Wednesday, November 7, 2012

1982 Movies Ranked





This is sad day for America, but thirty years ago, we got some great movies.  This is one of the best movie years I know of.  So many classics…


9. Firefox
D: Clint Eastwood
**********
Another boring eye-candy 80’s movies.  The movie is dull and terribly paced, but I love the design and effects of the titular plane.  Kenneth Colley (Admiral Piett) and Ronald Lacey (Toht) also help make it a nostalgic 80’s movie for me.


8. Conan the Barbarian
D: John Milius
**********
Though its then-shocking violence is a bit dated, it has some interest moments of writing and

7. Tron
D: Steven Lisberger
**********
A movie known for its revolutionary use of CGI.  To some it’s dated, but I love the way it looks.  


6. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
D: Steven Spielberg
**********
I never watched this as a kid, but when I finally checked it out, it turned out to be pretty good.  Except for that cloying frog scene.


5. The Last Unicorn
D: Jules Bass, Arthur Rankin, Jr.
**********
A clever fantasy that deconstructs many of the genre’s tropes will still being earnest and serious.  For some reason, the America songs that are so insufferable in The Hobbit are actually not too bad here.  My only complaint is that the animation is sometimes a bit stilted.


4. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
D: Nicholas Meyer
**********
By far the best thing to have happened to the Star Trek franchise.  It’s the only one I see as required viewing for everyone (I’m more of a Star Wars fan).  I will venture the opinion that Channel Awesome’s constant references to it are pretty tiresome. 

3. The Thing
D: John Carpenter
**********
Great gory visuals and an ominous score, but it works because it actually is a truly effective and suspenseful horror movie.  Paranoia fuel at its best.


2. The Secret of NIMH
D: Don Bluth
**********
Don Bluth’s masterpiece.  It has everything his movies are know best for: dark style, suspense, nightmare fuel.  If only they still made cartoons like this.


D: Ridley Scott
**********
With its dark, complex storytelling and amazing visuals, this is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made.  The ultimate cyberpunk movie.  







My Reaction to Obama's Reelection





I thought that maybe, just maybe, the American people would show some marginal level of intelligence, but turns out they fell for that "War on Women" crap and all the other shallow crap like how Romney's bad for America because he's rich businessman (yeah, when the economy's in the crapper, it's not like we want someone with a record of success in it calling the shots.)  Maybe Heinlein was right about democracy.  Maybe I'll just go otherkin, 'cause fuck humanity.

I can understand voting for Obama in '08, but now?  After all he's done?  The assault of freedom of religion with the healthcare mandate, the ATF gunwalking coverup, fuckin' Benghazi...he should have been fucking impeached.  I would have settled for the paltry punishment of his not getting reelected, but...sigh...  Y'know, when Obama got elected, I was willing to give him a chance (I was going through a moderate phase).  But I had never been so opposed to a ticket than I had been during this election.  I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Clinton.  He was pragmatic enough to approve of a conservative fiscal policy (and cynically take credit for its success, of course), and we impeached him just for getting head from an intern.  Gosh, I miss the 90's!

We didn't know how good we had it then.


P.S.  Maybe I was being too harsh on people.  Incumbents usually win like this.  People didn't so much consciously vote for a totalitarian nanny state; they just made a knee-jerk vote for the status quo because they don't pay the fuck attention.


Thursday, November 1, 2012

Scorpio Blatantly Rips Off the Nostalgia Critic (Part 2)





So before the new Bond movie comes out, I decided to do another Old vs. New with my two favorite Bond movies.  Now, I have to admit that my choice of the “Old” may be a bit surprising and shows just how young I am (Hell, I never watched James Bond, Jr. but I heard of it before I even knew who James Bond was.  Try to wrap your head around that).  The truth is this is a personal choice.  In addition to having most of the iconic Bond tropes, GoldenEye is actually first Bond movie I ever watched.  Despite the nostalgic value it has for me, I really think that this movie has stood up well to my adult tastes.  This sounds iconoclastic, but I’m not the biggest fan of the “classic” Bond movies (with the exception of Dr. No and Goldfinger).  I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that 60’s action scenes are pretty underwhelming.  In addition to having the best action of any Bond movie up to that point, GoldenEye also has stronger characterization.  Bond has always been an asshole, but in this movie he’s actually called out for it, and he even seems aware on some level of what he is.  The villain also has a more personal relationship with him.  Some people might do a comparison between both Casino Royale movies, but I haven’t seen the 1967 version and I doubt it would be much of a contest.  

So now that I’ve scared everyone away, I’ll do the comparison for those of you who are still with me.



As I said before, GoldenEye is the first Bond movie I watched, and, thanks to this movie, I actually prefer Brosnan over Connery. Brosnan is handsome and suave, while still coming off as cold and brutal.  He has a perfect look for Bond, even if GoldenEye was the only Bond movie that used him right (I’m not a big fan of his other Bond movies).
When I found out that Daniel Craig was going to play Bond, I was as skeptical.    I even joined a facebook group called “Bond Ain’t Blonde.”  It didn’t help that the only other blonde Bond, Roger Moore, was pretty awful.  It also didn’t help that he looked like one of my college friends.  And then I watched the movie.  Aside from the movie’s generally being awesome, I was impressed by Craig’s performance.  He deserves a lot of credit for succeeding despite such overwhelming negative expectations.  Pretty much everyone’s on board with him except for people who think that Transformers is a good movie.  He’s appropriately brutal, with a bit of a heart and a dry snarky wit, making him very fun to watch.  His voice sounds cooler than Brosnan’s, and, when this Bond makes a one-liner, it sounds funnier.  The only problem is that he doesn’t fit the suaveness or have any superficial charm.  Because he’s Bond, he obviously has magic poon powers, but can you seriously picture Craig being able to talk a girl into bed with two lines?  It doesn’t help that he always has that crew cut.  He looks great in the above promotional photo with his hair grown out, and you’d think that they’d do that in the later movies, but they don’t.   Still I find Crag’s Bond more human, showing some depth and heart despite his roughness.
Although I do find Craig’s Bond more complex and sympathetic, Brosnan plays the part a whole lot better.

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE


I know villains like Goldfinger and Blofeld are more famous, but I’m sorry.  Trevelyan is the best Bond villain by far.  The reason he’s so great is because of his past with Bond.  A former friend an ally who feels betrayed by the hero, he’s actually a rare example in which Bond’s moral ambiguity actually comes back to haunt him.  A former 00 agent he can match wits and punches with Bond.  He also can be suave and classy at times.  It also helps that he’s played by one of my all-time favorite actors.  His physical deformity (some decidedly non-disfiguring burn scars on part of his face) is a bit underwhelming, though.  Oddly enough, Javier Bardem’s character in Skyfall sounds suspiciously familiar…
I love the Craig Bonds, but they seem to have relatively weak villains.  Fortunately, Skyfall seems to be addressing this problem with Javier Bardem.  In Casino Royale you have the one-eyed pansy, and Quantum of Solace has a generic guy.  Le Chiffre is still a memorable character who has a decent deformity.  Some would argue that the fact that he’s a relatively vulnerable and human villain who’s acting in desperation is realistic and compelling.  I partially agree, but I often prefer a charismatic evil genius.

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE


This is actually a tough call.  At first I was going to give this to Vesper because of her role in the story.  She’s the Bond girl that Bond actually falls in love with, and her death motivates him after the movie.  Then I realized that this has more to do with the “Story” category.  Vesper may be a good character, but she’s mostly interesting as a foil for Bond.  Natalya is actually a far stronger character.  In contrast to her infamous 64-bit avatar, she’s actually smart and has an independent role in the movie.  She’s almost like a second protagonist.  I know there have been many “strong woman” types in the Bond series, but she seems more relatable and believable.  She’s average-looking (not a supermodel), she’s a competent computer programmer (rather than a scientific genius), and she can competently defend herself when needed.  She’s patriotic, and apparently not as easily extorted into helping the villains, like Vesper.  We also identify with her more than in previous Bond films, especially when she deals with the terror and grief during the Severanaya massacre.  She even calls Bond out on what kind of person he is.  Unfortunately, she has to have sex with Bond in the end, because…Bond has to have sex with the Bond girl in the end, apparently.  Still that’s more of a “Story” issue…

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE


Although Dame Judi Dench is going up against herself in this comparison, these two M’s are actually polar opposites.  GE M is a product of the peaceful modern era of the 90’s and must deal with Bond, who is a holdover from the Cold War.  CR M is the holdover from the Cold War who has to deal with Bond as well as facing the more chaotic violence caused by terrorism.  I prefer CR M because, whereas GE M seems to be a bureaucrat, she seems to be brutal.  I can see her doing some dirty spy work in her own day.  She has more of a temper which leads to some great lines. (“In the old days if an agent did something that embarrassing, he’d have the good sense to defect.  C-----, I miss the Cold War!”)

Advantage:
CASINO ROYALE


Mollaka has some great parkour moves, and his scene is one of the best movie footchases I’ve seen, but he’s mostly a glorified mook, rather than a real character.  Xenia, however, is a genuine villain, and a rather twisted one at that.  Not only does she have a memorable way of killing some of her victims, she’s a literal sadist.  She doesn’t just enjoy murdering people, she actually gets sexually aroused when she does it.  Watch her slaughter the Severnaya staff; it’s even disturbing to one of the other villains.  Combine that with a sexy appearance and you’ve got a perfect femme fatale.

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE



Jeffrey Wright is calm and cool as Leiter and even manages to pretty much bail Bond out in the movie.  He's intelligent and calculating, rather than brutal like Bond is.  Still, I like Wade more because I think he's funny and he even has a cutie mark.

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE

Even though these are my two favorite Bond movies, they didn’t do justice to one of the foremost Bond tropes.  Although the classic Aston DB5 makes an appearance in both movies.  The original Bond cars in the movies are pretty underwhelming.  GoldenEye started the brief trend of Bond’s driving BMW’s but the beautiful Z3 is a big tease.  They dedicate a scene to describing all the cool features that would make it a great Bond car (Stinger missiles behind the headlights, for example), but we didn’t see it do anything.  They even have a car chase in the movie without it.  It’s the wrong color, too; Bond cars should be silver, or some other neutral color. 
The DBS lacks the Bond goodies, but at least that fits the gritty nature of its movie.  It does have a few things, like (for some reason) a defibrillator which Bond (coincidentally) ends up needing.  Maybe the glove compartment is like the Room of Requirement from Harry Potter.  Outside that, Bond doesn’t do much with the car besides total it.  Still, it’s better than hyping up a car and not doing jack with it.  Also, it’s prettier than the Z3 and it’s in the right color.   

Advantage:
CASINO ROYALE


This is a tough call.  Both movies were made by the same director and have effective cinematography that looks good for its time.  They both have some artful moments, like the first face-off between Trevelyan and Bond in GoldenEye and the effective use of black-and-white and Dutch angles in the first scene of Casino Royale.  Overall, CR looks better, but that’s mostly due to standardized improvements in cinematography over the years; this gives Goldeneye a more distinctive feel.  I’ll give it to GoldenEye because of its use of miniatures, which I find to be a refreshing departure from trying to pass off American planes as MiGs.  It also has some creative use of scenery it does not get credit for.

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE


 
Both songs are great; in fact they’re my two favorite Bond songs.  “You Know My Name” has better lyrics that have more of an impact and possess more relevance to its respective story, but I think “GoldenEye” sounds better.  Also, the visuals of the “GoldenEye” intro, which are symbolic of the fall of communism occurring at the point in the movie, are much better than that of “You Know My Name,” which looks like it was made in someone’s spare time in Adobe Flash.   

Advantage:
GOLDENEYE


Though most people probably do not like Eric Serra’s techno soundtrack to GoldenEye, I think it can it sounds bold, distinctive and atmospheric.  Still, it has its moments of stupidity.  David Arnold’s score is more generic in tone but even-handed, makes good use of the motifs from the intro song, and has a poignant leitmotif for Vesper.  For the most part it holds off the actual Bond theme until the last scene, but the effect is somewhat spoiled by the fact that part of that song was already played in the middle of the movie.

Advantage:
CASINO ROYALE


Both movies have great action (once again, same director).  GoldenEye has a very good stunt at the beginning.  I’m sure a lot of work went into making sure Brosnan’s stuntman didn’t become a stain on the side of that dam, but that crane fight in CR does a lot more to provoke my acrophobia.  The gunfights from GE are visceral (especially in the uncut version) they’re matched by the fistfights and footchase in CR.  It’s close…if only a moment tie breaker where a movie did something really awesome or incredibly stupi-OH.

Advantage:
CASINO ROYALE

Both movies have great stories that were more substantial than previous entries in the franchise.  For those of you thinking that nostalgia goggles are the main reason I think so highly of GoldenEye, when was a kid I thought this scene was boring.  Now I see it as a great dramatic moment that helps make the movie substantial.  It explored Bond more as a fleshed out character and gave him a mission that challenged him on an emotional level.  He still was a bastard (his method of killing Trevelyan is pretty disturbing in how it’s what passes for some sort of twisted closure on his part).  GoldenEye had some great characters that I already described, but I’m gonna give this one to Casino Royale. 
Although I said that Brosnan is a better Bond than Craig, The CR Bond is more human and fleshed out.  He’s tested even more emotionally in this movie than in GE.  Also, whereas GE makes a better conventional Bond movie, CR totally broke the mold.  It’s a compelling origin story for Bond, rather than another Bond movie.  It’s not afraid to tell a grittier story that breaks some of the shallow conventions of the franchise.  As I mentioned before, Natalya is one of the best Bond girls, but she must get screwed by Bond at the end because you apparently you can’t have the Bond girl NOT have sex with Bond (I admire Quantum of Solace for completely ignoring this “requirement”).  Craig’s Bond had sex with Vesper, but they were actually in love.
 

Advantage:
CASINO ROYALE



This was close, but I went with GoldenEye.  This wasn't the first of the series to treat Bond as a serious character, but it was the first one I know of that did it well.  It also combines this strength with a healthy does of Bond gimmicks and a stronger cast.




GoldenEye
**********
Casino Royale
**********

1983 Movies Ranked



12. Octopussy
D: John Glen
**********
One of the more forgettable Bonds.  The only really memorable things about this entry are the buzzsaw yo-yo and the fact that Bond dresses up like a clown (a nuclear bomb was about to go off, so he dressed up like a sad clown).  Exiled Prince Guy may be the most forgettable Bond villain in the franchise.


11. Jaws 3D
D: Joe Alves
**********
While I do like some of the cheesy visuals, it’s pretty stupid.  I still found it more watchable than Jaws 2.


10. Krull
D: Peter Yates
**********
Like Dune, this is one of those bad early 80’s genre movies that I only like on any level because of its distinctive scenery and effects.  Well, this movie also has a neat mix of fantasy and sci-fi, a good score, and the hilarious miscasting of Liam Neeson as a swashbuckling rascal. 


9. Never Say Never Again
D: Irvin Kershner
**********
Irvin Kershner went from making the best sequel ever made to making, well, RoboCop 2.  Never Say Never Again is somewhere in between.  It’s basically a more watchable remake of Thunderball. 


D: Michael Mann
**********
Lots of potential, but watered down by a studio cut.


7. Scarface
D: Brian De Palma
**********
This was in my top ten favorite movies when I was young…and then I graduated college.  Still, it’s a great movie with an excellent finale.


6. Videodrome
D: David Cronenberg
**********
More distinctive gross-outs from David Cronenberg.


5. Mickey's Christmas Carol
D: Burny Mattinson
**********
Well-animated and earnest adaptation, if a bit watered-down.


4. A Christmas Story
D: Bob Clark
**********
An above-average Christmas comedy which takes the unique route of telling realistic Christmas story from a child’s point of view.


3. National Lampoon’s Vacation
D: Harold Ramis
**********
One of the many iconic comedies of the 80’s.


2. The Man with Two Brains
D: Carl Reiner
**********
One of my favorite overlooked comedies.  I like it even better than Reiner and Martin’s more famous work, The Jerk.

D: Richard Marquand
**********
Yay, we finally made it to the Star Wars Trilogy!  Funny how all these movies came out before I even existed, and yet they’ve done so much to influence my tastes.  I was practically weened off these movies and Disney cartoons (my parents raised right).  This movie does drag on sometimes with the Ewoks (I still think they’re cute), and it does make the mistake of splitting the movie into three simultaneous action scenes, but it’s still great.  Most threequels try to be this movie, attempting to end the series with the best amount of opulence and emotionality, but most of them fail miserably.  Also, I’d like to point out that I believe this movie actually has the best cinematography of the whole series.






Sunday, October 28, 2012

Scorpio Blatantly Rips Off the Nostalgia Critic (Part 1)




Last night I went to GMX and got to meet Doug Walker, and naturally I’m going to rip him off now.  I love his “Old vs. New” features.  They usually end up being very spot-on, and his Batman vs. the Dark Knight special is one of my favorite of any of his reviews.  It sums up perfectly why I’m one of the few people who prefers Batman over Dark Knight.  I agreed with virtually everything he said in it. 
So I decided to make an unofficial sequel to it with Batman Returns  vs. The Dark Knight Rises.  Both movies immediately followed groundbreaking Batman movies starring the Joker, and, oddly enough…they both bear the title of the previous movie following by a verb beginning with an “R.”  Batman and Dark Knight were both hard acts to follow, and their two sequels…

Well, let’s put it this way: they both exceeded expectations of not meeting the expectations of the originals.   




Both depictions of Batman are heavily flawed.  The BR Batman is often rightly criticized for crossing the line and killing a couple of criminals when he really didn’t have to.  At one point, when some moron attempts to breathe fire on the Batmobile, Batman uses its exhaust to immolate him, almost as if he was just one-upping him.  Still, if not for these frustrating moments, Batman would have been a really well-done character.  Michael Keaton is great as Batman, coming off as unassuming as Bruce Wayne and intimidating as Batman.  I also like his suit a lot more.
DKR Batman is very problematic.  He spent the years between DK and DKR sulking when we were practically promised to see him as an independent vigilante running from the law.  Also, his entire story arc is supposed to be about overcoming doubt and adversity like in Spider-Man 2, but it just fails miserably where that movie succeeded.  His seclusion is out-of-character and just comes off as wangst, and his debilitating injuries are solved through rushed copouts.  He also doesn’t have the dark edge he had in the previous two movies.  And then there’s the voice, which everyone makes fun of.  Christian Bale is a great actor, and his performance as Bruce Wayne is perfect until he puts on the mask and turns into The Cookie Monster.  As many have noted, Michael Keaton’s Batman sounds more natural.  The problem is that Bale already has a dark, gravelly voice.  When he tries to make it darker, it just sounds cartoonish and forced.  He also seems to be trying so hard to make the voice that he can’t even act with it.  Now this makes sense in universe, since Wayne is just trying hard to mask his voice.  He can eventually make it sound more natural as he becomes more experienced as Batman.  Another reason why making Batman go into hiding is not a good call.
While the BR Batman has his frustrating moments, he’s mostly a good interpretation.  The DKR Batman, however, was just one big mistake after another.

Advantage
MICHAEL KEATON




For all the unfaithfulness of these two characterizations, they did boast great costumes.  Their character designs are creative and new, but still appropriately reminiscent of the character’s look.  Too bad that’s where faithfulness ends.
Now where do I start on the Penguin?  Well, the character just completely misses the point.  I like how Burton made him physically deformed and how that fits with his design, but he went too far in making him an outcast.  That appeal could have been accomplished if he had still remained in high society like in the comics.  In fact, it would have been more interesting and made more sense.  The Penguin despite his quirks, is also supposed to be one of Batman’s more restrained villains; here he’s one of the most twisted.  I don’t like the forced Biblical allusions of his being an evil Moses, and I can’t quite identify with his motivations.  He was abandoned as a child, so he’s going to take it out on…other children?  He’s utterly crude and has no self-control while he should be a character with some class.  I also think that casting Danny DeVito was questionable.  He doesn’t seem to be appropriate for this character in his voice in mannerisms, only in his build.  I must say that his costume is great, except when he’s running around in his underwear, which he spends an unsettling amount of time doing.  Finally, this scene is one of the low points of the entire franchise.  Actually, it's a low point in humanity.
Bane’s primary problem is that he’s miscast.  Tom Hardy is a good actor, but sometimes a character is so defined by his ethnicity that you have to cast accordingly.  I would have greatly preferred a Latino actor, particularly Javier Bardem.  Hardy’s Bane sounds too much like a generic evil British guy, which could be okay if it weren’t so out of place.  Also, as everyone else has noted, his organization’s motivations make no sense now that Gotham is relatively safe, especially when they drag out its demise just for shits and giggles.  Seriously, the League of Shadows is now just a League of Trolls in this movie.  While some argue that his characterization is more in line with the comics than the cartoons are, this is offset by the fact that he turns out just to be carrying out Talia Al-Ghul’s plans, rather than formulating his own.  Still, unlike the Penguin, Tom Hardy’s Bane is still an intelligent and formidable villain.  I also love his costume.

Advantage:
BANE




Michelle Pfeifer’s Catwoman is great.  She’s funny, she’s sultry.  She has a cool costume.  I like Pfeifer’s performance as both a nerdy, put-upon secretary and an aggressive femme fatale.  Her origin story is very interesting and identifiable (with a healthy fantasy twist): an everywoman fed up with the world and lashing out.  She also has great chemistry with Batman.  Their dialogue is funny, especially when they finally figure out their secret identities.  I also like the open ending she has.
Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman, in contrast, is pretty bland.  Christopher Nolan has often been criticized for making female characters that aren’t really characters, and this is a good example of why.  She has a handful of funny one-liners, but for the most part she only exists as a foil for Batman and a plot device.  A lot of people prejudged Ann Hathaway because of her questionable filmography, but she was actually not bad in the role.  I wasn’t so much like “Ugh, I hate her movies,” as much as, “I’ve heard her name…isn’t she in a lot of chick flicks?”  Also I don’t like her costume.  It’s supposed to look high-tech and practical, but it’s mostly bland.  She looks like a teenager who wanted to dress up in a lame “sexy cat” costume for Halloween, but her mom made her cover it up more.  Some elements of the costume, like the loose hair, clash with the supposed practicality.  Hell, she even still has stupid heels, although I did think it was cool that they were serrated and could be used as a weapon.

Advantage:
MICHELLE PFEIFER




I changed my mind on this one.  Michael Gough’s Alfred is effective as a kindly old man who occasionally helps out.  Michael Caine does more to provide insightful commentary (I like his speeches, sue me.)  He also does undergo some serious emotional conflict in letting Bruce Wayne become Batman, whereas Michael Gough’s qualms are mostly limited to occasionally telling Bruce that he could use a girlfriend.  Michael Caine’s struggles come to a head in DKR when he realizes that he can’t support Batman anymore and quits.  Caine’s scenes, supported by his acting, are very poignant and one of the few elements that DKR actually got right.  I still prefer Michael Gough's unflappable, dry Alfred.  He's a lot more fun.

Advantage:
MICHAELGOUGH




I almost didn’t include this as a category, because it’s such a no-brainer.  Gary Oldman’s Gordon is awesome.  He actually has an active involvement in the story and is a primary point of contact for Batman.  Pat Hingle’s Gordon is…just there.  Hell, I’m not even sure that screenshot is from BR.  Still, the Tim Burton movies ironically seem to have a less confused impression of what a police commissioner actually does than the Christopher Nolan films (in real life it more to do with political litmus tests than actually fighting crime).  Still, I’m a firm believer of Rule of Cool, and it’s an acceptable break from reality.

Advantage:
 GARY OLDMAN



I think Max Shreck is a cool character.  He’s a snazzy dresser, he’s witty and at the same time he’s wily and evil.  It might make more sense to pit him against Talia as the corporate villain who controls the Heavy, but that’s not much of a contest.  I thought she was kind of lame.  Instead I put him up against another original supporting character. 
I actually think Matthew Modine’s Deputy Commissioner Foley is an underrated character.  He actually mirrors Batman’s story arc of overcoming doubt and difficulty, but he does it better.  Like Batman, he cowers for a while, but for more understandable reasons: he was intimidated, and he has a family.  In other words, he has a lot more to lose than Batman, and he doesn’t have the luxury of a secret identity.  Despite all this, he still overcomes his fear and faces off against the villains.  How awesome is it when Gordon confronts him earlier in the movie and says, “I’m not asking you to march out in the street in your Dress Blues…” and that’s exactly what he does in the end.  And to top it off, he actually dies in the battle, making the ultimate sacrifice.  He’s one of the few things that DKR got right. 
It seems I made a better case for Foley, and but, you know what, screw objectivity.  I'm giving it to Shreck because he's more fun.    

Advantage:
MAX SHRECK



Both movies have a different approach to cinematography and visual style.  While Tim Burton chose to have a more fantastical, stylized and Gothic depiction, Christopher Nolan has a grittier, more realistic approach topped off with a distinctive chiaroscuro style.  Both styles look great and are in line with the movies’ overall tones, and are so radically different that it’s difficult to make an objective comparison.  It mostly just goes to personal taste, and I like Tim Burton’s style, which strikes me as more creative.  Also, I find Gotham more believable as a fictional city without the establishing shots of an existing real life city.  BR is Burton style with all the stops pulled out.  The only thing I don’t like about it is the occasional use of hideous green lighting in places like the sewer.

Advantage:
 BATMAN RETURNS



Danny Elfman’s Batman score is the Batman score.  Nothing captures the feel of the character more than this one did.  In Batman Returns, it’s taken to a new level, retaining what worked while adding great new songs for the Penguin and Catwoman.
Hans Zimmer’s score for Batman Begins was excellent, but it failed to become iconic and distinctive to Batman.  The Dark Knight score took a path of pretentious minimalism (which admittedly fit the tone), but DKR improved upon it and made more passionate, suspenseful music that was fitting for a finale.  Still, it has not surpassed the classic Danny Elfman theme in relevance to the franchise.

Advantage:
DANNY ELFMAN




Well, the screenshots pretty much say it all.  In BR, Tim Burton exceeded what was appropriate for the action and just made silly crap, like armed penguins.  The Sideshow gang fight at the beginning was entertaining but silly.  The Dark Knight, on the other hand, had more competent and serious action, even if the Bane fights could have been done better.

Advantage:
DARK KNIGHT RISES




The most important element of the movie, arguably.  Both movies where pretty disappointing.  Far more disappointing than excusable.  They weren’t just underwhelming in comparison to their predecessors, which would have been understandable.  They had baffling mistakes.  However, most of BR’s mistakes were limited to one villain’s character arc; most of the major characters in it were fun and engaging, even if DKR seemed to have a more solid supporting cast.  DKR was just filled with across the board failure.  Both are stylish enough to be worth a look, but I think BR was more successful in being what it wanted to be.  It was trying to be campy and silly, and arguably went overboard, but it succeeded.  DKR was trying to be epic, thrilling and suspenseful, but that suspense was skimped out on, and the movie just came off as underwhelming.  Also, the half-assed fanservice didn't help, either (seriously JOHN Daggett?  Robin being Joseph Gordon-Levitt's actual first name?)   For all its stupidity, Batman Returns was really just a lot more fun, and that’s why it wins the comparison.

Advantage:
BATMAN RETURNS







**********
The Dark Knight Rises
**********