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.

Sudden Impact.

Review #1757: Sudden Impact.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Sondra Locke (Jennifer Spencer), Pat Hingle (Chief Lester Jannings), Bradford Dillman (Captain Briggs), Paul Drake (Mick), Michael Maurer (George Wilburn), Albert Popwell (Horace King), Audrie J. Neenan (Ray Parkins), and Jack Thibeau (Kruger) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, and #1638 - Bird)

Review: 

Remember the ham-fisted nature of the Dirty Harry series? Well, at least some of the time, anyway. True, having the first feature being the undisputed best of a five film series is not exactly a new thing, but one really can't forget just how engaging the original 1971 film was when it came to police procedural dramas. Of course, it did not go without controversy, at least from folks that have quibbles with its moral positioning (real or imagined, depending on the source). Magnum Force (1973) was not a bad follow-up film, although it certainly had a diminished quality when it came to the adversarial contrast to Eastwood (who doesn't have to do much to make the lead role his own with a few key lines); the punch for its climax was fine, but it was what it was. The Enforcer (1976) harkened to pulling from the headlines for its main confrontation that saw plenty of action and folks sprayed around; the smart remarks and vigilance continued, albeit with stock adversaries and a tone that almost could have been lampooned. This would be the first and only Dirty Harry film that Eastwood would direct; incidentally, he felt the success of the series was because people felt frustrated with the criminal justice system. Earl E. Smith and Charles B. Pierce wrote the initial script that was meant to be a starring vehicle for just Locke, but it was later turned into a film fit for both Locke and Eastwood with the help of Joseph Stinson. This would happen to be the last major feature role for Locke, who had decided to venture into directing (she had starred with Eastwood in five previous films) before personal disputes with Eastwood led to what she would call being blacklisted from the film industry.

If you were wondering just where the series would go here, well, here you go. It has a weird blend of coarse procedural clichés that go hand in hand with parts that go with moments that seem destined for curious chuckles that teeter on self-parody. A hack writer who wanted to make a parody of loose cannon cops like the one Eastwood plays wouldn't have to search hard for stuff to lampoon, what with the capacity for the lead hero to have bodies turn up dead around him (criminal or not). Justice is a tough thing to enforce when folks keep turning up, it seems. Of course the parody wouldn't be as cynical about the nature of society and criminal justice as this film does, although at least one can say there is a fairly decent movie within semi-plausible standards. Technically speaking, it is a bit better than the last film, in that it manages to have a more interesting contrast to its lead character, although it certainly does have a bit more baggage within building 117 minutes of cop drama. Of course, you could see where the series may or may not have started to run a bit on its own self-righteous steam; the fifth and final film would be released in 1988. Eastwood always seems unflappable with making movies his way with a particular view involving crime and the near-mythic hero that doesn't have to say much to get his shot clear, so one can take it or leave the actor at who he is (I say that word rather than just "the man", interpret that how you like); even an average Eastwood movie is still a useful time to be had for those who seek it, at least. Locke seems to represent the other side of the coin of driven determination in the idea of justice, and one might be amused that they don't interact with each other until nearly an hour in; they don't exactly share broad chemistry with each other, but they seem to connect the quiet wires to where they need to (it should be pointed out that in the "parody", you wouldn't even have to change the fact that she is the most effective "adversarial counterpart" to the hero) - if you believe the climax, you might just believe almost anything with Eastwood, I guess. Hingle is the straight-laced counterpart to situations that could almost require more bluster to blush oneself (what with the whole big city vs town thing), but he makes the most of it with useful candor. Drake makes an okay goon, although it is strange to note that this was his most noted role as an actor. Popwell plays the partner-surrogate to fit the detached chemistry one sees coming from interactions with Eastwood in these films (insert phrase here). As a whole, one can reasonably be engaged with the film with its casual handling of action and stance on justice (namely have more of it?) while recognizing that it likely only works as much as one wants to put into it with the usual suspects; folks that are not too big on Eastwood or his rigidity won't be swayed too much, but others will roll with the punches fine (one wonders just how the last film will go with an actor pushing near 60 though). If it is thought of as one of Eastwood's more mediocre works, one can at least state that it manages to be a fair mediocre work one would still want to think about. It may be a bit off-kilter with its overall execution, but it still manages to provide a fine time for those who seek the waning days of the Dirty Harry series with curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Splendor in the Grass.

Review #1406: Splendor in the Grass.

Cast: 
Natalie Wood (Wilma Dean "Deanie" Loomis), Warren Beatty (Bud Stamper), Pat Hingle (Ace Stamper), Audrey Christie (Mrs. Loomis), Barbara Loden (Virginia "Ginny" Stamper), Zohra Lampert (Angelina), Fred Stewart (Del Loomis), Joanna Roos (Mrs. Stamper), John McGovern (Doc Smiley), Jan Norris (Juanita Howard), and Martine Bartlett (Miss Metcalf) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden, #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire, and #110 - On the Waterfront, and #1375 - Panic in the Streets)

Review: 
“I was very lucky to do the first movie that I ever did with Kazan, who really was not only a great director, he was a very, very smart producer,”

The 1960s had plenty of interesting directors and stars to accompany films that found themselves on the center of cultural changes with plenty of distinctive stars of stature and range to go alongside old and new directors to lead them forward. By this point in time, Elia Kazan had directed thirteen films in his career, with most of his success coming in the 1950s (eight of his eighteen films were in this decade), and controversy had surrounded his decision to testify during the Hollywood blacklisting that he felt was "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful and wrong" (his decision, one I feel was the correct one, was a fiercely debated one for decades, where even being awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1999 still inspired sour grapes refusal to applaud from certain circles). Regardless of this decision, it should not be denied that Kazan has a lasting effect as a director that extends to the actors that he directed onto the screen over the decades, which extends to the main stars here in Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood. In the case of Beatty, he had developed a love for films from an early age while watching them (such as The Philadelphia Story and Love Affair) with his sister Shirley, with Warren following in her footsteps to become an actor. He learned his craft from famed coach of acting Stella Adler, with his first few jobs being in television (most notably The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis) and one (and only) turn in the theater with A Loss of Roses (1959). Beatty, described by Kazan as having energy, intelligence and more "chutzpah" than anyone else. He was the first of numerous directors that Beatty sought to learn from, though it did not come without disagreement, such as when he snapped at Kazan once about him naming names, which he later described as an arrogant and stupid challenge. In the course of over half a century, Beatty honed his craft into beyond acting, soon founding his own production company and eventually turning to directing as well. Wood had her own path to acting, led by her ambitious mother that led to a debut in a bit part in film at the age of 4. Her debut came three years later with Tomorrow Is Forever (1946), where Orson Welles described her as "so good, she was terrifying". She would do a string of child films before transitioning into teenage rebel roles and television, and Kazan found a "desperate twinkle in her eyes" behind her well-mannered front that would serve her well in retaining herself as a presence to behold.

The film was written by William Inge, playwright and novelist behind works such as Picnic and Bus Stop who had based it off his upbringing in Kansas, which led to an Academy Award for his work on the film. When it comes to heartbreak and romantic repression, one can't really go wrong with a film like this. Anybody else other than Kazan would have made this 124 minute tale run shorter or seem less realistic with trying to soften the film's strike of melodrama and honesty. Wood makes a capable main focus, one with plenty of doubt and frustration that boils to the surface with such honest expressiveness, whether that means dealing with some form of love or with others. Beatty makes for a great debut with confidence in playing the other side of the coin in a tragedy of youth, exhausted at the expectations one must bear from their parents in what to do and who to do what with. The final sequence with them at the farmhouse is especially well-done, perfectly sealing up the pathos of what it means to have loved and lost one's innocence along the way, where time overrides all things, perhaps even happiness in some way, which makes for a somewhat depressing but fair experience.

Kazan sure picked two well counterparts to counter Wood and Beatty in Hingle and Christie. Hingle (a Weslaco High School and University of Texas graduate in radio) had met Kazan years earlier at the Actors' Studio and had done a few productions for Kazan and Inge before a 1959 freak accident involving him being stuck in a lift that led to him losing his balance in crawling out and falling over 50 feet; he fractured many parts of his left side, including a broken leg and losing a finger while having a noticeable limp. He is tremendously entertaining here with composed dominance on a family and business level, a rough but fascinating performance to match up with his on-screen son in Beatty, such as when he speaks for so long and with such spirit that Beatty can't even get in a word of reluctance on him. Although Christie did not have as prolific a career as the other main three did, she cultivated a career in Broadway alongside television spots after taking class and being on vaudeville at the age of 15. She makes for an effective strict performance to go for the grain to reflect the times of authority that doesn't seem outdated or a caricature then as now. The others (who make up a film as twentysomethings trying to play teenagers to make it look less distracting that Wood and Beatty also look a bit too old to be teens) fill the film well in making a heartland tale of heartbreak come across with fair conviction that still finds relevance after over five decades because of how it speaks to us still about expectation and reality in terms of adolescents and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Shaft (2000).

Review #545: Shaft (2000).

Cast
Samuel L. Jackson (John Shaft), Vanessa Williams (Carmen Vasquez), Jeffrey Wright (Peoples Hernandez), Christian Bale (Walter Wade, Jr), Richard Roundtree (Uncle John), Busta Rhymes (Rasaan), Toni Collette (Diane Palmieri), Pat Hingle (Dennis Bradford), Dan Hedaya (Jack Roselli), Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Jimmy Groves), Josef Sommer (Curt Flemming), and Lynne Thigpen (Carla Howard) Directed by John Singleton.

Review
Shaft is strangely not a remake of the notable 1971 film, instead a sequel (The 1990's/2000's/2010's were a hotbed for remakes of films, in fact, there's a RoboCop remake in theaters right now, remakes of films 20-80 years old are common), and hey, the original star from the '71 film (Roundtree) even makes an appearance. For those who don't know, Shaft was a franchise in the 1970's (originally based off the novel of the same name by Ernest Tidyman), consisting of three films: Shaft (1971), Shaft's Big Score, and Shaft in Africa, along with a television series. So after all that history (or whatever), how is the film itself? It has its moments of good action, and Jackson does a wonderful job. But what makes the movie stand out is its (unintentional) hilarity that I sometimes received from the movie. Some of the scenes were effective, but they were also hilarious because of how over the top it could get, the way that the characters react to the action made me laugh. It's funny how Christian Bale went from this film to Batman in only 5 years, just shows that anyone can be Batman (Isn't that right, Daredevil-I mean Ben Affleck?), given the circumstances. The movie has a good deal of style and the right amount of charm (I do like the scenes with Jackson and Roundtree, from...nephew to uncle. I guess Shaft had a brother who named his son in honor of John) to make for a fun film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hang 'Em High.

Review #518: Hang 'Em High.

Cast
Clint Eastwood (Jed Cooper), Inger Stevens (Rachel Warren), Ed Begley (Captain Wilson), Pat Hingle (Judge Adam Fenton), Ben Johnson (Dave Bliss), Charles McGraw (Ray Calhoun), Ruth White (Peaches Sophie), Bruce Dern (Miller), Alan Hale Jr. (Matt Stone), Arlene Golonka (Jennifer), James Westerfield (Prisoner), and Dennis Hopper (The Prophet) Directed by Ted Post.

Review
I had reviewed the Dollars Trilogy that starred Clint Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone (#015 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, #017 - A Fistful of Dollars, #019 - For a Few Dollars More), and the success of the trilogy led to this film, one that Eastwood's business manager (Irving Leonard) described as a cross between Rawhide and Leone's westerns, and I can see why. But how is the film? It's okay. Eastwood is raw but intriguing, and Stevens delivers a contrast despite not having too many scenes, only near the end does she get her chance to shine. Begley and Hingle are good, but it seems the one who is really memorable despite having once scene is Dennis Hopper, he sticks out and rambles, and he certainly made an impression on me for his one scene. The film is raw at times and somewhat interesting and while it may take its time, it's an alright film and it is a film you could watch if you're still reeling from Leone's masterful Trilogy, take this for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Maximum Overdrive.

Review #192: Maximum Overdrive.

Cast
Emilio Estevez (William "Bill" Robinson), Pat Hingle (Bubba Hendershot), Laura Harrington (Brett Graham), Yeardley Smith (Connie), John Short (Curtis), Ellen McElduff (Wanda June), Frankie Faison (Handy), Leon Rippy (Brad), and Christopher Murney (Camp Loman) Directed by Stephen King.

Review
The first thing to mention is that this is Stephen King's only directed film which he also wrote (adapted from a short story of his own named Trucks) It's like he wanted to say, "Hey you think you can adapt my novels to books good? Well I can do better!" But...It isn't. The acting is standard, with Estevez doing his best given the role (It's like he acted angry because he had to be in this film) The action is...well action, standard for an action film. The violence is even more standard, getting a bit old after a while. The one thing I find of note to be worthy is the soundtrack by none other then AC/DC. Pure awesome. The film in a way is enjoyable, even with its bizarre explaining in the beginning that's contradicted in the end. It's a weird film, that can be only enjoyed if you let yourself go (there are films you must do that other wise you'll hate it, like...Transformers 2 *snickers*). Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8....

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.