing his replicants for literally no reason.  It’s a possible intentional move to keep her on her toes.  

       As K searches for answers, he finds a number that reminds him of a traumatic core memory, one he’s always assumed was an implant.  He finds evidence the memory was real and consults Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri), an immunocompromised scientist known for her quality memory implants.*  (It does not occur to him to have his other memories checked.)  When she informs him that this memory is one of her items taken from an actual person’s memory, K’s suspicions are cofirmed: he is not truly a replicant.  This upsets him.

       Throughout the movie, K’s private life is spent with a holographic AI girlfriend named Joi (Ana de Armas).  While there might be some ambiguity as to whether or not Joi is conscious, I would definitely prefer the negative answer as she is a very flat character, and also because K is a more effectively tragic hero if his one relationship is fake.  This is actually supported by the story; Joi is after all, designed to satisfy her owner, and most everything she does is at his convenience or to reinforce his personal thoughts.  When K “gifts” her with a portable projecter, she makes a predictable request to go out into the rain.  When K asks her if she is okay with severing her backup data to cover his tracks informing her that she would “die” if the portable is destroyed, she inanely replies, “just like a real girl.”  Contrast this with R2’s attempt to take control of Luke’s X-Wing so they wouldn’t have to go to Dagobah.  After her “death,” K looks upon a holographic ad for Joi and seems to realize his folly when the ad addresses him as “Joe,” a name that his Joi suggested when he found out about his apparent humanity (also an oversight in Wallace’s design), while emphasizing the purpose of the AI to say whatever one wants.  Of course, if K did not have this epiphany and he was simply looking at the advertisement as a way to pump himself up for revenge without a clue, it would be more tragic.  In sharp contrast, it’s a bit heartwarming when Deckard shouts the name at him during a suspenseful moment.

          K eventually follows the clues to find Deckard (Harrison Ford) hiding in a wasted Las Vegas.  Deckard is captured when they are found out by Luv and Co., and K is rescued by a cell of replicants led by Freysa (Hiam Abass), who informs him that he was not the child in question.  It is eventually revealed that the baby is actually Dr. Stelline.  The replicants’ goal seems pointless, but that may be the point.  While conceptually significant, the political significance of one replicant’s (a unique prototype) being able to (fatally) give birth to one child (with a major immune defect) is dubious; replicants are still effectively less fertile than mules.  What may be the most important thing is that K, amidst all these futile conflicts, risked his life in the end to unite a father with his child.

         Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most enjoyable movies in recent years.  Its plot is engaging enough to render a 2:40 runtime pleasant, and it’s a feast for the senses with good characters.  The supporting cast features strong, sometimes brief performances, from Mackenzie Davis, Barkhad Abdi, David Dastmalchian, Tomas Lemarquis, and Lennie James.  Sean Young assisted by lending her likeness while coaching body double Loren Peta, on whom a very convincing CGI face was composited.   

         As much as I want to credit this movie for its masterful execution, I really dislike the way in which it sullied the wonderfully mysterious and ambiguous ending of the first movie.**  I like how Rick and Rachel’s fate was left a mystery.  The only call-back we really needed was the sequel’s scene in which Gaff (Edward James Olmos) reflects on the mystery.  I can’t think of a single way in which this plot would not have worked if they had simply made it about two different characters.  Also, for some reason that might have something to do with my distaste for this aspect of the plot, Harrison Ford just doesn’t seem like Deckard in this movie.  It’s the one thing that truly brings this movie down.  Hell, I unironically prefer Soldier as a part of Blade Runner canon, despite its lack of comparable cinematic craft.  

        Another way in which Blade Runner 2049 fails to do justice is that it lacks the depth of the first movie.  The themes aren’t nearly as insightful, and it lacks subtlety (no wonder RedLetterMedia preferred it!); practically everything is outlined for the viewer, and it even indulges in twist reveal montages.  Overall, it’s a very well-made and enjoyable film, but it’s mostly above-average fanservice.    

       

 

  

  

* Stelline says most people think a quality memory is about detail, rather than emotions felt.  I find that to be a strange assumption considering how unreliable memories are known to be.  Whenever I check on a scene from a movie that frightened me as a young child, I noticed that the scene literally looks different, as if my mind has been modifying the memory to something I would be similarly frightened of today.

 

** I refer, of course, to the Director/Final Cut.

Based Batman

The Dark Knight Returns

1986

Frank Miller

Frank Miller (pencils), Klaus Janson (inking), Lyn Varley (colors)

**********

Pros: Witty Dialogue, Themes, Originality

Cons: Uneven Artwork, Some Unfortunate Implications, Not Great as an Adaptation

 

 

 

       In my younger days, I would have preferred Alan Moore to Frank Miller.  The former’s subversion of simplistic heroism seemed to be a wiser choice than the “fascism” (though I never took that accusation seriously) of the latter.  In retrospect, such cynicism has reinforced society’s problems  Any commoner is shamed out of mere aspirations to heroism while those who run society drive it further into the ground through a combination of corruption, cowardice, and well-meaning action.  This was obviously far more reasonable than Moore’s “literally Nazis” assessment in V for Vendetta, and it was terribly prescient.

       The Gotham of Dark Knight Returns’ future is even more hopeless than ever.  People live in perpetual fear of a violent gang known as the Mutants.  Like many people when faced with evidence that their utopian policies have failed, the leadership of Gotham is only concerned with a denial resulting in increasingly damaging acts.  When Bruce Wayne has had enough and comes out of retirement as Batman, they expend more energy denouncing him that the problems that he’s responding to, despite their failures' inspiring him to take action.  It’s anarcho-tyranny.  The remarkably fat and short mayor seems to representative of weak men’s creating hard times.  The story, however, manages to make them human, although Gallagher seems to be an exception. 

      In Washington you see an aged Ronald Reagan as he drives America into nuclear disaster by pushing a proxy war.  I don’t like the use of such an obvious figure in a Batman comic, but it’s easier to appreciate after seeing the light on neoconservativism. 

      Less sympathetic is Dr. Bartholomew Wolper, a psychiatrist with a burning hatred for the Caped Crusader.  His annoying sophism is most apparent in which he describes how Batman allegedly influenced supervillains best he can when the term “meme” was not yet popular (this logic was deconstructed in a BTAS episode).  He fails to cure Two-Face of his insanity, allowing him to rampage near the beginning of the room.  Finally, his trust of the Joker gets him killed.

     Meanwhile, Superman has become an acquiescent tool of the government, fighting their wars while remaining too guarded to help his people very much.  This is akin to how good men historically served their country militarily despite knowing how wrong that country is.  There’s another good theme in that Batman defeats him in battle to demonstrated that we can win against the powerful, but that only works because Superman is holding back.  I’m not much of a Snyder fan, but it makes more sense for Batman in that movie to eliminate a potential threat to humanity while taking advantage of his opponent’s restraint; he’s not doing it out of pride, and he reasonably concludes that all Superman would need to wipe out humanity without our being able to do anything about is a change of heart.  I also believe that this slandering of Supes is yet another reason this be better as an original story.  

      The one scene that does seem “fascist” is the moment in which Gordon waxes nostalgic over FDR.  Even when allowing the possibility that he “knew” about Pearl Harbor beforehand, Gordon believes he was great because he was a charismatic leader and therefore beyond questioning.  This is ironic considering the comic’s apparent anti-war arc.  

        I don’t buy into the “all art is political” complaint, but the Batman franchise hinges upon myth and archetype to the extent that politics don’t work for it, even politics I may agree with.  Oddly enough, despite its right-wing nature, Dark Knight Returns is surprisingly hoplophobic.  This just makes it a sign of the times; gun control is one of the few issues in which the Overton window has shifted rightward.  

        The plot is original and complex, with Batman’s dealing with multiple threats assisted by the likable new Robin, Carrie Kelley.  Once again, one complaint I have is that it’s not a very good Batman story.  Batman is uncharacteristically brutal and sadistic, and I'm not a fan of his often schizophrenic reflections.  Another problem is that the Joker is practically humorless.  He doesn’t tell a single joke unless you interpret it as excessively dry wit.  This would have been better as an original work.

        The dialogue is very witty.  While Alan Moore’s is more naturalistic, this book is almost poetic; I’d love to see Miller’s interpretation of Dr. Doom.  The noir-style narration is great because it is well written enough to impress me who has been trained by cartoons to interpret the trope as a joke.  There’s also a future slang that Miller has developed in a way that’s natural, unforced, and original.  The younger characters speak like this almost constantly; it’s not just a technical term every once in a while.  This graphic novel also features news broadcasts to add context, another thing which would work better an original story because they take one of the mythos of the franchise.  These sequences take advantage of the comic medium since the fit better in it.  This intuition of mine is reinforced by Bruce’s half-crazy self-reflections.  

        The plot is engaging, but there is one absurd moment in which a plane crashes into a building, causing every car in the vicinity to explode from merely being glanced at by flying shrapnel.  It's odd to see the Pinto Effect's being played straight as opposed to being used stylistically or ironically.

        My biggest complaint about the book is the artwork.  It seems to be designed for stylish splash pages in that Miller’s lineart can vary from good to amateurish.  The coloring feels incomplete.  I’m also not a fan of how Batman is shaped like Wolverine.   

         Overall, Dark Knight Returns is a creative, and insightful, and entertaining political work, and it has a very good animated adaptation.    

The Batman Movie of 2012

The Dark Knight Returns

2012

D: Jay Oliva

**********

Pros: Animation, Improved Artwork, Voice Cast, Soundtrack, Pragmatic Changes

Cons: Some Missed Visual Opportunities, Moments of Bad CGI

 

 

         In the same year Christopher Nolan disappointed us with Dark Knight Rises, Warner Premier produced its best animated DC work since Under the Red Hood.  This movie is a near-perfect adaptation of Frank Miller’s iconic graphic novel, and certainly deserved a theatrical release more than Rises.   The movie is wisely split into two parts so as not to leave out too much: Part 1 involves Batman’s return and his defeat of the Mutants while Part 2 focuses on his battles with Joker and Superman.  

         The movie is remarkably faithful to the comic, and retains the story in its whole.  The biggest difference is the deletion of the noirish narration and the news interviews.  While these were surprisingly well-done in the book, the filmmakers realized that they would not translate well to this medium.  As such, the movie lacks something the source material possesses, but its pragmatic nature is reinforced with a few modifications and slight improvements.  Most noticeably is the Joker (Michael Emerson).  I found him far too humorless in the graphic novel, but the movie cleverly works in some the lines from his narration reframed as quips.  In this version the Joker actually tells jokes.  I couldn’t help but think that this scene is also a vast improvement over the original, in which Selina Kyle (Tress MacNeille) appears to be too drunk to be properly disturbed by the Joker’s presence.  Dr. Wolper's (Michael McKean) death is far more satisfying in the movie, although I found David Endocrine (Conan O'Brien) to be less witty than in the original. 

         The animation is good, and the art style is an improvement over the comics.  Unfortunately, this says more about the comic than the movie; I find the former’s illustrations to be uneven and unfinished.  In contrast, the movie’s look is cleaner, with more complete coloring while still maintaining a dark atmosphere.  Some of the stylizations from the comic are missed, however, such as the high-contrast appearances of scenes like Superman’s stopping the missile.  Superman’s stylish introduction in the comic through a play of images is practically begging to be put in motion, but the movie ignored it.  The artwork is more professional, and some of the mistakes are cleaned up.  For example, the SOB in the news interviews appears more intimidating and less like a college student who just realized he got shamed before a school day.  Unfortunately, like many Warner Premiere DTV movies, Dark Knight Returns cuts corners by using cheap CGI for some of the scenery.  Particularly egregious is the car race in the first scene; the comic provided them an excuse not to show the race by only featuring close-ups of Wayne.  If they did the chase right, it would have been a welcome addition, though.  

        The voice acting is very good.  Peter Weller, presumably present for the Frank Miller connection, took a bit of time for me to get used to as Batman/Bruce Wayne, but he eventually fits.  Unfortunately, he does not change his voice between personas.  The real star is Michael Emerson, who provides a chilling, creepy performance as the Joker.  This character is the most improved aspect of this adaption, although I would have liked to hear Emerson’s read on the “What kind of bombs?” scene.  Other cast members include Ariel Winter as Carrie Kelly, David Selby as Gordon, Maria Cannals-Barrera as Yindel, Wade Williams as Two-Face, Michael Jackson as Alfred, Gary Anthony Williams as the Mutant Leader, Mark Valley as Superman, Dee Bradley Baker, Grey DeLisle, Richard Doyle, James Arnold Taylor, Bruce Timm, Frank Welker, Rob Paulsen, Andy Richter, and Tara Strong.

        Christopher Drake’s score is superb and it’s appropriate to the franchise while having a cyberpunk feel.  The best track is “See You in Hell.”  Dark Knight Returns is a solid Batman movie that complements its source material well.   

Disappointing Finale

The Dark Knight Rises

2012

D: Christopher Nolan

**********

Pros: Cinematography, Some Memorable Moments, Bane

Cons: Silly Story, Fight Choreography

 

       It’s another 10-year anniversary, and this time I’m reviewing another movie I have not watched all the way through in that timeframe.  It’s not the most professional thing to do, but I’m a busy dragon.  When the Dark Knight Rises came out, it was considered a massive disappointment for many Batman fans.  Those of us raised on BATS had a pretty good idea of how franchise canon was supposed to be, and the first two Nolan movies did a good job staying true to that while being distinctive adaptatations.  Rises, on the other hand, ignored much of the franchise themes and turned Batman into an epic trilogy.  In recent years I’ve become less exacting about such things, but this movie pushes that.  I don’t think Batman would be the one to retire young after faking his death.  It also doesn’t help that the movie simply wasn’t that good, either.

       Not only does it disappoint based on franchise standards, it also fell somewhat short in its own continuity.  The teaser made this movie look far more serious and suspenseful than it ended up being; with a pathetically hospitalized Gordon’s (Gary Oldman) begging Batman (Christian Bale) to help after what seemed like a brutal beating from Bane (he got better rather quickly).  The end of Dark Knight also suggested an awesome one-man war between Batman and the police, only for Rises to reveal that Bruce Wayne had been pouting for nine years with a worn-out knee in spite of that inactivity.  Unfortunately, he also bankrupted Wayne Enterprises because he forgot to stop diverting money from it to fund his now nonexistent crusade. 

        Providing aid to him during this trying time is Wayne Enterprises CEO Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who romances and has sex with Bruce.  She turns out to be Talia Al-Ghul, and she’s been manipulating him as part of her plot to carry out her father’s plans to destroy Gotham, a goal which is completely pointless since the GPD have effectively solved the city’s problems by now.  For all his talent, Nolan, among others, seems to be under this strange impression that Cotillard is good for playing sultry femme fatales.  She’s far too cute for that role, and it’s very awkward to see her in it.  She also has a remarkably laughable death scene in this film.  

        Carrying out her plans is Bane (Tom Hardy).  For anyone familiar with this mastermind from the comics, it was very disappointing for the movie’s twist to be that he was merely a competent executor of the actual mastermind’s evil plan.  Many were also put off by the whitewashing.  Still, Bane seems to have stood the test of time as memorable character.  A lot of this was due to Tom Hardy’s creative contributions, such as the voice, the mannerisms, and the eccentric love for knitting.  While he’s believable in the role, Hardy’s performance isn’t too impressive from an acting perspective.  Bane also boasts a cool character design courtesy of designer Lindy Hemming.  In keeping with the series’ more mundane setting, the Venom has been replaced by anesthetic gas meant to keep Bane’s constant pain in check.  It would have made more sense, while being more in keeping with the original design, for his mask to feature a pipe, though.  Bane’s backstory features a strange role reversal in the Al-Ghuls’ attitude toward him.  Ra’s Al-Ghul (Liam Neeson) rejected Bane because he reminded him too much of his dead wife (more so than his own daughter) for some nonsense reason.  Despite the movie’s departures from Batman canon, its biggest objective flaw was the obligatory shoehorning of an iconic moment from the comics into an incompatible plot.  Bane does break Batman’s back, but Batman recovers strangely fast from it, and without proper medical care no less.  

         Other cast members include a competent version of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), and a young cop named John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  Blake seems like a rather disposable character, but there’s a twist at the end which suggests that he finds the Batcave and becomes the new Batman.  In a remarkable failure of fanservice, his real name is revealed to be “Robin.”  Ben Mendelsohn is entertaining as John Daggett, a corrupt businessman who is an unwitting pawn in the evil plan.  Michael Caine is good as Alfred, and his poignant confession that he failed to protect Bruce by allowing him to become Batman is one of the better parts of the movie.  A surprisingly effective arc comes from top cop Peter Foley (Matthew Modine), who starts out the movie as somewhat pusillanimous, only to die selflessly in the final confrontation.  Other cast members include Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. 

         Despite the movie’s flaws, it’s a very well-paced and engaging story with high stakes.  The villains free prisoners and exploit class discontent to create the illusion of far-left revolution, when in reality they intend to nuke the city.  A solid “fascist” theme that was timely considering the Occupy Wall Street movement.  There’s also a surprisingly realistic message in which Batman cannot escape a prison’s pit unless he removes a safety harness.  Despite many lofty ideas of heroism, ultimately the strongest instinct is self-preservation.  Bruce realizes he will always fail the test if he knows he can do it again.  In order to save Gotham, he removes that possibility.

        The movie’s visuals are wonderful.  Nolan’s faithful cinematographer Wally Pfister provides a distinctive look, and the director’s insistence on practical effects sets the movie apart from other superhero movies.  The one moment of terrible CGI was this scene which is literally as goofy as anything that happened in Batman & Robin.  I was hoping that the effect was simply unfinished when I saw the trailer but apparently they actually went with that in the movie.

       Another visual problem with the movie was its terrible fight choreography.  Nolan was always great at things like car chases, but he would usually resort to shakycam when fists started flying.  When he began to forsake that crutch it unfortunately revealed his weaknesses. This, however, turned out to be a step in the right direction, as he had definitely learned to fix this problem by Tenet.  It’s really nice to see a great director acknowledge his shortcomings and improve upon them, and it goes to show that even the masters have something to learn.

       The score is very good, with Hans Zimmer's returning to a more epic, melodic approach after the Dark Knight.   

       Dark Knight Rises isn’t great, but it was still watchable.  It helps that there are plenty of memorable lines in it, which is more than I can say for the more blandly competent Batman (2022).  Even Christopher Nolan’s bad movies are still enjoyable.     

 

Not Great, Not Terrible

Batman & Robin

1997

D: Joel Schumacher

**********

Pros: Visual Style, Some Funny Moments, Arnold

Cons: Lack of a Plot, Not That Funny, Robin, George Clooney, Some Bad CGI

 

 

      I usually do the anniversary of a movie’s initial release, but I suppose wide release will be sufficient for this one.  I’ve gotten so fatigued by gritty Batman, that I decided to give this movie a second chance.  (You know something’s wrong when the guy with the goth dragon edglord fursona has had enough of dark and gritty superhero movies.)

      I’ll just have to say that I love the look of this movie.  It’s just so over-the-top and creative.  It’s like a cartoon stage production on crack, and I must give credit to production designer Barbara Ling, art directors Richard Holland and Geoff Hubbard, set decorator Doree Cooper, and costume designers Ingrid Ferrin and Robert Turturice for the best part of the movie.  I would have loved to see it in a better film, though.  The visual zaniness could have been enhanced by better humor, though.  The jokes consist of lame dad puns, and the movie lacks the creativity of the 60’s Adam West series in that respect.  There are a few funny moments and gags, though, and Arnold’s delivery makes some of the lamer jokes cross the line twice.  In contrast to Jim Carrey’s intermittently grating nature, Arnold’s natural campiness suits the movie perfectly, and his scenes are the most consistently entertaining. 

       If not humor, I would have also expected a better plot.  Batman Forever, despite its questionable villains, was ultimately a good movie for combining Schumacher’s style with effective arcs involving Batman’s accepting his identity and Robin’s struggling to come to terms with his desire for revenge, making him an excellent foil for a hero with the hindsight to know better.  In contrast, Batman has little to do and Robin is reduced to an annoyingly entitled brat who just wants as much attention as Batman.  He does have some likability in the moments in which he guides Barbara Wilson/Batgirl (Alicia Silvestone).  One wonders why they could not have made her Gordon’s (Pat Hingle) daughter; it might have given him an actual substantial role in this series.  Forever even has plenty of genuinely witty dialogue that could have enhanced this movie's style. 

       With little but style and humor to go by, this movie is at least forty minutes too long.  That’s what ulitimately kills it.  Without a seriously engaging plot, you should not go over 90 minutes at most.  The problem may be due to the lack of Tim Burton’s involvement; he was not credited as a producer as he was in Batman Forever, and the lack of the previous movie’s full writing team.

      Most of the cast is solid in this movie, but George Clooney is sadly out-of-place.  I’ve pointed this out before, but Clooney is most suited for deconstructed heroism; goofballs who aren’t nearly as cool as they think they are.  Even the campy Batman is an earnest badass in his own right.  Uma Thurman is very fitting as Poison Ivy, and she does well as both a sultry femme fatale and a nerdy scientist.  I’d also be tempted to add a whole star to the movie just for this one scene in which Bruce Wayne stands up for anthropocentrism in the face of her radical environmentalism.

       Batman & Robin is not particularly good, but it is stylish and it’s more interesting than the banality of many modern superhero movies.  It’s funny how we cornered Schumacher into apologizing for this off-beat romp while people like Rian Johnson now smugly gaslight anyone who questions their failures.  

 

 

 

QUOTES

 

MR. FREEZE: What killed the dinosaurs?  THE ICE AGE!

 

DR. PAMELA ISLEY: I have here a proposal showing how Wayne Enterprises can immediately cease all actions that toxify our environment.  Forget the stars look here at the Earth, our mother, our womb, she deserves your loyalty and protection.  And yet, you spoil her lands, poison her oceans, blacken her skies. You’re killing her!

BRUCE WAYNE: Well, your intentions are noble, but no diesel fuel for heat, no coolants to preserve food, millions of people will die of cold and hunger alone.

DR. PAMELA ISLEY: Acceptable losses in the battle to save the planet.

BRUCE WAYNE: People come first, Dr. Isley.

 

[Bane and Ivy rescue Freeze while delivering his costume]

MR. FREEZE:  A laundry service that delivers.  Wow!

POISON IVY: What are you, a fifty big and tall?

MR. FREEZE: No, I always go one size smaller.  It makes me look slimmer.

 

BATMAN: And you are?

BATGIRL: Batgirl.

BATMAN: That’s not awfully PC.  What about Batperson or Batwoman?

BATGIRL: Bruce, it’s me, Barbara.  I found the Batcave.

ROBIN: We gotta get those locks changed.

BATMAN: She knows who we are.

ROBIN: I guess we’ll have to kill her.

BATMAN: Yep, we’ll kill her later, we have work to do.

2022 Movies Ranked

<< 2021    2023 >>

 

11. Everything Everywhere All At Once

D: Daniels

**********

Despite some interesting ideas, the movie chases the multiverse trend and fails miserably.  In a massive disappointment from A24 it manages to be everything that sucks about MCU movies (crap for story structure and lots of forced humor), only without the CGI glut.  The movie didn't know how to end and dragged on far too long.  Particularly frustrating are the jokes which are rubbed in long after they were made, as if the movie is saying, "SEE?  SEE? REMEMBER THIS JOKE WE MADE? WASN'T THAT FUNNY?!!!"  I get it movie, there's a dimension in which everyone has wieners for fingers and it looks off-puttingly phallic, YOU DON'T NEED TO REMIND ME FOR THE NINTH-MILLIONTH TIME.  The best part of the movie was Short Round, who served as the sensitive husband type.

10. Jurassic World: Dominion

D: Colin Trevorrow

**********

Not horrible, but not that great, either.  Particularly disappointed by the character derailment of Dodgson.  

9. The Batman

D: Matt Reeves

**********

Derivative, bland strawman version of a gritty comic book movie.  Elevated only by Greig Fraser’s awesome cinematography and some good action.  At least it wasn’t boring.

8. The Bad Guys

D: Pierre Perifel

**********

Despite some stylish animation, and well-timed kinetic slapstick, it's a formulaic Dreamworks movie.  It's a shame because I love the theme of bad people trying to be good, and I've always found it annoying that all the cool animals I identified with were always the villains in cartoons.  At least the fox character is hot.

7. Smile

D: Parker Finn

**********

A decent horror movie with a great creature effect at the end.  Still too much like a lesser version of It Follows.

6. The Northman

D: Robert Eggers

**********

A good movie, but a bit slow.

5. The Banshees of Inisherin

D: Marin McDonagh

**********

Good movie, but a bit overlong.  

4. Top Gun: Maverick

D: Joseph Kosinski

**********

A legacy sequel done right by people who take the project seriously.  Could have used "Mighty Wings," though. 

3. Father Stu

D: Rosalind Ross

**********

Very good movie about a Christian's struggles and redemption.  Has a good message about God's plans' not always aligning with our logic, in that a man called to priesthood is afflicted with a fatal disease.

2. Elvis

D: Baz Luhrmann

**********

I usually never liked Luhrmann's movies, but it seems he finally found an editor who can work with his vision (Matt Villa).  A colorful engaging movie, with great performances.  And I usually don't like biopics. 

1. Nope

D: Jordan Peele

**********

A good, creative movie, but the twist that the UFO was just an animal trying to feed itself robbed the story of much of its conceptual horror.  

 

<< 2021    2023 >>

Best Batmobiles

Limited to theatrically-released movies.

 

 

10. FIRST LEGO VERSION

The LEGO Movie

Way too bulky, not a fan.

 

9. THE “CLASSIC”

Batman (1966)

Many nostalgic Boomers obnoxiously assert it was the last Batmobile with “class,” but it’s a lame design that only gets credit for its iconic status.  Not even a legit Batmobile design, just an uglified Lincoln Futura concept.

 

8. THE SECOND SCHUMACHER VERSION

Batman & Robin

This is a disappointedly lame design after so many good ones.  Derivative version of the classic Batmobile format without much setting it apart to look good.

7. THE SECOND LEGO VERSION

The LEGO Batman Movie

Much more svelte and aggressive than the previous model.  Looks like something out of Mad Max.

6. THE MUSCLE CAR

The Batman

A good example of an earlier Batmobile built from a stock car.  It’s also involved in an excellent chase scene and makes a frighteningly demonic screech.  The gorgeous cinematography helps a lot.  

 

 

 

5. THE ANIMATED VERSION

BTAS, Mask of the Phantasm

Like the Burton version with a little more class, but not quite as as aggressive looking.

 

4. DCEU VERSION

BvS, Justice League

Looks pretty awesome.  Sleek, but awkward from some angles.

3. THE BURTON VERSION

Batman, Batman Returns

The first true Batmobile on the big screen.  It’s a classic design, and it has a distinctly sinister face.  I think its the malicious-looking of all the Batmobiles and that edges it out over the Tumbler.  

 

2. THE TUMBLER

The Dark Knight Trilogy

The most unique, alien design of them all.  I love how they went into the logistics of why it is the way it is.

1. THE FIRST SCHUMACHER VERSION

Batman Forever

I know this is unpopular, but this is my favorite.  It takes the classic layout and makes it look as gothic as possible while having a nice face.  The wheel fenders and the headlights also give it a nice retro look.  It would be a perfect Batmobile for all occasions with its blue lighting and wheels blacked out, but it’s still perfect for its movie’s aesthetic as it is.  Destroying this car was one of the more annoying things Jim Carrey did in this movie, and that's saying something. 

Batmans Ranked

Limited to the theatrically-released movies.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the best Bruce Waynes are actively involved in Wayne Enterprises.

 

 

 

9. ROBERT PATTINSON

The Batman

I’d really hate to put him at the bottom, but his performance is that of a bland, emo strawman depiction of a gritty Batman.  Even gritty Batmans need to show some nuance.  It’s not that Pattinson is bad per se, it’s just how he was utilized.  I’d like to see more of a Tenet Robert Pattinson, but instead I got Twilight Robert Pattinson all over again.  Unlike many, I did not balk at his casting.  After all, we’ve had more controversial casting choices like Michael Keaton, Ben Affleck, and Heath Ledger work out okay.  I guess it’s the trailers that seem to be the most reliable indicator how good these casting choices will be.  I thought Ledger and Affleck looked good enough in the them, but the Batman trailers gave me a taste of what’s to come with Pattinson. 

 

8. GEORGE CLOONEY

Batman & Robin

I really wanted to put him at the bottom of this list, but I really had to do it.  Then again, what makes Pattinson even more disappointing is that, unlike Clooney, it was a waste of good casting.  George Clooney only works as a befuddled wannabe hero who’s not as savvy as he thinks he is, and even campy versions of Batman have to be badasses in their own right, based on the goofy rules of their universes.  The Coen Bros, for example are the few who realize this.  Still, Clooney can deliver a droll one-liner well, and his Bruce Wayne does have this moment.    

 

7. WILL ARNETT

The LEGO Movies

Arnett does a god job as a parody of Batman's raspy voice.  He was far funnier in the LEGO Movie as a supporting character as the hero's love interest's boyfriend.  No her boyfriend wasn't Bruce Wayne...it was Batman.  LEGO Batman, on the other hand, kinda sucked.  It was just a kid-friendly version of Robot Chicken.

6. CHRISTIAN BALE

The Dark Knight Trilogy

This is another example of someone whose casting wasn’t taken enough advantage of.  Considering American Psycho, one could understand why Christian Bale was cast as Bruce Wayne.  He’d be a great example of Batman-as-the-real-identity, a dark creature awkwardly pretending to be an eccentric rich fop.  In other words, a heroic version of Patrick Bateman.

Unfortunately, this angle seemed to be ignored in practice.  Bruce Wayne seems to be the perfectly natural persona, while that of Batman is comically forced.  We’ve all heard complaints about that voice, after all.  Perhaps it’s because Bale already has a deep voice.  He should have got the Kevin Conroy way with that.

 

5. BEN AFFLECK

DCEU

Like many others, I was pleasantly surprised by Ben Affleck’s Batman.  Affleck has come a long way as an actor and he now has the rugged good looks to pull off the role.  I also find it interesting that the movie shows that Batman can fall into violent corruption while still being able to find redemption afterward.  I guess we could ignore his apparently forcing himself on Harley in Suicide Squad. 

 

4. VAL KILMER

Batman Forever

Kilmer perfectly combines a credibly intimidating Batman persona with a somewhat light depiction of Bruce Wayne.  He does justice to the campy atmosphere of his movie, and is the closest thing we got to worthy Adam West successor.

3. ADAM WEST

Batman (1966)

Someone who owned the campiness with a distinctive, iconic performance.  

 

2. MICHAEL KEATON

Batman, Batman Returns

Burton described his Batman as someone who needed to wear a mask.  Indeed, Keaton manages to be intimidating enough as Batman while still maintaining a lovable quirkiness that sets his Bruce Wayne apart and makes him relatable.  He can still mope when he had to though.  Just proof that just because someone has demons, he doesn’t need to be wooden.  Keaton’s performance makes the best case for Bruce-Wayne-as-the-real-identity.

 

1. KEVIN CONROY

Batman: The Animated Series, Mask of the Phantasm

Conroy’s voice is perfect.  I like how he has a disarming voice as Wayne, but his Batman voice is unparalleled…and the latter is clearly his normal speaking voice.