Redux: Face/Off.

Redux #030: Face/Off.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Sean Archer), Nicolas Cage (Castor Troy), Joan Allen (Eve Archer), Alessandro Nivola (Pollux Troy), Gina Gershon (Sasha Hassler), Dominique Swain (Jamie Archer), Nick Cassavetes (Dietrich Hassler), Harve Presnell (Victor Lazarro), Colm Feore (Dr. Malcolm Walsh), John Carroll Lynch (Prison Guard Walton), CCH Pounder (Hollis Miller), Robert Wisdom (Tito Biondi), Margaret Cho (Wanda Chang), Thomas Jane (Burke Hicks), James Denton (Buzz), and Tommy Flanagan (Leo) Directed by John Woo.

Review: 

On June 27, 1997, Face/Off was released into theaters by Paramount Pictures. It was the third feature film directed by John Woo since his move to America from Hong Kong in 1993. You might remember that Woo had been offered several scripts when he decided to make his first with Hard Target (1993), with one of those being Face/Off. The script was a spec script done by Mike Werb and Michael Colleary, who were graduates of UCLA Film School. The script was written in 1990, with a concurrence of events inspiring them that ranged from seeing White Heat (1949) to hearing about a friend that had to have their face reconstructed from a hand-gliding accident to wanting to have an action movie where the bad guy was just as interesting as the good guy. The script was bought by Warner Brothers, but perceived similarities to another film in their schedule with Demolition Man (1993) hindered them. However, when the option by the studio expired, Paramount Pictures did acquire it and get the ball rolling to make a movie, which started production in October of 1996. Several drafts and several directors (such as Rob Cohen) went hand in hand with several cast members (it was written with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone in mind) all considered. One key change was the shift from it being set in the future to being set in the present day (which got Woo on board), although the writer's insistence on keeping the original ending (involving an orphan) would eventually win out in test screenings.

Sometimes you need a cat-and-mouse with tremendous talent presences behind it. I must admit that I was wondering just how much the movie would change in my perceptions since I first saw it when I was a kid in the many movies that is strange to admit when you consider the portion that happened to have an R-rating. And yet, over ten years later, I enjoyed this movie more for what it does in spectacle (air, sea, or land) with resourceful invention and timing that also has two fun actors wholly in their own element in basically getting to play two personalities each. It shows Woo at his best in terms of control of being allowed to make what he wanted to show in kinetic action with his distinct touches that make for a roaring 133-minute feature. Debating the logistics of the premise (the first facial transplant occurred in 2005, although it required the same blood type) is missing the point when it comes to how it manages to be executed with the overall result as an achievement of the suspension of disbelief for a movie that sees the key swap after a half-hour has passed by. Travolta basically has had multiple career phases that have seen him excel (and other roles that didn't quite make him look great) in multiple genres since the 1970s, but one generally sees a trying effort from him no matter what the material requires of him to do. He already had appeared in a Woo production with Broken Arrow (1996), but he excels better here with this role in part because he bubbles chaos with grand confidence that pierces through the suburban setting he is cast into for most of his time (since the lead two only share four scenes together). Having to play a narcissist thrown into the life of staid non-hedonism is quite the challenge, but he makes it worth with the right sense of timing, probably best signified by a scene where he casually straddles into a bomb situation and later throws a cheesy line about intercepting the bomb. With Cage, he could not be any hotter in terms of presence and general engagement than the 1990s, so it obviously makes sense that he excels just as well with the different approach he has with this film, one that requires him to play both a man of chaos and a man absorbed in knowing how said chaos came from one mind. In other words: it is like watching a mouse try to go through a maze without touching the corners, and Cage weaves his way through with capable charm that matches Travolta without either chewing the scenery to hinder the other. Allen is the solid soothing presence in the middle of such offbeat charm, which also occurs with Gershon despite having slightly less time to show the withered patience that comes when matched with Cage. Nivola, in only his second feature role, was reportedly inspired for the voice of his character by a documentary that he was obsessed with at the time in Crumb (1995). The supporting presences also do pretty well in setting the balance for parts with our main leads, like Pounder in trying to make this premise seem believable for one second or a heel in Lynch. This works out pretty well in a daring sort of sense for a conniving agent of chaos. 

As a whole, I enjoyed the action sequences in what Woo has managed to accomplish in its arrangement that plays like gun ballet, one that has taken the lessons learned from Hard Target and Broken Arrow with their hero-villain pairings and refined it to the best possible setup and execution. The climax that goes from a church to a boat chase to a fight on the sand is especially a key highlight in well-done cutting and setup, Woo fan or not. One is simply swept away in the enjoyment factor rather than dare to wash it off as something mindless or goofy, and perhaps that is the reason the movie has endured so well after 25 years of release. At least in my mind, anyway, since it certainly ranks as a nice highlight in both its director and its key stars, who each have had plenty of highlights to treasure in the action genre. With heightened senses from cast and crew, Face/Off faces the danger of its premise with ease and precision that has made it an enduring experience of a thrill-ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Thing (1982)

Review Revised #712: The Thing (1982).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review: 

The original review was 276 words. Seven years later, I decided to reconsider and make a revised review in light of the 40th anniversary of the release of this film.

The Thing from Another World (1951), if you remember, was a loose adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?, which had been written by John W. Campbell in 1938 (it was only discovered in 2018 that Campbell had actually wrote an entire novel before cutting it down to the novella published in 1938; the manuscript, called "Frozen Hell", was published in 2019). Howard Hawks had supervised the production while Christian Nyby served as director (while Hawks denied that he served as director, his uncredited contribution to writing alongside the fact that Nyby never directed anything as good as this movie ever again makes for an interesting argument). Producers David Foster and Lawrence Turman had wanted to do a remake more faithful to the original novella, as opposed to the plant-like creature of the 1951 movie. Several directors and writers came and went in consideration from Universal Pictures in the late 1970s and 1980s before John Carpenter was hired to direct and Bill Lancaster (writer of The Bad News Bears (1976)) was hired to write; this was the sixth feature film directed by Carpenter, who had just finished Escape from New York (1981); it happened to be the last screenplay written by Lancaster, who died of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Rob Bottin (who had worked with Carpenter on The Fog in 1980) was hired to help provide effects for the creature (with one exception in a dog cage, which was done by Stan Winston to help an ailing Bottin), which his team helped do out of chemicals, food, rubber, and mechanical parts that made the budget go to $15 million; while Bottin's effects received mixed attention at the time, he would continue to hone his craft and wound up with two Academy Awards for his contributions to visual effects. Released on June 25, in a month and year that saw movies come out such as Blade Runner (same day as this movie) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released two weeks prior), The Thing would not be a major success nor a failure. Coming off the heels of movies like Alien (1979) probably did not help either, although this movie tries to go with a creature that isn't a man in a suit (as guided by Carpenter). Of course, the reactions that the movie received would make you think that they killed a dog on film, where even Nyby talked about the film negatively, saying "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch" (now you see why I mentioned Nyby earlier when I relate the irony of a guy famous for "directing" one good movie trying to trash a movie that is way better than his). Years after the film was described as a cult classic, a 2011 version of The Thing was released that apparently serves as a prequel to this movie, and I cannot imagine how anybody really gave a crap about seeing what happens before you see Kurt Russell in a movie.

I haven't seen the 1951 movie in a number of years, but my recollections of seeing it as a straightforward tense movie probably seems right. The 1951 and 1982 movies are set in completely opposite locations and have tones that reflect the age they were made in when it relates to dealing with a threat from within, but the latter movie is especially more striking in its nihilistic execution. Carpenter has said that it is his favorite film from his line of work, even though the results of the film did not help his career the way he thought it would. I said the movie "flat out rules" a long time ago, but now I am even more appreciative of what was accomplished by Carpenter and company that has proven to be one of his most enduring works. The title creature is a ruthless being that pervades whatever it imitates without hesitation, and it makes for one hell of a spectacle and threat to watch on screen. To me, thinking effects are disgusting is like a compliment rather than a criticism, as if the only way to make a tense horror movie is to do it without a hint of cynicism. The best sequence might be the one where a desperate scramble to save a person by pressing on their chest that results in the ripping off of arms. Yes, the movie is a triumph of special effects, but it also is a triumph of paranoia with an ensemble cast that completely sells what is needed. Generally, it is easy to say that Russell does well with the material, because we have seen him do well in other productions before. But he has an effortless charm to him that makes him the kind of actor to just seep into a role without hesitation in everyman sensibilities, which happens in a movie where sanity hangs in the balance. The other members of the cast help in lending fear and irrationalities that doesn't drag the 109-minute run-time any further than it needs to. It seems fitting that two actors making early appearances in film before they became more known excel best: David (in his credited film debut) serves well in the tense glares to not get lost among the group while Brimley (who had a few film and TV credits) makes a stodgy and fierce presence in the face of futility and gruesome gore. The others contribute to the cold tension that bubbles slowly to the surface beneath the early little character quirks in a movie where danger can lurk by what is hidden just as much as what you see.

The music by Ennio Morricone is used selectively by Carpenter to great effect, present in terror without overwhelming you. The movie builds up to the handling of its chameleon-like monster with great planning that doesn't fall privy to the worst type of cliches seen in the lone location type of horror movies (namely dumb characters). The climax lends a welcome deal of futility and ambiguity that fits for a certain audience sensibility that doesn't turn out to be a cheat when you have tired characters that sit there and look at each other while a fire burns in the background. In other words, the movie sets itself up well for how it has to end without straining for it (so yes, ambiguity isn't everyone's thing, but at least it is a contrived ambiguity). In the end, there are a handful of Carpenter movies that could be argued to be his best work in the countless movies he made, and The Thing has certainly had its case strengthened in the four decades since its release with its handling of effects with tension and a great ensemble cast. Now more than ever, one should really check it out for those who are interested in science fiction and horror as it is a triumph of filmmaking from John Carpenter, a director who certainly deserves the credit for making classics of American cinema.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Hard Target.

 

Review #1855: Hard Target.

Cast: 

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Chance Boudreaux), Lance Henriksen (Emil Fouchon), Arnold Vosloo (Pik Van Cleef), Yancy Butler (Natasha Binder), Kasi Lemmons (Detective May Mitchell), Chuck Pfarrer (Douglas Binder), Willie C. Carpenter (Elijah Roper), Wilford Brimley (Uncle Clarence Douvee), Sven-Ole Thorsen (Stephan), Jules Sylvester (Peterson), Robert Apisa (Lopacki), Tom Lupo (Jerome), David Efron (Billy Bob), Joe Warfield (Ismael Zenan), Eliott Keener (Randal Poe), Douglas Forsythe Rye (Frick), Mike Leinert (Frack), and Marco St. John (Dr. Morton) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), and #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2)

Review: 

"Mr. Jim Jacks, the writer, Chuck Pfarrer, and Jean-Claude Van Damme, they flew over to Hong Kong to meet me, and push me to do the job. They all loved my movies, liked my style, and they wanted an American action film with a new look. And I found the people from the studio were very sincere, very warm, and made me feel very relaxed about doing the film. So I took the job."

There will be time yet to cover the long career of John Woo in all the meaningful details. He was born in Guangzhou, China before purges in the country saw his family move to Hong Kong when he was five; at the age of 23, he started work in the film industry with his first short before directing features in 1974. A director for over four decades, he has directed features for both Asian and American cinema, with The Killer (1987) receiving considerable attention abroad. After the release of Hard Boiled (1992), Woo decided to move to the States despite not having a dream to work there before coming there. Chuck Pfarrer, a former Navy SEAL, had developed a script at Universal Pictures that was soon developed with Van Damme in mind. The script took a couple of renditions (such as being inspired by The Naked Prey (1965) and Aliens (1986)) before it found its final form, which was inspired by The Most Dangerous Game (as helped by producer Jim Jacks). Jacks, Pfarrer, and Van Damme all flew over to Hong Kong to meet Woo and try to get him to do it. Jacks helped to bring Woo onto the project, although the studio would have to be convinced to hire Woo because of their doubts - one about his handling of drama and the other about his command of English. Van Damme was the star brought on to star in the movie, although Pfarrer actually had Armand Assante in mind when writing the movie (for his part, Woo actually wanted Kurt Russell, but he was too booked). Woo had gone through a couple of scripts offered to him (one was a script involving switching faces...) before he accepted this one; Sam Raimi was hired by Universal as a potential successor to look over Woo in case things would go south for him, which is why he is credited as an executive producer, although obviously Raimi had confidence in Woo. Van Damme had the star power of script approval and even final cut privileges, which means that there are different versions of the film - Woo had to cut the film just to make sure it wasn't rated NC-17 (the last cut submitted to the MPAA that failed was called the international version, running at 99 minutes), while Van Damme insisted on a version with more of him, complete with close-ups too. This means that the theatrical cut is 97 minutes as opposed to a screening cut done by Woo, which had lasted 116 minutes; an unrated director's cut was released in 2021. A direct-to-video sequel was released in 2016 with none of the cast, and I'm sure none of you give a crap about that. Hard Target was the first Hollywood studio film made by an Asian director.

Even if he had trouble converting his directing talents to a Hollywood "sensibility", one can still see the talent involved in his distinct techniques, whether that involves slow-motion shots and birds that fly around before action starts. I'll be honest, the movie may be a "starring vehicle", but it actually is the second actor that takes control of general interest. No seriously, Henriksen is the more interesting presence in the movie, and this is in a movie where our lead is playing a Cajun drifter who just happens to be a former Marine with a greasy mullet, and one of the supporting actors is Wilfred Brimley playing a Cajun relative who doesn't even show up until a hour has passed. In a sense, it probably is a bit strange to see a movie about taking rich eccentrics and company hunting down homeless veterans (which happen to be in New Orleans after several hunts in other places). If Van Damme (a martial artist after his father enrolled him in classes at the age of 10 before also taking up ballet) is known for his rigid stature of doing one particular hero type for his movies, Woo at the very least managed to make him seem a bit more heightened in a way that will at least make one believe him to be in between say, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steven Seagal (in other words, below the former but considerably higher than the latter). He moves well to the beat of the action without becoming just a man wrapped in the background of lurid fun, which makes it better than previous stuff like Bloodsport (1988), obviously.

There is a twisted elegance to Henriksen that dominates the interest in ways that probably made Van Damme jealous. Imagine someone as professional and dedicated to their work as Henriksen, who excelled in character roles such as Aliens, stealing the show away from a guy who kicks hard because of his pitch-black attitude. He lives on the edge, complete with a dandy weapon that makes him very entertaining to see against the lead, which is probably best represented by a scene where an explosion leads to his jacket being on fire and he just rips that thing off like it was a wad of gum on the shoe (which was an ad-lib by Henriksen). Vosloo is the other key adversary, and he does just as well here in conniving charm needed for the other sociopath in the movie. Hell, you could almost have made a movie with just them as the leads, in an offbeat sort of way, because one does have some fun with what they do together. Butler (making her feature starring debut) is the middle person between interesting presences that is adequate without becoming just a shell for nothingness (Lemmons gets to be the empty one, since authority figures in this kind of movie is like throwing beer on a fire). Brimley is clearly enjoying putting on an accent bordering on "hooting and hollering" that is silly enough to endear oneself to a movie that uses him to solid effect for the climax with Van Damme.

You will get the whole gumbo of things to note and possibly enjoy, whether that involves our lead biting a snake after asking someone to trust them before setting it up as a death trap, jumping over burning barrels before kicking a fuel canister to shoot at it, guys getting shot through keyholes, arrows being fired at home-made moonshine to help light people on fire, and a climax that happens in a Mardi Gras warehouse (it "helps" that the cops happen to be on strike) because the villain doesn't want to just take him down from the air. It really does flow like lurid ballet, packed with a tiny bit of philosophy (or something when the bad guy targets veterans that no one will notice for his weird hunts) mixed with the primal action. By the time the movie ends, you will either find yourself wanting to see the differences between this movie and other Van Damme movies or you will want to see further John Woo movies (he would do five further films in Hollywood before shifting his focus to make films in China by the end of the 2000s). Silly, bombastic, engaging, it really does make for a curious winner that will hit a certain kind of sweet spot in audience and never let go in Woo's attempt to make a modern Western that succeeds.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

My Summer Story.

Review #1854: My Summer Story.

Cast: 

Charles Grodin (Mr. Parker, the Old Man), Mary Steenburgen (Mrs. Parker), Kieran Culkin (Ralphie Parker), Christian Culkin (Randy Parker), Whit Hertford ("Lug"), Chris Owen ("Scut" Farkus), Geoffrey Wigdor (Flick), David Zahorsky (Schwartz), Tedde Moore (Miss Shields), T.J. McInturff (Grover Dill), Glenn Shadix (Leopold Doppler, Manager of the Orpheum Theater), and Roy Brocksmith (Mr. Winchell, The Assessor) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story, #679 - Black Christmas, #1055 - Porky's)

Review: 

A Christmas Story (1983) was a loose working of two Jean Shepherd works: his 1966 book In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash and his 1971 book Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories And Other Disasters. Shepherd, along with Bob Clark and Leigh Brown (Shepherd's wife), wrote the screenplay for the movie. You might not know that Shepherd was the best man to serve as narrator, since the screenplay was based on a series of monologues that he had done on the radio (his broadcasts on the station WOR made him quite popular); he was known for his "interesting" manner of telling tales about his life that balanced the line of fact and fiction while saying that his work was "anti-sentimental". Shepherd had been born in Chicago, Illinois before being raised in Indiana (East Chicago along with Hammond, where he graduated). Clark, inspired by hearing one of Shepherd's stories being told to him on the radio, spent twelve years trying to make the movie, and a couple of Shepherd works had reached television (with him as narrator) before and after the release of this film, most notably with The Great American Fourth of July and Other Disasters (1982), a TV work with Matt Dillon as "Ralphie". The movie lessened the acid edge of the Shepherd stories, which he had envisioned as "Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge.” At any rate, the moderate success of the film on release led to a plethora of television channels showing the movie on Christmas not long after it was released, and the popularity on the television circuit (rightfully) continues to this day. Shepherd, seeing the returns made from its showings on television, was inspired to try and make another movie based on his stories. Of course, it is also possible that Clark wanted to make a sure winner, since Clark directed these films after the release of A Christmas Story: Rhinestone (1984), Turk 182 (1985), From the Hip (1987), and Loose Cannons (1990). Somehow, idiotically, the movie was released as It Runs in the Family to tremendous empty returns. It was only after the movie had vanished from theaters that it was retitled My Summer Story, which is what you will see on video releases.

Of course, in waiting eleven years to make a movie with the same director and writing crew (along with being shot primarily in Cleveland), the main cast was entirely replaced. Oh, and now one is watching a series of vignettes that seem like an anthology rather than the offbeat material presented in the original, one that saw a handful of imagined scenes, such as our lead imagining himself as a hero stopping bandits from taking down his family (dressed up in frontier garb) with his imagined gun. So, instead of a movie where a kid's desire for a Red Ryder BB Gun that happens to feature little side stories in the spirit of Christmas, now one has a movie with small plots for the main family that has a central story of...super-duper tops along with a neighbor with hillbillies (or whatever you would call them). Of course, neither is really about the acquisition of an item as it is more about capturing the spirit of a time long ago told in engaging vision; Shepherd may think his stuff was anti-sentimental, but the heart of what made that movie work was how one confronts their childhood memories in its positives and negatives without being trapped by them. In other words: it was the experiences that stuck with one rather than some toy. Somehow, the movie just doesn't come together, proving that having the same crew behind a classic does not mean the next movie together will work out just the same. Simply put, putting a bunch of new faces will not make a winner when they can't quite live up to mildly interesting expectations that are flattened. Look, we all know that A Christmas Story can raise a distinct discussion when it comes to just how funny it actually is (spoiler: it is funny, no shit), but no one will really have that kind of discussion with My Summer Story, since it doesn't even reach half of the heights of amusement that the previous film had. Shepherd once stated that "The reality of what we really are is oftentimes found in the small snips way down at the bottom of things.” My Summer Story is basically the flattened expectations of what we thought summer was going to be...with life being like a series of ties. Who the hell would want that kind of movie? If Shepherd didn't care for the lightened touch of the original film, why go back with the original crew? And if he was fine with what was done before, why make a movie that seems thoroughly pale in spirit to the original?

It was a tough task to replace Peter Billingsley as the lead from the original, since he managed to cultivate an interesting lead presence in youthful charm. Culkin...doesn't really have that charm. One simply feels like they are watching a television product rather than something that reaches the level of film in conviction, which he just can't capture, and being paired with his brother doesn't lead to even a fraction of the brotherly amusement seen in the previous movie. I'm told that Grodin was actually a pretty funny actor with timing like no other in sardonic charm, even if his film choices were all over the place, ranging from The Heartbreak Kid (1972) to Beethoven (1992). Here, replacing Darren McGavin from the original, he just doesn't have what it takes to really capture the role from before, seeming more of an agitated father figure than the hardboiled tender role of the original. It probably doesn't help that he has an actual foil to deal with in the "Bumpus Family", which proves the case that you sometimes don't need to see something. Melinda Dillon held the original film pretty well in her timing that counteracted McGavin that practically resonated together with no effort needed. Steenbergen has the best timing of the main group here and is thus the only one to result in general charm, probably because her character arc is the most bewildering (read: interesting) of anyone in the movie, involving a bunch of gravy boats and irritated collectors, which she handles with semblances of laughs. The movie might prove fine for those who want something really average, since the technical aspects of its look and feel does at the very least seem adequate to anybody with the tiniest curiosity for the movie or to just spend 85 minutes. As a whole, the movie just seems lost in trying to capture the (ordinary) magic that had been seen a decade prior, one that was made too late to really have an impact while also serving as the strange cousin of future attempts at trying to cash in on the original movie that included a musical, a direct-to-video sequel, and even a live show. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just walk away and satisfy a different curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman & Robin.

Redux #218: Batman & Robin.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (Dr. Victor Fries / Mr. Freeze), George Clooney (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Chris O'Donnell (Dick Grayson / Robin), Uma Thurman (Dr. Pamela Isley / Poison Ivy), Alicia Silverstone (Barbara Wilson / Batgirl), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), John Glover (Dr. Jason Woodrue), Elle Macpherson (Julie Madison), Vivica A. Fox (Ms. B. Haven), Vendela Kirsebom (Nora Fries), Elizabeth Sanders (Gossip Gerty), and Robert Swenson (Bane) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth and #217 - Batman Forever)

Review: 

"Look, I apologize. I want to apologize to every fan that was disappointed because I think I owe them that." - Joel Schumacher

On June 20, 1997, Batman and Robin was unleashed onto theaters, one that would serve as the tombstone for Batman movies for eight years. Any plans for Schumacher making a third filmed (tentatively called Batman Unchained) were shelved. Batman Forever (1995) was a clear-cut success for the powers that were in Warner Bros. I can defend the movie as one that decided to eschew the dark sensibilities from before with a tone that could have rivaled the 1960s adaptation in...off-kilter approach. Akiva Goldsman served as the lone writer for the script this time around. No one can defend Batman & Robin. No one. Joel Schumacher apologized for its failures again and again. George Clooney apparently would give you a refund if you told him about seeing the movie in theaters. At any rate, it probably didn't help that Val Kilmer (who apparently had disagreements with Schumacher during production of the previous movie) dropped out of the role of Batman to star in The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996). Keep this in mind: starring with Marlon Brando in what ended up being one of the worst things to happen to novel adaptations was a decision made by someone of clear mind rather than star in this movie. Clooney was chosen to star in this movie due to the success he was having as a star on the television series ER. Schumacher once questioned himself on why he wanted to make this movie. You have to remember that he was a man that loved movies from his adventures watching them due to growing up in a movie theater as a child, so he was not just a man set out to make movies as a tool of studio obedience. Schumacher got to direct movies until 2011 in a career that spanned three decades, while Goldsman got to write scripts of varying quality in mockery/notice for the next couple of decades (even getting his hands on something that calls itself "Star Trek").

You know and I know the movie is bad, but there are technically things to say about it more than the 250 words I thought of it when I saw it just once before. If you remember correctly, there were two television shows with the character of Batman as the focus. The Adam West edition excelled with its tongue-in-cheek manner due to how the actors took the material and rolled with the punches, while the animated series took the best aspects of the Tim Burton movies and made them work well for a half-hour that could work for kids and adults. Batman & Robin is only a good example of what a sell-out looks like, trying to desperately snatch elements from both shows but failing to realize what had made those parts interesting in the first place. Clooney obviously learned a good lesson from starring in a movie where the title role looks like they could be played by anyone with a good jawline. Beyond just staring at the suit with its certain style choices inspired by Greek statues, one sees that Clooney just doesn't have much to really work here, as the script is bereft of anything meaningful to say beyond vapid lines that even Adam West would roll his eyes at. His brief scenes with Macpherson is the equivalent of staring at a wall, to put it mildly. O'Donnell is exactly as I remembered from before: whining and completely out of his element. Him and Silverstone (playing a Batgirl that is related to Alfred rather than Gordon from the comics due to it being more "believable") should have made their own club in how utterly pale in characterization they are in this movie. This is a problem, since one is trying to believe that there is a "Family" angle, and they are as lifeless as broomsticks. Imagine having another movie where a motorcycle sequence is like watching a video game cut-scene. The character of Batgirl is barely even in the movie, as if it was an unintentional tribute to the character being a last-season addition to the 1960s series. Gough probably has the most to do in these four films than anything - go figure that it is the one where he is dying of a fictional ill-defined disease wracked with one convenient factor. The best line he has is one that could have either been used for the series or for parody, since he calls the caped crusader an effort to "master the chaos" that attempts to control fate and death itself (this is of course a movie that also has him scan his brain patterns to the Bat-Computer in anticipation that someone won't follow the rules and fight crime). In that sense, it is good to see him one more time.

The character of "Mr. Freeze" was actually originally called "Mr. Zero" before the 1960s series renamed him, complete with portrayals from George Sanders, Otto Preminger, and Eli Wallach. However, it was the animated series and the voice portrayal by Michael Ansara that helped to define the character in the current age, particularly with the episode "Heart of Ice", and the movie takes a few elements from that episode (incidentally, that animated portrayal would have their own direct-to-video film the year after this film was released). Schwarzenegger managed to get top billing and a hefty sum of money all to spend hours in a chair to have acrylic paint on his face, complete with him wearing a bald cap and LED lights. In my mind, I regard him as a fairly decent actor within his own particular range. Unfortunately, having him do pun after pun after pun with only the bare minimum of drama is not that range. He is amusing to watch, but there is nothing to draw on in actual pathos - you are here to see him lumber around, which works for anyone watching the movie for perverse amusement; unsurprisingly, he doesn't regret starring in the movie. Thurman does not regret her appearance in the film either, and it isn't hard to see why. The femme fatale characterization actually plays well to her strengths when it comes to easy innuendos, which she does pretty well in ways that I had forgotten before. She would fit right in with the 1960s series, complete with shouting "Curses!" when being caught by her own plants (so yes, there is a bit of camp here, or whatever you want to call it). Bane was one of those comic characters that got hot in the 1990s with their own respective interpretation in the animated series, with the most noted moment being the breaking of Batman's back. Here, played by bodybuilder/WCW wrestler Robert "Jeep" Swenson, he is used as a tool that just says one word from time to time that doesn't even get to fight the lead hero. Hell, Glover's brief moments in chewing scenery is more interesting to hear, and he doesn't even make it past the first hour of a 125 minute movie.

For a movie made around $125 million dollars, it really does come off as one of the most expensive B-movies. Talking about a plot to freeze a city is straight out of a rejected James Bond movie, but the fact that the villains involve ice and plants is especially amusing to consider with the differences provided. Look, saying that the movie is one big corporate product is the easiest thing to say about the movie. But if you think about this, it is probably a benefit that the movie came out the way it did. If the movie was actually a moneymaker without such vitriolic reception, maybe the comic book movie would have gone even further in vapid nonsense. Sure, trying to hone in a realistic tone to a comic book movie might not be everyone's taste, but there is a lesson to be had in seeing what occurs when the desire to further a franchise is more apparent than making a worthwhile movie with at least some sort of story to it. At any rate, one can see the de-evolution of the Batman series of films in the span of eight years and then see the evolution of the next Batman series that essentially makes a worthwhile balance. No matter what decade it is, Batman & Robin is a magnificent failure, a great grand gesture of kvetching kitsch that will live in inflamed infamy for all time.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

To anyone who have read these Redux Reviews, I hope you enjoyed them. I know it seemed sudden to do a group of revisitations, but the timing of Batman Returns and Batman & Robin each having special anniversaries had me thinking to look back on the films that preceded them. I have been trying to carefully look back on reviews that to me...needed to be better. As such, I hope these reviews have given you some form of interest, whether in looking upon the comic book material or on perspectives or even just a fun fact. At any rate, there will be a couple more Reduxes in the future along with actual reviews. Suggestions are also welcome.

Redux: Batman Forever.

Redux #217: Batman Forever.

Cast: 

Val Kilmer (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Tommy Lee Jones (Harvey Dent / Two-Face), Jim Carrey (Edward Nygma / The Riddler), Nicole Kidman (Dr. Chase Meridian), Chris O'Donnell (Dick Grayson / Robin), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (James Gordon), George Wallace (The Mayor), Drew Barrymore (Sugar), Debi Mazar (Spice), Ed Begley Jr. (Fred Stickley), with Ofer Samra (Harvey's Thug), Elizabeth Sanders (Gossip Gerty), and René Auberjonois (Dr. Burton) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth)

Review: 

"I have often been criticized for objectifying men and women sexually in my films. I have yet to find out what the bad part of that is."

This wasn't the first Batman movie to follow Batman Returns (1992), remember. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), was the big-screen spinoff of Batman: The Animated Series, and I think we all know that it was a pretty good movie. And yet, here we are with the next live-action Batman movie with Batman Forever. You have to remember that Joel Schumacher wanted to make a Batman movie that wanted to look into the growing fear of the crusade started by Batman, and he happened to be a fan of the comics as a child. In fact, this is the first Batman movie to show the origin of Bruce Wayne stumbling onto what would become the Batcave. Basically, he wanted to possibly adapt Frank Miller's Batman: Year One comic to the screen, but Warner Bros. rejected this idea, which is where Keaton decided to leave the main role. The design of Gotham would be packed more with statues and neon that seems more akin to the 1950s style of Batman rather than Tim Burton's Batman (Burton was relegated to producer). But Schumacher apparently really did want to make a darker movie, reportedly doing a three-hour cut. He also found inspiration to cast Kilmer (favored by the studio as opposed to casting William Baldwin) as Batman when he saw Tombstone (1993). Husband-and-wife duo Lee Batchler and Janet Scott Batchler were tasked to write the story for the film, although Akiva Goldsman (writer on the script for Schumacher's The Client (1994)) would be brought in to do re-writes. Reportedly, Schumacher did in fact shoot scenes for a version of the movie that would have made the film run considerably longer than its two-hour run-time that had a test screening, but it is unknown if the footage for any kind of "Schumacher Cut" could be cobbled together for anyone to see (I would naturally be in favor of the idea).

Honestly, while I can see why the director would wanted to try and maintain some of the dark elements from the previous two movies, I can appreciate what managed to come out from a comic book's comic book movie. Schumacher wants a world with black lights, pastel colors and rave lighting that makes a curious studio product, and it actually managed to grow on me from the nine year difference since I saw it. In other words, if you can't beat doing the Burton look, why not just go for a different kind of distinct look? I think it does just fine in that regard, keeping Gotham in the spotlight of distinct staging that one even sees a knockoff Statue of Liberty for a brief scene. Apparently Kilmer found the movie packed with "kitschiness". He isn't particularly wrong, but it is interesting to look back at the movie in the past and present tense, particularly with what was to come from Schumacher and company two years later. Kilmer takes the lessened reclusive approach to the dual act of the main role, to moderate interest. Granted, he won't be considered better than the previous approach by Keaton, but he basically tries to pull a cheap James Bond impersonation that kind of works in a weird sort of way where folks either want to love him or be him while he tries a bit of dry deadpan alongside a bit of psychological profiling about why he just can't quit being a man dressed as a bat. Kidman seems seeped right in for camp with the offbeat attempts at building chemistry with Kilmer, which only work on a marginal level (i.e. around the level of what you saw from Kim Basinger matched with Keaton in the '89 Batman, only with Kidman being the loony one). I had forgotten to mention that Marlon Wayans was the name considered for the role of Robin when Batman Returns thought of having the character in mind. It did not work out, but at least the idea of Robin being in one of the films was retained, seemingly influenced by the other incarnations of the Robin character (such as Tim Drake). O'Donnell is only marginally useful in the movie, reminding one that the Burt Ward interpretation matched the lead star with striking effectiveness in general timing that O'Donnell (playing a "teenager" while in his twenties) wishes he could do rather than the mediocrity presented here.

It is probably amusing to see Jones and Carrey trying to play villains together, since the former apparently hated the latter because he could not "sanction his buffoonery". Jones had previously worked with Schumacher on The Client, and the director had him tabbed as the first choice. Warner Bros. had to pay out their contract with Billy Dee Williams (cast as Harvey Dent for the 1989 Batman movie) just to get Jones, and I honestly can't see what was such a good idea about doing this. Jones isn't terrible in this movie as it just happens to be a misguided approach to material that seems a bit ripped from Jack Nicholson's Joker from 1989. One needs a better introduction to the character of Dent rather than just have him thrust upon you for the opening action sequence...kind of like having that courtroom scene (shown on TV as exposition) but expanded rather than just being there for a minute (hence the deleted scenes, with one apparently showing how he had escaped from an asylum). The suit he wears begs for the grotesque, but he instead is plastered there like a rabid dog trying to move around with three good legs. Jones is a fine actor well worth talking about, but this isn't exactly one of his shining achievements. Carrey wasn't even the second name thought to be up for the Riddler, since Robin Williams and Steve Martin each turned it down. At any rate, the success of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) helped attract Schumacher to casting Carrey. He is the star of the show, which works out for some general interest when it comes to seeing someone try to flaunt their intellectual superiority in a brain drain scheme. He has managed to cultivate some of the charm brought out by Frank Gorshin's portrayal of the villain in the 1960s version while still maintaining his own distinct habits to useful results (some might say too useful if one finds the movie as a Jim Carrey movie rather than a Batman movie). 

In total, the plot cohesion is roughly the same as the other two movies, albeit with more of a James Bond type of villain plot involving guys taking people's IQ with a device to get smarter just to get back at rejection. Besides, the deduction to finally put it together on the identity of the Riddler (M-R-E, get it, because it's a mystery?) is not as hard of a leap as when it was done in the 1960s.  The idea to tie a hero's motivation for revenge because the character just happened to kill their parent? Are we talking about Batman (1989) or this movie? The only difference is that the lead hero isn't going around potentially leading henchmen to their doom. In this sense, I appreciated it more in its offbeat manner that is a weird product of its time in the same sense that '89 Batman swept people in its own brand of Batmania. Sure, that movie didn't have anything as...striking as having the Batman costume feature codpieces and rubber tips, but I think you understand what I mean when I say that the movie managed to turn a corner with me. It may be loud and it may sometimes be dumb, but there is something striking about its off-center style that proves a curiosity in the right places to succeed more so than when it strikes out. It won't please everyone that follows the caped crusader in film/television, but it ekes out as a suitable winner in my mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman (1989).

Redux #040: Batman (1989)

Cast: 

Jack Nicholson (Jack Napier / The Joker), Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Alexander Knox), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon), Billy Dee Williams (Harvey Dent), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Jack Palance (Carl Grissom), Jerry Hall (Alicia Hunt), Tracey Walter (Bob the Goon), Lee Wallace (Mayor Borg), and William Hootkins (Lt. Max Eckhardt) Directed by Tim Burton.

Review: 

"I liked parts of it, but the whole movie is mainly boring to me. It's OK, but it was more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie." - Tim Burton

If you remember correctly, 1989's Batman took the world by storm when it was released in June of 1989 in ways that have not been forgotten when it comes to blockbusters and comic book movies. Michael E. Uslan, inspired by reading Batman comics as a kid, had a desire to make the definitive version of Batman that had been envisioned by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger when they created the character in 1939. Uslan was a fan of the main character alongside the family of villains, and he even taught a class about comic books at Indiana University. Of course, when Uslan first approached DC Comics about making a movie, they thought it was a crazy idea, because the character's popularity had diminished in the years that followed the cancellation of the 1966 television series, which certainly was still in the public consciousness for the character (which makes sense, as the Adam West interpretation certainly matched the era to a T). Uslan cultivated his movie credentials by working at United Artists (after graduating law school), and he credit DC head Sol Harrison as a mentor in getting the process to a good start - the rights to Batman were bought by Uslan and Benjamin Melniker in 1979, aligning with producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber (it should be noted that Guber and Peters, hairdresser-turned producer and possible scumbag,  manipulated their way to be main producers in getting a deal with Warner Brothers that sent Uslan and Melniker to executive producers with only "net profits"). Uslan even wrote a script with a friend to try and give people an idea of what he wanted to make to counteract the preconceived idea from doubtful skeptics along with a "creative blueprint" memo, complete with having Jack Nicholson in mind for the Joker. Warner Bros. decided to serve as the studio to produce Batman in 1980, but their attempts to have a script by Tom Mankiewicz (contributor on the Superman movie in 1978) did not go well. At any rate, pre-production stalled until 1986. Warner executive Bonni Lee got Burton to join in on the project, helped by the success seen in his work on Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) for the studio, although the success with Beetlejuice (1988) gave the formal greenlight in 1988. Burton, at the suggestion of Peters, picked Keaton to play Batman because of their work together on the latter film, one that he felt would have the audience suspend its belief and take the actor seriously. He also stated that the locale of Gotham City had to be just as important a character for the movie to work. Steve Englehart and Julie Hickson each wrote film treatments before a screenwriter was hired. Sam Hamm wrote the story (alongside side work done by Burton, without credit), but the screenplay was done by Hamm and Warren Skaaren. Rewrites were done by Skaaren with others, excluding Hamm due to a strike by the Writers Guild of America. Influences included stories such as Alan Moore & Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke (a story that Burton personally loved in understanding the mythology) and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Bob Kane worked as a consultant on the film (coincidentally, he credited Finger, who died in 1974, as a "contributing force", although Finger was not given proper credit until 2015). Peters tried to mold Burton in his image when it came to making a Batman that he didn't want to be thought of (in his words) "Wussman", complete with making suggestions for the climax, which originally involved a different character meeting their end, and he actually commissioned a 38-foot model of a cathedral for the characters to be for said climax. At any rate, Peters and Guber did not return to produce the sequel, but they reaped the benefits of being behind one of the biggest blockbusters of its time; as his third feature film, Burton described the filming process as "torture", but he returned for the sequel in 1992.

When I saw this film originally in 2011, I was a fourteen-year-old trying to write quickly and write what I liked on the spot with a movie. Long story short, those reviews aren't great, so a redux movement is slowly building up steam by me to get as many redux-es possible for reviews I feel deserve better. This one, even with 200 words for what was somehow called a 10/10 movie, seemed very ripe for a second look. Actually, it is a third look, because I did watch this movie a couple of years later to try and refresh my memory, which didn't exactly help this movie too much. The third time around has basically confirmed that the best memories about a movie are sometimes left to younger eyes. Burton thought that the best way to approach the movie is to see Batman and Joker as essentially two of a kind in odd freaks that are intertwined in origin. Anton Furst and Peter Young designed the sets for the film, which shows an Art Deco style that makes Gotham seem reminiscent of something like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) or noir. You have to understand that people actually thought that casting Keaton was going to make it seem like a comedy because of his work on stuff like Mr. Mom (1983). It is interesting to consider that because of the fact that Keaton approaches the material with righteous timing and balance required, even if one seems to think that he is overshadowed by you-know-who - him going "you wanna get nuts?!" is an interesting highlight when thinking of the fair blend of seeing the deeper-voiced Batman and the unassuming Bruce Wayne. Of course, the high-priced and high-billed Nicholson steals the show, because playing an agent of chaos that grins his way through the proceedings is a role to dream for that he stretches right to form. This isn't to say that it is a hammy performance as it is just one that controls the mood of the movie that might as well make it his movie more than Keaton's movie. Basinger does fine with the balance between the battle of freaks, bewildered but not washed out; the scene where she waltzes into the Batcave doesn't exactly help. Apparently, Wuhl's character was meant to die in the climax, but the filmmakers liked him so much they let him live. That is probably the best compliment I can find when talking about him in this film, because the less said about him, the better. Hingle and Gough don't have too much to particularly do, but at least one takes them seriously for what is needed. Williams in theory should be really interesting, but since there would be no more Williams as the character of Dent, it comes off as ridiculous to have him cast but not actually do anything (besides, Walter is the amusing quiet man in the group). 

Maybe there is an argument that the movie might be a bit too dark for younger folks. This is ridiculous, since I doubt that one will really have this much trouble with a PG-13 rated movie like this in just letting the visuals play out on screen; one could also just stick with the West version of Batman, since it also holds up well, incidentally. Danny Elfman, best known for his work with the band Oingo Boingo alongside Burton's previous two features, did the music, albeit with Prince composing and writing songs as well. The music score ends up sticking better than the songs, because one clearly won't forget the main theme. As a whole, the 126 minutes does go by with loose construction, one that tries hard to ride on style rather than substance, which only can go so far before falling all the way off the offbeat wayside. Seeing the origin for the Joker is far more interesting than the eventual reveal of the Wayne murder, because it makes things too convenient to have two characters create the origin for each other (i.e., having a random guy being the killer is far more tragic than just finding out it is the guy you happen to be going off to face and probably take down). I think the fact that the success of the movie inspired the development of an animated series for television probably is more of a point in the favor of the legacy of the film in what it impacted rather than the overall content of the film itself (the series, premiering in 1992, is arguably the best portrayal of Batman outside of the comics). It is a roaring adventure that builds a mystery with fair success for haunted spectacle with Burton's sensibilities clashing with other visions to make a strange concoction that lives and dies in the time it was made. It is the movie that tried to top the heights raised by Superman (1978), pure and simple. Of course, whether the movie works or not in its execution is up to you. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters II.

Redux #031: Ghostbusters II.

Cast: 

Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Peter MacNicol (Janosz Poha), Kurt Fuller (Jack Hardemeyer), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), Harris Yulin (Judge Stephen Wexler), with Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo the Carpathian [voiced by Max von Sydow]), and Janet Margolin (the Prosecutor) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters)

Review: 

"I’m really proud of the second movie — I just saw it again and I really liked it. It didn’t get particularly good reviews. It was successful, financially, but less successful than the first one. I pushed it into a much more personal story."

Look, the original Ghostbusters (1984) made oodles of money. Obviously, there was a movement to make a second movie, but timing really is everything when it comes to movies. You had to make a movie that Reitman, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Murray all wanted to do, since they were reluctant to do a second movie to begin with, although Columbia Pictures was pretty much on board. Murray had not acted in a movie for a couple years (in a starring role anyway) after the release of the movie, since he believed that the success of Ghostbusters would forever be his biggest accomplishment. Aykroyd and Ramis return to do the script, although it was the former who wrote the first draft, as was the case with the original. Aykroyd apparently wrote his initial script involving a kidnapping to Scotland with fairy rings and underground civilizations (even he would admit that it was really too far out), but the part about things happening underground was retained. It was Ramis that contributed to the idea of negative human emotions having consequences (i.e. mood slime) alongside an idea he had once had for a horror story involving an infant who suddenly woke up with adult agility and focus. While the movie took five years to finally come out, Ghostbusters did find its way onto television first with The Real Ghostbusters, which ran from 1986 to 1991 (which is why one sees a bit more Slimer, since that character was apparently a big thing on that show). Naturally, there were re-shoots. Reitman noticed when watching the test version that the last 25 minutes apparently seemed like "a horrible death". Test audiences thought that the associated elements of the slime alongside Vigo the Carpathian weren't really connected or that the conflict was, well, a conflict hard enough for the Ghostbusters. Reshoots were done to try and strengthen the climax alongside cutting certain sequences. These added scenes include: a ghost train scene that goes through Winston, a scene with severed heads, and a fire that nearly takes down two of the Ghostbusters after they try to develop photographs of Vigo. The movie was released on June 16, 1989, to moderate but not spectacular audience results; Aykroyd tried to make a script for a third movie (one idea sent them to a hellish version of Manhattan), but Murray was not particularly interested, and multiple scripts came and went before plans to just do a reboot came in 2016.

 

I'll be honest, I have only seen the movie three times (once in 2011, the other one in 2019, and today). There just has to be a reason beyond just saying "it's just not as good as the original" for this. I can't say that the movie has exactly warmed further in my heart when it comes to looking at a movie that was released on June 16, 1989 (Reitman wanted to release it on the 23rd but decided to ask for the week beforehand because a certain movie was being released that same day). You may remember that the original 1984 film was a capable comedy that just happened to have good effects and a solid cast that (pardon the cliche) had heart to its proceedings with a well-developed story. Now, one has a movie that thinks its first best conceit it to throw the Ghostbusters right in the dump and build themselves up again, especially considering the whole "we saved your sorry asses from Gozer and you just decided to sue us like a bunch of losers" that sticks in my mind. Hell, I would have gladly accepted a plot-line that sees the other looming threat to a business besides authorities: competition. Hell, forget "restraining orders" for two seconds, who wouldn't want to try and improve what had been done? But nah, let's just take the skeleton of the original and take out a few parts to reincorporate at will, right down to a scene midway through the movie that takes the jail sequence from the first one and just replaces it with a mental institution. Dennis Muren was tasked to supervise the special effects as Reitman was not particularly happy with the work of Richard Edlund's Boss Film Studios for the first film. It didn't help make the process of doing Vigo faster, since it took them months to find a design likable enough to shoot. The effects do take a bit more of the show, for better or worse. On the one hand, the 108 minutes do pass pretty well in building interest for the aspects of slime and Vigo in the slightest of creeping terror. I did roll my eyes a tad less during the Statue of Liberty sequence and I did at least think the resolution with the crowd helped contrast the fact that one has to see a floating head for the final final shot of Vigo before he hits the dust. On the other hand, it is clearly not as funny as the original in general lines because of the fact that the filmmakers wanted to soften the image of their title characters to seemingly match the cartoon series, which results in a sitcom hodgepodge that a cynic would say has "castrated" the characters; I'm not saying, "screw you, kids", I just think it is a little silly to try and balance the needs of a movie and an animated series designed for kids when just making a balanced movie is a bit less convoluted. True, Murray is still the undoubtable highlight of the movie, one that has some of the same wit and spontaneity from before, even if he finds himself paired with Weaver (and a baby, ha ha ha) just as much as with the main group (the TV show scene is probably the highlight). Weaver does fine with the material provided in warm timing. Ramis is still the same wry guy from before, which goes with the energetic Aykroyd, which generally works out for a few chuckles and exposition that varies in engagement. Hudson, the sentimental favorite in audience surrogates and underrated presences has probably the same number of things to do as compared to from before (marginal), but he carries well among the scenes he usually is part of with Ramis/Aykroyd (this is one of those movies where you only see all four of a group for select moments until the end). I did appreciate MacNicol more than I had remembered, since he plays a stooge worthy of all the chuckles in offbeat quality that makes an interesting pairing with Weaver or for the climax. It should be noted that Von Homburg (a German boxer-turned-actor with a split lip) didn't know his voice was dubbed by von Sydow (who did his stuff in a day) until the premiere of the movie - at least he looks the part in off-putting terror, and von Sydow provides the right voice for it. Fuller may be playing an imitation of William Atherton from the first movie, but he at least makes a go of it in smarmy attribution to pair against the beleaguered and sorely lacking Marguiles (of course, Yulin gets to ham up a judge for a time, so all's even). As a whole, it comes together as a weird prediction of future movie sequels/reboots of the current age that take certain aspects from the original to include references that may or may not do anything particularly new with things (kind of like Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in how each are average).

Reitman blamed the movie not being as successful on the climate of films released around the time of June 1989...such as Batman (1989), released one week after this movie; Reitman described his movie as a "friendly, more personal, sort of character-based Ghostbusters" as one that seemed like a disappointment to audiences toned to something different; of course, his movie features people being so negative that they turn New York City into a cesspool of slime along with a Rasputin pastiche getting a guy to kidnap a baby to get out of a painting and possibly become a great terror. 1989 was an interesting year for sequels: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, you get the idea. As a whole, the movie is fairly average in all the ways you never would have seen coming five years ago from a movie as beloved as the original was, one is carried heavily by effects and a little bit of cast magic that proves it is hard to capture the best essence of moviemaking twice. It is average and a disappointment, but it is far from being a complete waste not worth watching at least once, which means that Reitman and company did at least succeed somewhere down the line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mortal Kombat (2021).

Review #1853: Mortal Kombat (2021).

Cast: 

Lewis Tan (Cole Young), Jessica McNamee (Sonya Blade), Josh Lawson (Kano), Mehcad Brooks (Jackson "Jax" Briggs), Ludi Lin (Liu Kang), Max Huang (Kung Lao), Tadanobu Asano (Raiden), Chin Han (Shang Tsung), Joe Taslim (Bi-Han / Sub-Zero), Hiroyuki Sanada (Hanzo Hasashi / Scorpion), Matilda Kimber (Emily Young), Laura Brent (Allison Young), and Sisi Stringer (Mileena) Directed by Simon McQuoid.

Review: 

Mortal Kombat, if you remember correctly, is a series of video games created by Ed Boon and John Tobias that originally came out in 1992 that had its most memorable aspect involve "fatalities" for death scenes in a violent fighting game that attracted attention (the good kind, not just whiny parents who should know better); while I can't say I am particularly good at any of the games I have played (namely Armageddon along with the newest one), it does have a certain knack for clever gooey fun. As such, it made sense that a movie would try to capture that feeling of the video game. Mortal Kombat (1995) and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997) were odd movies of their time, but at least the first one had something people would stick with on purpose when it came to interesting entertainment. Of course, they were PG-13 rated movies that toned down the level of violence seen in the video game franchise of the same name, but there had been ideas of trying to do another Mortal Kombat movie for years and years. There had been a handful of television and short films released in the time between Annihilation and this film in 2021 (such as the web series Mortal Kombat: Legacy in the mid 2010s). After a changeover of directors, Australian director Simon McQuoid was hired to direct in 2016 with a script being done by 2019. The script had multiple writers: the story was done by Oren Uziel and Greg Russo while the screenplay was done by Russo and Dave Callaham. It was Russo that thought of the storyline involving the new character of "Cole Young", using his own experiences as a soon-to-be father for this character.

Look, the 1995 movie wasn't exactly as faithful to the material, but I still found something to enjoy in its offbeat energy. Strangely enough, this movie decides on its own approach to supernaturally powered people kicking the hell out of each other with "arcana" alongside the aforementioned new character and a handful of references from the game (alongside a few from the original movie). Technically speaking, the movie is a more refined version of what one would probably expect from a video game adaptation - holding to some of the traditions established in previous material but also finding a way to make it accessible for movie form in engagement. Of course, the easiest thing to say about the movie is that it is perfectly average. Average, average, average, but at least the violence is up to what you expect in grisly bits without being a gore-show. It handles the fighting sequences with about the efficiency one would expect from a modern age movie, which is to say that those who like the skill presented by action choreography and effects will prove interest to those who care for it in the same way that a comedy provides a few chuckles if strained hard enough. The actors are hit and miss, but no one really steps under the mark, which is pretty much the same thing I said about the first film, really. The standards haven't exactly been raised very high in the 21st century for video game movies, so as long as one actually puts together comprehensible on paper, you should be fine here. Tan doesn't exactly have the most to do with the role, because he only barely justifies the idea of having a new character present when there are already oodles of people to go along with that seems better than "audience surrogate" that does exactly what is needed (I was mostly confused because I thought he was meant to be the next Scorpion, because, you know, he is his descendant); undoubtedly, one will be looking forward to the idea of seeing the character of Johnny Cage in a sequel, because God knows there is a personality begging to be shown as a lead there. McNamee has the spirited timing required to make a compelling piece of the puzzle of mildly interesting people, but the real star is actually Lawson, who provides the most chuckles in a smarmy role that has the most to do in drawing personality, which almost makes you wish for further interest into the character. Brooks and the others prove just fine for the small cadre of lines and personality bits that come from playing supporting characters (i.e., all of the other people in the square of the games) just fine, with one hoping for a bit more Asano the next time around. Han and Taslim make for useful adversaries to go alongside calm fury from Sanada. As a whole, it probably won't replicate the feeling of playing one of the games, but it does prove serviceable for the purpose required in trying to appeal to the people it wants to appeal. In other words, if your standards for having a decent time watching a movie seem to line up with this one, you will probably have it work out for you with useful satisfaction.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Bourne Identity.

Review #1852: The Bourne Identity.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Jason Bourne / David Webb), Franka Potente (Marie Kreutz), Chris Cooper (Alexander Conklin), Clive Owen (The Professor), Brian Cox (Ward Abbott), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Nykwana Wombosi), Gabriel Mann (Danny Zorn), Julia Stiles (Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons), Orso Maria Guerrini (Giancarlo), Tim Dutton (Eamon), Nicky Naude (Castel), Russell Levy (Manheim), and Vincent Franklin (Rawlins) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008), #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and #1569 - Edge of Tomorrow)

Review: 

The movie is a loose adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Robert Ludlum. He did not have his first novel published until he was over forty years old, as he actually served as a theatrical actor and producer before finding a desire to make a living with writing; his writing may have been influenced by his experiences there, as he once stated that good theater and suspense were quite similar to him). An adaptation of the novel had occurred once before in 1988 that featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, which aired as a three-hour television movie on ABC. The basic premise of the novel is the key element retained here, since the novel was done during the Cold War with a lead threat involving terrorist "Carlos the Jackal", as the book includes newspaper articles from 1975 of his crimes (apparently, the Bourne in the book was actually a double-agent killed by the lead character before he assumed Bourne's identity to draw out an assassin). Ludlum followed this novel with two further books; after his death in 2001, with the approval of Ludlum's estate, new novels with the Bourne character were commissioned. After the success of his film Swingers (1996), Liman expressed interest in making a film adaptation of Bourne, and he wrote an outline, complete with taking inspiration for the CIA operation detail from the memoirs of Arthur L. Liman, chief counsel for the Senate investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. Development would take a number of years in securing the rights to the novel alongside production; the final script was done by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron. The film was originally set to release in 2001, but the attacks on September 11 led to the producers deciding to alter the opening and ending sequences (which apparently featured flashbacks). The movie would prove quite successful, leading to further Bourne movies such as The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Bourne Legacy (2012), and Jason Bourne (2016), with all but one featuring Damon.

It is the kind of character-driven action movie where one seems to watch a man get calmer when things become more intense. As a different road presented when compared to spy movies such as James Bond or the Mission: Impossible series, it stands out pretty stark with its touch of action alongside its thriller aspect. It basically rolls along the lines of a noir (to the point where it has been thought to be a "neo-noir) with its slow unravel of mystery that manages to pull off the tightrope of balancing character interest with action that doesn't see one wanting more of either. The car chase in Paris alongside the hand-to-hand sequences are good ones to highlight in that regard. While Liman did not get to any of the sequels, he did serve as a producer on a number of them, while Gilroy would write the next two features, and it is evident that Identity makes for a good start to seeing further burrowing into who the lead character is without baiting itself. At the heart of that is Damon, who prior to this had been involved with films such as Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan (interestingly, one actor who rejected the role before Damon was Brad Pitt, who did his own thing with Spy Game, released in 2001). Damon does pretty good here with the role required, one that is confused by the very idea that they can just have a hazardous situation thrust onto them and not bat an eye when solving it carefully. Sure, there is vulnerability present here, but the main idea is that we have a capable lead trying to find themselves more so than any random objective, and he also handles the action sequences with effectiveness. Potente, wrapped in the middle of all this, fares fairly well in meaningful patience, one who seems capable in being paired with Damon in general reaction (such as when she sees a man jump out a window). In a sense, Cooper is the adversary of the film, since he is the one trying to deal with a wayward agent. He approaches the material with steely timing and determination that matches differently on a spy movie without a willing spy, especially when Cooper and Cox are present together. The rest of the cast includes quiet adversaries such as Owen and mildly interesting side folks like Stiles or an outspoken Akinnuoye-Agbaje. At any rate, a movie like this works best when on its feet, for which the movie shuffles along with careful efficiency in 119 minutes with general effectiveness that makes for a fairly solid action-thriller that stands pretty well two decades after its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.