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.

The Northman.

Review #1833: The Northman.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Amleth), Nicole Kidman (Queen Gudrún), Claes Bang (Fjölnir the Brotherless), Anya Taylor-Joy (Olga of the Birch Forest), Ethan Hawke (King Aurvandill War-Raven), Willem Dafoe (Heimir the Fool), Elliott Rose (Gunnar), Gustav Lindh (Thorir the Proud), Eldar Skar (Finnr the Nose-Stub), Phill Martin (Hallgrimr Half Troll), Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (He-Witch), Björk (the Seeress), and Olwen Fouéré (Ashildur Hofgythja) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch)

Review: 

If I told you that this was a Viking rendition of Hamlet, would you be as interested to hear about the movie as opposed to just stating the cast and director? Well, one does prefer a bit of a history lesson, I suppose. Amleth is a legend in medieval Scandinavian lore, as told by Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian who wrote about him in the 13th century based on the oral traditions of long ago, which explains why the film is set in the year of 914 (by coincidence, "Hamlet" happens to be an anagram of "Amleth"). As such, this is a loose adaptation of the legend, one that was written by Eggers and Sjon, an Icelandic poet, novelist and lyricist. This isn't exactly an adaptation of Hamlet as it is more a parallel of it, but since one has likely seen many interpretations of revenge and madness, this isn't exactly a surprise: it involves a family mixed in blood and fate. Undeniably, it helps to have a little familiarity with Eggers as a director before one goes off seeing a film like this, since it helps to see the progression of a director who seems interested in exploring lost imaginations through all the research and rigid shooting methods that were apparent in his prior films with The Witch (2015) and The Lighthouse (2019); it is the traditions of the past that he wants to see through that mean most. Skarsgard and co-producer Lars Knudsen had wanted to do a Viking project for some time, but it was only in 2019 that Eggers was tapped to direct the film, and there were historical consultants utilized for the film that would do a mix of historical accuracy and educated guesswork; for example, initiation rituals are not exactly specified beyond a few descriptions of sprinkled blood of dead animals (now, catching a thrown spear to throw it right back, that came from an Icelandic saga). At any rate, it is the biggest budgeted film done by Eggers (at around $70-90 million), owing to attempts to try and balance the demands of the studio for accessibility over deliberate pacing/artsy - 137 minutes is the run-time for the film.

It does start a bit sluggish, but once one is hooked into its blunted edge of darkness, you are in. It never tries to be anything other than what it wants to be in a saga that has plenty of blood to go along with an unyielding sense of revenge. Well, that, and the honor of being able to die by the blade. It draws on mythology and archeology to make a formidable freak-out film that doesn't settle for just mundane magic.  Eggers has cultivated a brutal yet beautiful vision of history while making a film that would make Conan the Barbarian (1982) blush. Any debate over whether style or substance wins the day seems unnecessary when it comes the real question about just how far a vision can go in not wanting to compromise for the sake of it. For me, I was totally fine with the movie as a whole, because I admired what I was seeing in its blood-soaked sorcery without needing to squirm at attempts to divert itself away. This also includes the climax, which manages to maintain its destiny of vengeance with durability. This is a movie that starts with folks taking substances while acting as wolves and ends with a fight on a volcano...in the nude. It may be weird, but I admire its sensibility and its gradual pacing, and it is the cast that helps to elevate the material just as far as it wants to go. Skarsgård makes an ideal lead in terms of a man going berserk with trance-like fury that exists along the other people for one purpose: primal ones. Kidman takes some time to get properly involved in the action, but when she does get there, she sinks her teeth right in when it comes to committed steely nature, particularly when Kidman and Skarsgård encounter each other alone. Taylor-Joy seeps into the mystical side for a few useful moments (generally spent with Skarsgård), earthy and familiar without mundane. Given that one could almost flip the perspective around for a different film (a man threatens to take one's whole family away because of something they did years ago...think about it), it is interesting to see just how Bang would end up, because he makes a soothing adversarial presence, one that doesn't have to chew scenery to make the inevitable conclusion with the lead any more interesting than it needs to be (heck, they don't even say words in that moment). Hawke and Dafoe aren't in the film for too long, but they are each useful for what needs to happen with the youthful title character (as played by Oscar Novak), made clear by their one big scene together: a ritual together, complete with folks acting like dogs...and hallucinogens, which certainly raises the hair on the skin. Just saying what happens in a movie like this isn't quite enough, one really should just see for themselves what happens in a movie that presents vengeance and traditions of the Viking age in all of its clear glory without pretense or false note. I think it hits most of its marks for what it aims for, and fans of Eggers will certainly enjoy what they see here, and I think others will generally find their patience rewarded.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Aquaman.

Review #1175: Aquaman.

Cast: 
Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Amber Heard (Mera), Willem Dafoe (Nuidis Vulko), Patrick Wilson (King Orm), Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (David Kane / Black Manta), Nicole Kidman (Atlanna), Temuera Morrison (Tom Curry), Ludi Lin (Captain Murk), Michael Beach (Jesse Kane), and Randall Park (Dr. Stephen Shin) Directed by James Wan.

Review: 
I will admit that I did have mild expectations for Aquaman, much in the same way that I try to hold for most superhero films, where I hope for some fine entertainment along with at least some sort of storytelling or substance. It isn't an exceptional film by any means, but it does have plenty of entertainment value and a fair bit of charm to make a solid feature with enough spirit of adventure to prevail. It fits squarely in the middle with other superhero films in recent years, being just as fine as other features such as Black Panther (2018) for example but also being particularly better made than other films adapted from DC Comics such as Justice League (2017). Honestly, the best way to make a superhero film is to just have fun with the material while not making a mockery out of what makes a hero what they are, while having interesting secondary characters to go with it. In that regard, Momoa is up to the task handily enough, giving plenty of dignity and charm while handling himself just fine for the action sequences. Heard does fine with her role, although the chemistry between her and Momoa isn't too noteworthy. The others in the cast stand to do their parts just fine, although having two villains in Wilson and Abdul-Mateen II seems a bit much. Lundgren seems to be having fun with his kingly role at least. The dialogue certainly doesn't help too much with giving these characters too much life, having more splashes of delivering exposition; in that case it is no wonder the film runs at 143 minutes, which can feel a bit long at times, although at least the action scenes do help to cover some of the slack. The film also has time for humor amidst the spectacle - where else can one see an octopus do a drum solo? Undeniably, the film hinges quite a bit on the execution of its effects, since a majority of the movie takes place underwater. For the most part, it looks fairly convincing, and I can only imagine the effort it took to make the actors seem like they were in water. The action works well, not being too jerky or blurry for the eyes. The climax is fine and dandy. The film has a bunch of people pulling the strings behind its execution in writing, with David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall being behind the screenplay while Geoff Johns, Wan, and Will Beall are credited with doing the story for the film. On the whole, this proved to be a good fashioned crowd-pleaser kind of movie, doing what it aspires to do without too many bumps. The film works more often than not in trying to give its main hero a place for the big screen through good fun and a decently patched story that allows the possibility for more with this character that can only go up from here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Happy Feet.

Review #392: Happy Feet.

Cast
Elijah Wood (Mumble), Brittany Murphy (Gloria), Robin Williams (Ramón and Lovelace), Hugh Jackman (Memphis), Nicole Kidman (Norma Jean), Hugo Weaving (Noah the Elder), and Carlos Alazraqui (Nestor) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max)

Review
Happy Feet to me is a bit of an odd shell compared to other animated films. But hey, I have a soft spot for weirdness as long as it works out well and manages overcome awkwardness. Does this do that, or not is the underlying question. And it...mostly does. It starts out okay, even if it contains my least favorite cliche of the moment where "the character different from everyone else" is embarrassed which goes slowly and annoys me, but that could just be a matter of opinion. The film gets better as it goes on, skipping over speed bumps, and having an entertaining value to it, with some good dancing, which was done by motion capture, which isn't creepy, as it shows that motion capture does have some benefits. Elijah Wood does good, certainly a million times better from his last performance reviewed here (#363 - North), and Murphy does well. Robin Williams does stand out, even more given he plays two characters, and he does an alright job, not annoying, just fine. The animation is good, as it does a good job being a centerpiece, but no the whole thing to, a developed animated film that works well, and it can be entertaining, with some fine song choices all in all. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Just Go With It.

Review #045: Just Go With It.

Cast
Adam Sandler (Daniel Maccabee), Jennifer Aniston (Katherine Murphy), Bailee Madison (Maggie Murphy), Griffin Gluck (Michael Murphy), Nicole Kidman (Devlin Adams), Nick Swardson (Eddie Simms), Brooklyn Decker (Palmer Dodge), and Dave Matthews (Ian Maxtone-Jones) Directed by Dennis Dugan.

Review
Well...The film isn't that good. I think the film tries to be funny, but it doesn't really work. According to Wikipedia, it's a loose remake of Cactus Flower (which incidentally won Goldie Hawn an Oscar, though this movie won't win anything). The film has a few flaws (one being not funny), and the main one is that this film feels like a lazy excuse to go to Hawaii. It feels lazy, the runtime even feels lazy. The acting is standard, not being a standout (an example of lazy). Ultimately, the film is...lazy. It does its job of using time, but not much else.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.