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.

Bull Durham.

Review #1663: Bull Durham.

Cast:

Kevin Costner (Lawrence "Crash" Davis), Susan Sarandon (Annie Savoy), Tim Robbins (Ebby Calvin "Nuke" Laloosh), Trey Wilson (Joe "Skip" Riggins), Robert Wuhl (Larry Hockett), William O'Leary (Jimmy), David Neidorf (Bobby), Jenny Robertson (Millie), Danny Gans (Deke), and Max Patkin (Himself) Written and Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb and #1075 - Hollywood Homicide)

Review:

“I thought if I was gonna have a shot as a director, I’m gonna have to write something that everybody else can say, ‘Well, whatever we think of Shelton, certainly nobody in the world knows more about the subject.”

This was the debut film directed by Ron Shelton, who has directed nine feature films in a career of over three decades - five of these films revolve around sports in some way (all except Cobb have comedy in some way, for example). But it is this film that is most personal for Shelton, who had graduated from Westmont College in California (studying English Literature for his major while being a star in basketball in baseball) and immediately went to play minor league baseball. For five years, he would play in various leagues and even reach Triple-A (the highest level in the minors) with Rochester before he decided to quit at the age of 25 in 1971, shaped by a strike in Major League Baseball. The curiosity for filmmaking came in part because he would go to see movies while on the road, with one particular film that inspired him being The Wild Bunch. Afterwards, he would do study within graduate school, graduating from the University of Arizona with a fine arts degree before moving on to do work with painting and carpentry with time spent writing screenplays. In 1981, Shelton received his first film credit when he worked on The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper, a troubled film that had three directors while Shelton worked as an associate producer and creative consultant. Two years later, he wrote his first screenplay, doing so in collaboration with Clayton Frohman on Under Fire (1983).

The idea for the film was quoted by him as “Lysistrata in the minor leagues", which if you may not be aware reflects a play about a woman who wants to end a way by having the women withhold romancing their husbands and lovers in order to garner peace (several writers and filmmakers have made their own works based on being inspired by the play) - Shelton wrote the film in one draft, with the filmed version having few changes (interestingly, one person that Shelton did have help from with the script was Kurt Russell, a former minor leaguer himself). Shelton drew upon his experiences in the minors for the script, ranging from moments such as an intentionally flooded field or a manager throwing bats at his team after a loss. He wanted to make a film with character development that did not necessarily go the way a number of sports films usually go, since what we are seeing is a movie about folks in transition, complete with a lead in Costner that might as well be drawn out from a Western (as per Shelton's liking for that kind of genre) for folks that will prevail in whoever happens to have less self-awareness. It's a study on human behavior that works fine for what is needed, which means a pretty good experience. Respectfully though, if I am asked about its place as a great sports film, there is one easy statement: the best baseball movie ever made in that decade came the following year with either Costner as the star (you know the one), or it came with the big ending at the end (Major League)...it might have been a mistake to watch the latter again before I saw this feature (look at it this way, maybe it inspired all those other baseball movies to come in its wake). But hey, if you want your romance comedy to mix with the usual sports movie, go right ahead. Writing about movies is a perspective different from person to person, and I found it to be good - and that's a fine place to be for a movie with a director that wanted to make it with his own perspective without fancy mythologizing (if one has to be pedantic, however, the minor league record for home runs was certainly not 246 - Buzz Arlett had 432; of course, if one really wants to drag it out word by word, I could also take umbrage with anyone who dislikes the designated hitter rule). Baseball is a business that has adults and kids playing a game, after all, and Shelton wanted a movie from an athlete's perspective, complete with filming in Durham on cold nights in winter (if one is curious about the name, as I was, it actually refers to a tobacco company of the same name, for which the city became famous for).

Oh, but enough about all of that, how's the cast? They do pretty well for themselves, with a core trio that is hard to resist in seeing on and off the park. Costner does well here, in part because he excels where others would probably grimace with a role that grits and grins in a way that might as well sound like Shelton talking about himself, one where each loves the game more than it loves him in a gunslinger-type of way (Costner's character was modelled after William Holden's performance in...you guessed it, The Wild Bunch). You can see the passion in his eyes any time he is on the field, one with honesty and charm that never wavers whether paired with Robbins or Sarandon. There are quite a few highlights one can note with him around, but I think the last scene spent with Robbins is a charmer, one where he imparts a key lesson about fear and arrogance for the majors while getting a shiner in the eye and asking which hand it came from. Sarandon gives her heart and charm with the depth one should expect from a veteran presence like her (she had been an actress for nearly 20 years before this film). She breathes baseball and care into a role that could have been bungled into casual fluff with a lesser actress; here we have a crisp performance that makes those intimate moments spent with either Costner or Robbins come out clear in balance in connections. The interesting thing to note is that the studio did not want Robbins for the role, since they really desired Anthony Michael Hall (Hall was ten years younger than Robbins...who was only three years younger than Costner), and it took Shelton threatening to quit for Robbins to stick around. He proves quite genuine here, brimming in confidence that makes for a quality one-two punch for what is needed in a coming-of-age (for baseball) tale that keeps everyone fresh without being sold out for a cheap joke. Let's put it this way: being on the mound in a garter belt makes for quite a fascinating little scene. Wilson (who died the following year at 40) contributes as well in character presence expected for a manager with good timing; the same can be said of Wuhl and his shepherding presence. If you need an easy confirmation that we have a movie that breathes baseball, one could just watch the parts with Max Patkin performing before the game. Patkin was the famous "Clown Prince of Baseball", and he would perform to any size of crowd for over a half-century. As a whole, what matters most for 108 minutes is in how much one connects with the story told here through the lens of sports with people at the crossroads of life, whether that means someone who only just taken their first few steps in a career or for people nearing the end of one path, or for those somewhere in between. In that sense, it makes for a fairly engaging movie, never tiring itself out at any road it wants to take that never compromises its vision for anything, and in the end that means a worthwhile time for all who find themselves involved with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Editor's Note: Obviously this review was meant to be published at a different time...four days late, as it turns out, since writing this took a bit longer than expected. At any rate, I wanted it to accompany the start of the season in Major League Baseball, back in its regular format of playing in the spring - as always, I hope for a great season, but I also hope that you enjoyed this review as well.

Personally, there is one more thing: Go Astros!

Movie Night: Cobb.

Review #381: Cobb.

Cast
Tommy Lee Jones (Ty Cobb), Robert Wuhl (Al Stump), Lolita Davidovich (Ramona), Lou Myers (Willie), William Utay (Jameson), J. Kenneth Campbell (William Herschel Cobb), and Rhoda Griffis (Amanda Chitwood Cobb) Directed by Ron Shelton.

Review
Watching a film based off Cobb: The Life and Times of the Meanest Man in Baseball by Al Stump is a strange thing, since the film isn't as sensational and fictionalized as the book is now known to be. Take the film for what it is: A movie, with some sort of fact but also some sort of fiction. 

Tyrus Raymond Cobb was a legend in baseball, and judging from the film, you might think that. Or you might wonder if the (somewhat questionable) writer of the book about Cobb about him fabricated the events in some ways. Cobb once described himself like this: "In legend I am a sadistic, slashing, swashbuckling despot who waged war in the guise of sport.". The film sadly does not show a lot of baseball moments from his career, focusing more on Stump and Cobb, which I find to be a bit disappointing because the film while it does try to focus on the biography of Cobb and the writing, it probably should have tried to be more about him and not just him and his biographer. Nonetheless, Jones pulls off a brutal performance of Cobb. It may either turn you off from the film or be the thing that glues the film together. Wuhl is all right, reminding me of a writer, but whether a good or bad one is questionable. It's noisy, its mean and dark, but that's what makes the film what it is, it doesn't try to be light on things, it does what it wants to accomplish, the good and the bad. Whether the viewer likes it or not is up to you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.