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.

Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Review #1494: Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Cast:
Zach Galligan (Billy Peltzer), Phoebe Cates (Kate Beringer), John Glover (Daniel Clamp), Robert Prosky (Grandpa Fred), Robert Picardo (Forster, chief of security), Christopher Lee (Doctor Cushing Catheter), Haviland Morris (Marla Bloodstone), Dick Miller (Murray Futterman), Jackie Joseph (Sheila Futterman), Gedde Watanabe (Mr. Katsuji), and Keye Luke (Mr. Wing), with Howie Mandel (Gizmo), Tony Randall (Brain Gremlin), and Frank Welker (Mohawk, Other Gremlins) Directed by Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, and #097 - Small Soldiers)

Review:
"It's the one time someone came to me and said: 'We want this movie and we don't care what it is. Do whatever you want, just give it to us by this date."

When it comes to underappreciated directors, Joe Dante certainly deserves consideration. He grew up with an interest in cartoons alongside watching matinee films as a youth. While a graduate of the Philadelphia College of Art, it was Roger Corman who Dante honed his craft into becoming a filmmaker, initially starting out in the trailer-cutting department at New World Pictures. He made his debut with Hollywood Boulevard (1976), co-directing with Allan Arkush along with editing the film. His first minor triumph was Piranha (1978), and The Howling (1981) helped get his foot in the door with Warner Bros. to make Gremlins (1984). The original film is a triumph of comedy and horror, dark and entertaining that had attracted attention for their effects (and of course, complaints from folks who managed to be fooled by the Christmas setting and critics of violence that don't know any better and are rightfully made fun of here) along with being a key force in the creation of the PG-13 rating. It is entirely possible that this is a sequel that was just a little too late to the party. It took six years for a sequel to Gremlins to arrive into theaters and its director Joe Dante had to be convinced to even do another film in the first place, and he was granted creative control and a bigger budget. Charlie Haas would take over in writing duty (the original had been done by Chris Columbus), who moved the action to New York City with satirical elements all throughout the film, such as the advent of cable television (most notably with Ted Turner) and sequels in general that was more cartoonish than dark, with Dante describing it as one of his most personal films.

It's a shame that this wasn't too successful on release, because I enjoyed it just as much as the original Gremlins. The quality is just about even here, replacing its dark sentiment for cartoonish anarchy that manage to resonate just as much in amusement. It touches upon elements of the original without being smothered by expectations or becoming too much of an effects show, and it does so without becoming dated. It does what one could want for someone with a clear interest in having a good time at the movies in a similar vein to someone like William Castle or even in cartoons with Chuck Jones (who provided the animation for the opening/closing titles). Galligan returns alongside Cates, and each prove just fine in providing continuity and some small moments of levity among themselves and some sort of Mogwai mayhem. Of course the real focus is on Glover, wrapped in spry curiosity that is very much in his element with a bit of camp enjoyment. Prosky, imitating Al Lewis' portryal of another famous horror Grandpa that hosted a horror TV segment, does just fine with mixing camp and care that does lend itself to some quick smiles. Picardo does fine with smarmy chuckles, but the true curiosity ineviably turns to Lee, with that solumn voice going just right with the cliches required for some momentary smiles. Miller and Joseph also return for a quick turn around with the creatures, while Morris and the Mogwai voices round out the cast just fine. Like before, there are quite a handful of cameos lurking around, most notably with Leonard Maltin being dragged away by unsatisfied viewer gremlins. The effects are always lurking in one's mind, and Rick Baker does a tremendous job with delivering some distinct creatures (with a mix of puppetry like before and also mechanical work and stop motion) that get to do a bit more madcap action, such as a bat gremlin for example. The plot threads verge a bit familar at times with its structure, but it makes up for it with some interesting tricks of offbeat humor (such as having the film be stopped and then re-started) that goes in the right direction to make a fun time worthy of further inspection as a quality sequel and an interesting film to highlight for the start of the 1990s.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the schedule for this month, a mix of familiar and new faces on and behind the camera as one approaches the end of the millennium. 

Payback (1999).

Review #1191: Payback.

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Porter), Gregg Henry (Val Resnick), Maria Bello (Rosie), Lucy Liu (Pearl), Deborah Kara Unger (Lynn Porter), David Paymer (Arthur Stegman), Bill Duke (Detective Hicks), Jack Conley (Detective Leary), John Glover (Phil), William Devane (Carter), James Coburn (Justin Fairfax), Kris Kristofferson (Bronson), and Trevor St. John (Johnny Bronson) Directed by Brian Helgeland (#372 - 42)

Review: 
The strangest thing about films can be the ways that it can sometimes transition into numerous forms before a final shift into the form that goes to audiences. This film is a particular example of where a director's vision can verge differently from ultimately made it to the screen. Brian Helgeland was making his directorial debut after meeting up with Gibson on the set of Conspiracy Theory (1997), a film that he had written for. During the post-production stage for that film, Helgeland happened to have the script with him when Gibson inquired about the pages he had with him, for which he read the first act of. A few weeks later, Gibson agreed to finance the film with his production company Icon Productions provided they could shoot within 12 weeks. The film is as adaptation of the 1962 novel The Hunter by Richard Stark (pen-name for David E. Westlake), the first of 24 novels from 1964 to 2008 with the character Parker as the main lead. It had already been adapted a movie in 1967 as Point Blank, featuring Lee Marvin, and other novels had been given film adaptations.

Before I talk about the circumstances that led to Helgeland's dismissal from the film, let's talk about how the movie is first. For a neo-noir, it certainly is a decently entertaining one. It maybe a bit routine in terms of its story and action, but it is a road worth walking onto in part because of its dark charm, which in some ways feels like a guilty pleasure. Gibson is certainly up to task in delivering a character worth following with a subtle grin in a film with oddball people basked in noir types. Henry is fairly adept at showing menace for his time shared with Gibson. Bello does fine with her material, sharing her time with Gibson quite well. Liu (playing a dominatrix) is quite quirky. Paymer plays his role with a good deal of sleazy ooze that is pretty amusing. It is amusing to see Coburn briefly, but interesting to see Kristofferson all of a sudden in the film appear; he isn't really too menacing as the big bad but he is at least neat to watch. The movie moves with a dynamic pace to try and garner up excitement along with a chuckle, and it works out fine for the most part, playing to the noir type handily. It is sometimes a bit wobbly with its plot motivations (and its action violence on occasion), but the final product works out mostly because it manages to distract itself enough to where while you can see where "producer's notes" may have stepped in, you can at least find something to watch without too much disapproval. It has a bit of fun with its aspects of revenge without being too demanding.

Helgeland's version of the film was felt to be too dark for a mainstream audience in terms of story, tone, and look. he was fired from the project, which occurred two days after winning an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for his work for L.A. Confidential (1997). Thirty percent of the film was re-shot (with new material written by Terry Hayes), with John Myhre (production designer) doing un-credited directorial work. Helgeland would have his version of the film (referred to as Straight Up: The Director's Cut) released on DVD in 2007. His version differs from the theatrical version in several ways, such as a shorter length (90 minutes as opposed to the 101 in the theatrical), a female Bronson un-seen by the audience that is voiced by Sally Kellerman, the removal of the narration by Gibson, and the restoring of the look of the film from a bleached tone to one more normal. Honestly, the look is okay as is (even if sometimes it may seem better in black-and-white by simply taking the color out of the screen manually), but at least there exists two versions to compare. I don't have too much interest in watching the other cut, but if you are curious about what makes a movie go in different directions, I'm sure it is right up your alley. The film as is just fine, not being any kind of big statement as a neo-noir action flick, but it will serve just alright for the tastes of people wanting some entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

original image:

Movie Night: Scrooged.

Review #075: Scrooged.

Cast
Bill Murray (Francis Xavier "Frank" Cross), Karen Allen (Claire Phillips), John Forsythe (Lew Hayward), John Glover (Brice Cummings), Alfre Woodard (Grace Cooley), Bobcat Goldthwait (Eliot Loudermilk), David Johansen (the Ghost of Christmas Past), Carol Kane (the Ghost of Christmas Present), Robert Mitchum (Preston Rhinelander), Nicholas Phillips (Calvin Cooley), and Michael J. Pollard (Herman) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
This film is a humorous take on the classic Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. It is a decent flick that makes sure that it doesn't do bad in its job. Murray does a good preformance. This film isn't exactly a good film in the sense that it doesn't really do much other then what it's supposed to do (It decides to pick this theme rather then another), but it at least tried to be entertaining, and while it may not have been as funny as it could've been, it at least tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.