THE DIVERGENT SERIES: INSURGENT

The Divergent Series: Insurgent
Starring Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Kate Winslet, Zoe Kravitz, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer
Written by Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman, Mark Bomback
Directed by Robert Schwentke

I shamelessly loved DIVERGENT (read my review at The MSU Reporter). I saw it three times in theaters, once with audio commentary, and skipped around here and there scene-wise with the Blu-Ray. There's lots to love, and lots to identify. It was a well written, well acted, well shot movie that exploited my feels. INSURGENT I looked at with tempered excitement. Although I am positively giddy to revisit these characters, and most importantly to me, the themes, of this world again, the creative team behind the first film were nowhere to be found, and that creative team, I feel, were paramount in making the movie as good as it was. Director Neil Burger and screenwriters Evan Daughtery and Vanessa Taylor conceivably found the turnaround time too quick between films and opted to exit, or whatever the reason may be, it's disappointing none of these intelligent forces were behind for the sequel. The good news, INSURGENT is good. The sorta bad news, it's not nearly as good as DIVERGENT. The other good news? I dug the themes and how they were conceptualized in the context of the story. The other sorta(ish) bad news? It was a bit too on-the-nose. 

INSURGENT starts off five days after DIVERGENT left off. Tris (Woodley), Four (James), Peter (Teller), and Caleb (Elgort) are on the run from Janine (Winslet) and her task force of anti-Divergent exterminators. Team Kill Janine have their hands full - they need to lay low, but at the same time build an army that could overthrow Janine's reign of terror, and deal with shifting allegiances that put everyone in less than ideal spots. Things get even more complicated when Janine uncovers a powerful box with a secret message only Divergents can unlock. Thus begins the struggle for Tris, the only divergent able to release its secrets, but whose guilt and pain may make her unable to succeed, putting her life and the lives of others in jeopardy. 

First, let's talk about the positives, of which there are quite a few. In DIVERGENT, scenes I tend to go back to involve a personal moment for Tris, something not necessarily plot motivated but a beautiful character beat. Take, for example, when she and her fellow Dauntless recruits climb up the train tracks to their new home (while 'Run Boy Run' beats like crazy in the background), or when Tris succeeds in the Capture-the-Flag gambit and flies through the deteriorating skyscrapers of Chicago. These are but a few moments that got me onboard the DIVERGENT bandwagon. What INSURGENT offers isn't nearly as strong or memorable as such aforementioned sequences, but there is one particular standout sequence with Tris under the influence of truth serum. Woodley gives it her all in one hell of a heartbreaking, can't-look-away scene stealer as she is forced to confront the choices and sacrifices that she's made in her fight. It's brutal, it's soul-revealing, and it's damn good. Later, as the trailers have pretty much revealed, there's a Tris vs. Tris type of fight, and although it's rather a blunt way to hammer home the point of Tris' INSURGENT arc. Nevertheless, that fight, and the whole ten minutes that encompass her journey where she confronts facets of herself, is powerful. Each beat may not land as strongly as another, but it works. 

There's a good sense of momentum with the pacing and story. With the gang divided on what to do next against their fight with Janine and how to go about it, the Tris arc is allowed time to flourish. Ultimately, that means the twisty-turny allegiance of Peter and Caleb is muddled and rather under-developed, but for the sake of keeping the focus on Tris, it's a forgivable sin. As the Big Bad, Janine is regulated to pure Figurative Mustache-Twirling Villain. We know her goal - to open the box - and we know she'll achieve that goal through any means necessary. Any development of this character was DIVERGENT exclusive, it seems. But again, Tris' arc is what matters, and her poking and prodding and general evilness is a means to a end. Naomi Watts appears as Four's super hot mom. Like, seriously. Brunette works for her. All I can hope for ALLEGIANT is that she's a large and prominent character of the story. Yowza. 

Special effects are predominantly well done. The fiery house simulation sequence showcased in every INSURGENT trailer clearly has the most work done, as great effort is afforded to make air-bending Shailene Woodley look completely real and totally not digital. It works more often than it falters. The only real digital grievance is one of the final shots of the film, a full CG aerial shot of communities walking outside obliterated Chicago. Not a memorable image to end your movie on.

Where this movie stumbles, it's hard to peg down. On a surface level, there's a difficulty in ascribing any faults. The biggest pitfall for me, personally, as a DIVERGENT devout, is that the emotional center of the first film seemed lost. Yes, plot becomes of greater importance in this sequel (to a degree), but the pain and grief of Tris, and the arc that comes from that, should have held a greater emotional intensity. They did an admirable job, no doubt, just not fully there, if you know what I mean.

Neil Burger brought a swiftness and engagement with his direction in DIVERGENT, and although INSURGENT has plenty of prettiness and strong shots, I still can't help but wonder what it would look like under Burger's direction. When all is said and done, there's nothing inherently wrong with INSURGENT. It's a fine sequel that, thankfully, didn't suffer the full wrath of sequelitis (in the last decade, only CATCHING FIRE and THE DARK KNIGHT were saved from a sophomore slump), but was still missing some pieces anyway. Definitely worth seeing, especially if you were anywhere between a full on to somewhat DIVERGENT fan. I have absolutely no idea how they're going to make ALLEGIANT into two movies, but I guess we'll find out in a year. 'Till then, solid work, fellas. I wager I'll be seeing this once or twice more.

I am evil! EEEVVAAIILLL I TELL YOU!!!

SEVENTH SON

Father Gregory (Jeff Bridges) is having a difficult day.

Seventh Son
Starring Jeff Bridges, Ben Barnes, Julianne Moore, Kit Harrington, Alicia Vikandor
Written by Steven Knight, Charles Leavitt
Based on the novels 'The Spook's Apprentice' by Joseph Delaney
Directed by Sergei Bordov
2015, 102 mins., Rated PG-13

Not long after Peter Jackson made sword and sorcery(ish) epics cool with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, I was in the camp of folks who thought that all types of films like those -- with wizards, dragons, monsters, eclipse Armageddons, gods, etc. -- should be dark, serious, and above all, epic. Years later, when the Ray Harryhausen classic CLASH OF THE TITANS was remade with Sam Worthington as Perseus and Liam Neeson as Zeus and one killer kick-ass Kraken, I went in with the expectation the material would be handled seriously, and the movie would be amazing. I was wrong on both accounts. CLASH OF THE TITANS, the remake, was all about action. Gravitas and nuance was third to action and special effects. Nothing mattered other than making things look cool. For me, it was a devastating missed opportunity. 

I say all this, because that hard blow in many ways made films like SEVENTH SON easier to swallow and accept instead of being hit with overwhelming disappointment. Up front, I'll mention that I never read the books this film is sourced from, but if I were a fan of those novels, I imagine this adaptation would be quite the disservice. Probably DRAGONBALL: EVOLUTION level of terribleness. A lot of this feels extremely loosely based off the series. But that's beside the point. The point is this: I look at SEVENTH SON as a wonderful, playful throwback to the sixties and seventies, when we had action/adventure fantasy movies. Specifically, I'm thinking of the SINBAD trilogy. SEVENTH SON is a homage to those type of flicks -- or rather, it would fit so well into those classification of movies of that time period. It's just fun. A paint-by-the-numbers plot with largely unimpressionable characters and so-so special effects. They're not trying for serious, or epic, or anything necessarily great. Just sit back, have a good time, and enjoy this fantasy throwback to a time where these type of films were everywhere in cinema chains. 

SEVENTH SON has something to do with kids who are born the seventh son of a seventh son having abilities of some sort. Father Gregory (Bridges) is a old, wise(ish) wizard who recruits Tom (Barnes) to stop Malikin (Moore), a shape-shifting evil badass sorceress who intends on destroying the world and ruling it with her evil minions. Right about now is where the end tag announcer from the BATMAN '66 series would say, 'can Father Gregory and Tom beat Malikin in time? Will the earth be enslaved by monsters? Find out next week, same mage time, same mage channel!' Or something like that. 

To put it bluntly, no, SEVENTH SON is not a good movie. Acting is subpar, at best. Jeff Bridges is hardly comprehensible as Father Gregory, choosing an accented voice spoken through lips that seem sown together. Or perhaps it's his gigantamous beard and facial hair that's blocking the words from escaping his mouth. Either way, there really oughta be a subtitle option when he's speaking. No doubt about it, this is a paycheck gig for Jeff Bridges, and his performance reflects that commitment. Ben Barnes was really impressive in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN, channeling the right amount of princely valor, charm, and acting talent. Here, there's not a ounce of that skill on display. He lumbers through each scene, makes out with a hot chick (in the most entertaining subplot of the film, mage & witch love: can they be together when one's a hunter and one's the thing they hunt?), and resorts to a dead plan, dead-eyed glaze. As a hugely underdeveloped badass witch, Julianne Moore's Malikin fares the best, but only because she hams up the screen so totally committed, it's spectacular to watch. She's having fun, and I'm having fun right there with her. 

The script could use, at minimum, ten more drafts. Iron out details about this world's rules, creatures, and words, improve the dialogue, and just improve the basic framework of the movie at least. All this 'seventh son' business is explained in one throwaway line, but it would be mighty preferable for some time devoted to explaining the mystical power behind it. Backstory and histories are brought up very late in the game, adding little emotional value to certain scenes when, if such details were revealed earlier, it would have helped considerably. The relationships between Father Gregory and Milikan, and Tom and (witch) Alice (Vikandor) are awkward at best, and could use refining to spice up their scenes, perhaps make up for the lack of chemistry between any of these actors. 

For me, the real highlight of SEVENTH SON, and the aspect that makes me the most giddy, are the monsters. Look at the photo above, Father Gregory face to face with this giant green lizard creature (played by Djimon Honsou in human form). That's the type of cool shit a monster-loving fan like myself has a field day over. And check out the photo below, with the four-armed badass ready to take down some opponents. For years I've watched ambitious yet poorly down battles of the protagonist vs. multi-limbed monster variety, and they've been disappointing. Not SEVENTH SON. No. These fights are spectacular. Those arms work in perfect unison, and the fight choreography with all four is expedient and lethal. Finally, the four-armed foe realized in all of his magnificent glory!

Ultimately, if one does enjoy those sword-and-sorcery fantasy epics from the sixties and seventies, and walk into SEVENTH SON with that mindset, the film's a blast. It really, properly is. If you go in with the mentality that this is a $95 million dollar movie produced with the intent of being something like 'the next big thing' with glamorous special effects and a built-in fanbase with the hopes and dreams of a multi-film franchise deal hanging in the balance, than this movie is quite the clusterfrak. For all its poor writing, incomprehensible performances, and occasionally lavish special effects, SEVENTH SON is fun. As it's now out of the theatrical circuit, give it a look-see when it hits DVD/Blu-Ray. For me, this was a fun, nostalgic trip to a time long ago when fantasy adventures were all the rage.

RUN ALL NIGHT

Run All Night
Starring Liam Neeson, Ed Harris, Joel Kinnaman, Boyd Holbrook
Written by Brad Ingelsby
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

In the last five years, Liam Neeson's THE GREY is his best, most nuanced, most accomplished role since he broke 'big' with action films once TAKEN took off. TAKEN 2 and 3 were just disasters of mediocre movie-making and unenthusiastic deliveries by Neeson. Haven't seen A WALK AMONG THE TOMBSTONES, so can't comment if that was a marked improvement, but I can say that RUN ALL NIGHT is.

To clarify, RUN ALL NIGHT isn't a deep movie, nor altogether a return to the 'glory days' (aka six or so years ago) of Liam Neeson being a bona fide action star, but it's a mark in the right direction. It gives Neeson his juiciest material to work with in years as a character torn between his loyalties to his best friend of several decades and his duty to his flesh and blood. Of course he will always choose his son, Michael, and he will do whatever necessary to save him (Neeson's characters are always quite skilled at protecting family members), but to have that extra layer of kinship - hell, brotherhood - with the villain of the story? That right there adds some much needed drama and dimension to action movies that have become rather thin of everything as of late.

RUN ALL NIGHT has Neeson as Jimmy (lame name, folks, but gives him the Common Man vibe; a Common Man who also just happens to have a particular set of skills . . .), a drunk lowlife ex-super killer for his buddy and non-blood brotha Shawn (Harris). They're best of mates until a series of absurd coincidences forces Jimmy to kill Shawn's son to save his own. Thus begins the longest night of their lives, as these two families cause mass havoc in the streets of New York City with car chases, bathroom fista cuffs, and apartment explosions. And have to deal with the threat of sporadic rain!

Thing is, my one thumb up kudos for RUN ALL NIGHT is probably elevated because of the shit storm of subpar movies Qui-Gon's been in before. The fact that I'm watching this action movie that has fight scenes that I can actually comprehend, a story that actually tries, and characters of substance, well -- that just seems maverick compared to the rest of the similar titles of this litter. It's a fine film, highly competent, shot and lit with such moody dark blues and bright florescent vistas that it's actually rather impressive. The real heart of this whole thing is the Jimmy and Shawn relationship, where decades of brotherhood is dissolved due to familial duty and obligation. Blood has been shed, and the only way to rectify the situation is with blood.

It all culminates in a shootout in the woods, but the real ending is a rather tragic, low-key, quiet exchange of bullets and words at on the train tracks. It's a nice beat, two friends forced to this shit storm of death. Shawn and Jimmy even have a motto that's repeated at least four times throughout the movie, probably one of those things more seasoned screenwriters should probably skip, because it telegraphs the films trajectory immediately. There's two ways this movie could end, but throw that motto in there and now there's only really one way.

All in all, this was one run I was satisfied to partake in. A dark action thriller that works. If Neeson decided to hang up the action reins now, it'd be a good choice to end on (seriously, watching Neeson try to keep up or conduct the same maneuvers as his considerably younger costars was a bit sobering; his roles work best when he's a straightforward physical force, like a shark, picking out bad guys without much aerobics). Better this than a hypothetical-perhaps-soon-not-to-be-hypothetical TAKEN 4. Give RUN ALL NIGHT a go if you're a Liam Neeson fan like myself, but if you're looking for solid action spectacle, rent or blind buy Keanu Reeve's JOHN WICK instead.

CINDERELLA

Cinderella
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Script by Chris Weitz
Starring Lily James, Richard Madden, Derek Jacobi, Cate Blanchett, Stellan Skarsgard, Helena Bonham Carter
2015, Rated PG, 112 mins.

Stories tend to (not necessarily need) to be updated for a new generation. Previous iterations of a long-told story just don't hold the same appeal to a good amount of the marketplace now, hence why we have Tim Burton's (terrible) ALICE IN WONDERFUL and upcoming (why, Lord, why?) DUMBO. It's why PETER PAN can't ever seem to have enough updates and reimaginings, and long cherished fairytale and Disney stories are getting big budget, CGI-fest new releases, cos kids young to young adult just can't be bothered with checking out some 40 year + titles. 

So if you're going to make a new movie based on a old property, there's got to be a point to it. In the case of CINDERELLA, a story told as often as Peter Parker's origin, it does a fine job of adding some additional layers of character and story beats, but overall, the ends don't justify the means. After all, when all is said and done, it really is just some glamorized retelling hellbent on rackin' up the budget on needless SPFX. But before we get to the film, a brief moment to talk about what preceded the flick.

A year and some months ago (can't believe it's been that long), FROZEN blew everyone's mind to become a cultural phenomenon, catapulting the title up to the fifth highest grossing movie of all time. Originally, I was a FROZEN naysayer, until I saw the film and instantly bit my words, so the announcement of this FROZEN FEVER short had me more giddy than the actual film I paid money to see. Ultimately, it was a wobbly production with quite a few flaws but ultimately saved by an innate love to see Anna and Elsa again in a non-ONCE UPON A TIME capacity. The skit itself is amusing -- now that the sisters are bonded better than ever, Elsa wants to get Anna the best birthday party possible, going all out while a simple hangout would do. Neat concept. 

The animation is solid work, nearly on par with the original movie itself. What's not so up to par are two things: (1) the song isn't all that good, frankly. And a call-back to FROZEN's most famous song feels shoehorned in instead of organic, and (2) despite being credited to the contrary, the voice talent barely sounds like Kristen Bell or Idina Menzel. There's a few instances it's full on Bell sounding, but Elsa never felt right. Still, great to see the characters again, and if the Disney chairman is to be believed, work is already underway on a potential FROZEN sequel, so, we'll see them again before too long . .. maybe by the time George R. R. Martin finishes the GAME OF THRONES series.

As a film, CINDERELLA is solid. Veteran director Kenneth Branagh has a keen eye, and the visuals never fail to impress. Nice, bright colors adorn every shot; hell, even the dirty attic looks pretty, and I've never seen Cinderella's glass slippers look shinier. On the surface level, there is nothing all that shoddy about CINDERELLA. 

Even the script is pretty tight. It moves at a brisk pace, the ending rearing its obvious markers in what feels like no time. Perhaps that's too its detriment, however. Perhaps there should have been a bit more breathing room, more time dedicated to character and allowing them ample time to just be. Cinderella's stepsisters particularly never overcome the long done portrayal of snotty, self-absorbed, materialistic gits - it would be interesting if they instead elected to take a fresh, slightly original take with them. Perhaps make them relatable and submissive to their mother's controlling, advantageous planning. As for the stepmother, on one hand, effort is put forth to make her a true antagonist right alongside William Turner, Jr., Stellan Skarsgard (which is much appreciated), but on the other hand, Cate Blanchett's talent seems almost wasted. 

Lily James is absolutely adorable as the humble, father loving daughter Ella who just gets the short staff on every occasion (and I can't emphasize enough how marvelous it was to see AGENT CARTER as James' mum!). Perfectly solid. If there is a complaint - and what would a movie blogger be without a complaint? - it's to do with the most culturally recognized scene of the entire story: the Prince's ball. Ella (who is given the lovely rebranding of "cinder" by her stepsisters) is a girl who is entirely out of her depth going to this ball. This is mostly a performance choice that I'm scrutinizing here. Instead of being awkward, unsure of herself, or at least portraying a person who is attempting to act like someone who belongs, there's this out-of-character performance as James makes Ella seem no different than a princess being brought up in the monarchy. Basically, I feel there should be some sort of awkwardness or uneasiness with this whole thing -- Ella happily embracing all the wild-googely-eyed men and women staring at her, her effortless dancing skills with the prince, etc. Instead, she simply owns it all effortlessly. My mom said, "it's magic!" Me? Not sold. 

Speaking of the handsome prince, poor Robb Stark cleaned up quite well. Richard Madden is a fantastically charming and individual-minded prince, easily making even me swell for the bloody guy.

Ultimately, CINDERELLA is a competent, very fine movie. It is not the new definitive telling of the tale, nor is it a wholeheartedly fresh or original take at the character. The original animated Walt Disney film would do just fine. But since this film exists, it's an actual thing now, it's a perfect acceptable, heartwarming tale of . . . what, exactly? Accepting oneself as one is? The movie is more concerned with hitting the necessary plot points its through-line isn't all that strong until the penultimate scene. 

Fans of Disney movies will love it, the ladies will be charmed by it, and critics will likely still grumble grumble over why this film exists in the first place. Still, if there has to be a modern day retelling of a gazillion-times told story, Branagh's CINDERELLA would be thrown into the 'win' column . . .

THE DUFF

Bianca (Mae Whitman) shines in this hilarious teen comedy.

The DUFF
Directed by Ari Sandel
Written by Josh A. Cagan
Based on the novel "The Duff" by Jody Keplinger
Starring Mae Whitman, Robbie Amell, Bella Thorne, Bianca A. Santos, Allison Janney, Skyler Samuels, Jen Jeong
2015, PG-13, 101 mins.

Flashback a couple years ago, critics and audiences alike were gushing all over EASY A, the Emma Stone-led teen comedy that everyone cited as invoking the relatability, romance, and contemporaryness of those John Hughes movies of the eighties - but, y'know, nowish. I personally never bought a ticket on the EASY A bandwagon of love, although I do admit it's a darn good movie with one beautiful and talented lead actress, but it never really deserved all the kudos it got. 

With THE DUFF, here's a situation where I feel that here's a movie that completely deserves all those accolades - the relatability, the feel-good romance vibe, and firmly reflecting the contemporary culture in which it's set - probably won't get its due from critics and the mass audience, and that's a shame, cos THE DUFF is a gem. 

D.U.F.F. means Designated Ugly Fat Friend - now, the Duff doesn't necessarily have to be ugly or fat, they're just the least desirable member of a group. Compared to her friends Jess (Samuels) and Casey (Santos), Bianca is the DUFF, a fact  brought to her attention by next-door neighbor/long-ago friend Wes (Amell), the football player with abs of steel . Understandably pissed at this new revelation that completely alters Bianca's perspective of her role in her friendships and self worth, Bianca cuts a deal with Wes - help her overcome her DUFFyness to ask out Cute Musician Boy Toby she's crushing on, and she'll help him pass his studies. It's a match made in screwed up heaven.

At the time of this review, I've watched THE DUFF twice, and hope to again before it leaves theaters (although that might not be too far in the future, thanks to rather weak box office receipts). It's that fun and that good. Mae Whitman's vulnerable yet tough performance as Bianca is impressive enough to easily tempt me to check out NBC's PARENTHOOD series, or at the very least, eagerly await whatever projects she has coming up in the pipeline. The script is funny, with great jokes, self-deprecating humor, a bit of a meta edge, and best of all, a tone that doesn't take itself too seriously. Amell is perfect as both encapsulating and then subverting the football jock stereotype, lending a certain charm and nuance to the role that could otherwise have been lost in the hands of another actor. 

Thing is, THE DUFF just works. Right  from the beginning, with its technology saturated opening exposition to a brilliant social media de-friending scene about halfway through the movie, to the hammy but enormously satisfying finale and YouTube-y closing credits, the tone works, and with two irresistibly attractive and endearing leads delivering the scripts sharp jokes, it's easy to get why multiple viewings only help make the viewer love it more (or maybe it's just me; for all I know, I'll convince you to see it, and you, gentle reader, will find it positively rubbish, but I properly don't think so). 

Hell, any movie that makes Ken Jeong sufferable and even prompting a laugh-out-loud moment or two is well worth a recommendation. After five seasons on COMMUNITY trying my patience at every turn, it's a nice, very welcome chang of pace not to hate the guy (see what I did there?). If there's any criticism to be had, the movie does end a wee bit too quickly, culminating at a school dance where Bianca sort of abandons her friends without any exchange between the three parties. It's an off-putting moment that slightly dampers a victorious vibe. Earlier on, there's a hilarious CG-fail involving a lawn mower and clothes that is just so lazily put together, it adds its own layer of laughability.

All in all, THE DUFF, from a structural, storytelling standpoint, doesn't break any new ground, and similar to EASY A, it nails the Lesson We're Trying to Convey Here a bit too heavy on the nose, but the fact the leads are so damn good and funny, and the script barely goes a scene without a clever wit or charm easily makes this one of the more entertaining and fun times at the movies in quite a while. Strongly recommended, cos, y'know, laughing is good. And Mae Whitman is pretty.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Two years ago, I really, really, really dug The Amazing Spider-Man. From a character standpoint, I thought it was brilliant, pitch-perfect even. The blossoming relationship of Peter and Gwen, the relationship between Peter and his Aunt May, Peter's struggle dealing with unanswered questions from the past, a thirst for vengeance instead of justice, and a moving climax about secrets, promises, and what's right. In the two years since, it appears I am a member of a very, very small minority who wholeheartedly love The Amazing Spider-Man and don't find it as "gritty" and "grab" as the criticizers commonly label it, although I won't comment on the effectiveness/cartoonishness of Curt Connors. I don't watch these movies for the villains, I watch them for the characters, and Amazing Spider-Man delivered on character in magnificent glowing spades.

So naturally, mega amount of excitement and enthusiasm for Amazing Spider-Man 2. But then they started casting, and the likes of Shailene Woodley, Paul Giamatti, and Jamie Foxx coming out of nowhere to do roles that seem shoehorned in? Yeah, I got worried. And then production ended ahead of schedule, Woodley's Mary Jane arc was cut entirely from the finished product, and trailers started making the rounds. Visually, the film looked pleasing. Story-wise? Oi vey, looked like shit was about to hit the fan, where story and character were to be sacrificed for world-building, bad comedy sketches, and villains. Lots and lots of villains!

The good news is, there's plenty to like/love about The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but there's also a helluva lot to bitch about, and, I feel, rightly so. But before that, can I just say . . .

I need to see every big-budget epic blockbuster in IMAX 3-D. No if or but about it, this is my new preferred way of watching these types of films. There's something so spectacular in being immersed in the film, as this giant screen literally takes over your vision and you're just in the middle of every little detail and story beat. Moreso in the awesome category, watching Amazing Spider-Man 2 in IMAX 3-D was the first time I really felt the merits of 3-D, especially the opening Spidey-flying-around-Manhattan shots, where were just gobsmacking in their level of detail and dimension. It would be a bit boisterous to say I was flying along the New York skyscrapers with Spider-Man, but I sure as hell felt the dimensionality of his actions. Naturally, the 3-D effect didn't sustain all that well during the more intimate talking heads stuff, but when the film switches gears into a full on CG-frenzy of explosive action, the 3-D was just mind blowing.

Even further in the 'cool' category, this super nifty IMAX exclusive poster, designed by British artist Matt Taylor, was available for free at the concession stand. Can you say 'gorgeous?!', and a perfect representation of one of the key amazing shots in the films opening minutes. Anyway, all this to say, the environment for the film was just all kinds of awesome, and this flick really opened my eyes to the benefits of 3-D when utilized correctly. As of right now, I've decided, through Hell or some magical Minnesota return to winter, I will watch Godzilla on IMAX 3-D. I just gotta.

Anyway, onto the quasi-review. Oh, and SPOILERS!

'The Wolverine' Nearly Redeems 'Origins' Travesty

The Wolverine

I own the unpopular opinion that the X-Men trilogy were just so-so, and that the only truly great entry in the franchise was Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class. Tiny bit controversial, considering the heavy love for Bryan Singer's work, which is understandable on its own right. But something that is nearly unanimous is exactly how atrocious and despicable X-Men Origins: Wolverine was back in 2009. First, let me say that there probably hasn't been as close exactitude of casting as there is with Hugh Jackman as Logan, the Wolverine. Jackman personifies this character, and no other actor could possibly do this role justice like Hugh has. So imagine the excitement of all us fans when Wolverine got his own solo movie! Hugh on his own, plus we get to see the big budget treatment of his origin story!

Without getting into specifics, Origins was just embarrassing. One of those cases where fans and general audiences alike felt like hiding their faces from sight when exiting the theater, in shame that the studio not only put faith and money into making that feature, but also that we were dumb enough to pay ticket price to see it. FOX doesn't really know what to do with their properties, so announcing The Wolverine, another solo adventure, was met with tentative enthusiasm. For me, it just needed to make up for Origins. The good news, and the short answer, is: mostly yes. But, naturally, it's a flick that still feels problematic, and doesn't live up to its potential. That said, this probably is Wolverine's best show yet.

Alright, so you've left the X-Men, you've killed the only woman you really, truly ever loved [remember, we're forgetting that Origins nonsense], and you've turned into a caveman, wandering the world, not belonging, not connecting. That's the state Logan's in right now, alone and in self-imposed solitude. Ten years after The Last Stand, Logan is plucked from the wilderness and brought to Japan, where a old man intends to pay a debt to Logan for saving his life in Nagasaki decades ago. This old man, Yashida, the most powerful man in the world, has tinkered with biology for a long while, and came up with a way of regressing Logan's abilities. Basically, Logan can finally have what he's wanted for all these years: a peaceful, honorable death.

And that's what The Wolverine is, it's about Logan thirsting for his pain and eternity to end, but through the course of this movie, rediscovering his reason to live. It's genuinely a beautiful story on its own, and even more beautiful and appropriate for Logan, this man whose years of love and losses are now weighing heavier on him than ever before. As this character-centric tale, The Wolverine is friggin' gobsmacking. Finally, a non-DC/Marvel [you know what I mean] movie that emphasizes character over nifty mutations and big budgeted action sequences. So from a story standpoint, this is very, very, very strong ground to walk. But the script? The execution? It's good and all, but it ain't great, it ain't what it could be.

[Oh! And Famke Janssen's return as Jean Grey is much bigger than originally expected, and also brilliantly used. The execution of her return to Logan is exquisite, and the push-and-pull going on between her and Logan is truly one of the movies highlights.]

Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) haunts Logan with reminders of what he's done and what he's lost.

Most of the movie is about Logan and his mental state, and then it evolves into this Keep the Girl Safe story, and then it, regrettably, devolves into this rather too comic book-y thing with a giant Silver Samurai suit, a unsurprising twist, and lots of insane action beats. Granted, some of those fights were cool, and the whole adamantium thing - didn't see it coming [and still not sure how I feel about it], but damnit, I would have been completely fine if this movie didn't have yakuza, or giant Silver Samurai, or this evil bitchy American Viper chick, or Mr. Ninja Guy. The Wolverine didn't need it. And by its inclusion, it represents the filmmakers fear that their script wasn't strong enough on its own, so they needed all this fancy, glamorous ass kickery to bring audiences in.

Don't want to sound like I hate the flick. Not at all. Saw it twice already in a twenty-four hour span. I merely think there were some missed opportunities, or rather, roads taken that would have been better not, y'know, taken. But man, the positives - director James Mangold shot this quite beautiful movie, and even made the Bullet Train sequence [something that looked horrible in the trailers] frakken riveting and wonderfully put together; and there's two strong female roles in Mariko Yashia (by the scene stealing Tao Okamoto) and sword-wielding Yukio (Rila Fukushima), both women who don't just stand in the sidelines and actually play important parts in the narrative, and, even more importantly, take action on several occasions. And the mid-credits sequence is a doozy. A setup for what's to come in the X-Men cinematic universe, it should not be missed.

Without rambling more, The Wolverine has a lot of strengths in its story and characters, but also has some weaknesses that water it down, such as a out-of-place third act, but by no means does it hinder enjoyment as a whole. So, I opened this review by basically bitching about X-Men Origins: Wolverine and saying that this flick needed to redeem it. Did it? Did it redeem that misfire of epic proportions? Kinda. But not quite. Why? Origins is just so damn awful, a disgrace to the X-Men line. All that being said, though, The Wolverine can stand proud and tall and worthwhile, a film worth owning and revisiting and actually can stand not being embarrassed liking it.

This isn't the movie we deserve, but it's the best we got right now. Although, with all this talk about a bloodier extended cut for the home video release, color me intrigued on seeing what non-gruesome character pieces were left on the cutting room floor. Okay, so, The Wolverine, worth it? Hell yes. See it.

Logan doesn't take being stabbed by samurai swords too kindly. . .

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman & Robin [1997]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

 Batman & Robin

Some sixteen years later, and Batman & Robin is universally heralded as the Apocalypse of Batman, so, so, sooo bad that it beat the shit out of the franchise and left it dying on the ground. The horrible puns, the lame one liners, the beyond ridiculous script and gadgets and everything that encompasses this movie. Not one iota of the flick is considered even halfway decent by the fanbase and general critics alike. As for me, I think it all comes back to the feeling of Batman Forever - it depends entirely on how you enter the party.

Looking back at all four of the Original Movies (encompassing 1989-1997), we see the Dark Origin of the character, where the mysterious masked man dressed as a bat strikes fear into the hearts of Gotham's criminals and works with the police - in the shadows. And as Gotham enters a new generation, so does the dark knight, no longer secluded to the darkness and whispers of fearful bad guys, but a front and center symbol of justice. Gotham's icon, boasting incredible gadgetry and friends, stopping at nothing to save Gothamites. Enter Batman & Robin, the conclusion of Batman's 'journey'. No longer the instrument of fear, Batman is a celebrity, One of the People, and the manner in which his exploits are dramatized resort to humorous sound bites, sulty villains and one-liner villains, and a tongue-in-cheek tone that, 'hey, isn't this fun? Let's have an nifty adventure with all these cool new toys!' We've come full circle. Batman, the celebrity icon of the late 60's on television, now once again the crown prince of jocularity and bafoonery on the cinema screen.

Taking it in as a Batman fan who immerses himself in the world that Christopher Nolan realized and the dark and gritty graphic novels that celebrate the ambiguous, obsessed crime fighter, watching Batman & Robin is very, very difficult. So the only way for me to be okay with it, to not just hate on every second of the movie, is to recognize that the Batman brand evolved. At the time these were made, audiences didn't want a genuine character, or a genuine story of the man behind the mask or his motivations behind that life choice. They wanted a comic book, on the big screen. And that's exactly what they got.

But because this is Batman & Robin and thousands of words have been written on it in both a comical and serious manner, chronicling exactly how shitty the film is, I'm going to approach this review more in a bullet point, topic-like manner. So, let us begin:

* "You must be new in town. In Gotham, Batman and Robin save us. Even from plants and flowers." This is spoken to Poison Ivy before she becomes a insatiable vixen by a reporter, in response to Uma Thurman's plea to Bruce Wayne that action must be done to save Mother Earth (!). I dare say that this quote from the reporter just about sums up the entire tone of the film. It blatantly speaks to the duo's celebrity status, and considering that the woman is speaking with complete earnestness, it seems that plants and flowers as big bad's is just another day in the park in Gotham. More than that, it speaks volumes to a Gotham that is content with sitting back and letting Batman and Robin do all the work for them. They "save us", meaning that Gothamites - well, they don't seem to really make any effort to take care of themselves. So, corny line, but surprisingly lots can be taken from it.

* I'm perfectly fine with a character using a pun or two, or saying "freeze" a lot because his newly christened name is "Mr. Freeze", but there's a lot, and there's the amount Arnold Schwarrzzennegger says it. I (stupidly) didn't tally it all down, but I would not be surprised at all if the number of times "freeze" was said by Arnie's mouth alone would be in the hundred range.

* "What is Batman, if not an effort to master the chaos that sweeps our world? An attempt to control death itself." Oh my God, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman is actually trying to bring some sort of drama and pathos to Batman in this movie? Futile, but bravo Akiva for making the attempt. Still, it's a interesting way to look at the character. Batman making himself Master of Death, refusing to allow anyone to die on his watch. And in this universe, Batman isn't against killing, so there's a tad more credence to that. But still, how are we supposed to take Batman seriously in a movie that features this:

* George Clooney is a great Bruce Wayne. He has the charisma, that look of a billionaire playboy who couldn't give less of a shit about the city, and the New Random Girl to have his arms all over. But as Batman? Horrible, horrible casting. His face looks all freaky deaky as the Bats, and just not representative of the dark knight. That said, I need to recognize the tone change from Kilmer to Clooney, and then maybe I'll be okay with it. Outlook, not so good.

* Barbara Wilson? Alfred's niece? Okay....

* Speaking of Alfred, I'm beyond glad Goldsman gave the fantastic actor some genuine material to work with. I love how Barbara comes into the mix and tries to shame Bruce and Dick for having Alfred in this line of servitude, and Alfred's response later, that he has the greatest honor to serve heroes - that's tremendous writing and acting. Michael Gough really owns this movie, and makes it a far memorable experience than the goofy one liners and obvious action figure cash-ins.

* Horrible one-liners aside, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze were actually kinda fun villains. All pretense of being serious movie monsters was dropped, and Uma and Arnold where given free license to just ham it up and just go nuts. This makes for Uma's Poison Ivy to be the second most entertaining bad "person" of the Original Films. Bane, though, is a disgrace. It's insulting to the original intention of Bane, and it's an insult to all moviegoers. Even at the age of seven, I know for a fact - I was un-freakin'-amused.

* I could get into suit designs and how they're absolutely ridiculous (see pic below), but as we all know, they're all simply meant to be flashy, with absolutely no desire to think of them in a real world setting. They look the part, but they aren't really the part. Many have remarked that Schumacher designed the costumes to have similarities to Greek sculptures, make them akin to the heroes of the past, I take it. Then what might one gather from the pic below? Greek heroes changed outfits between one scene to another for a more splashy effect before they head back out in battle?

* Batman & Robin is a pretty shitty movie if you're coming to it from the viewpoint of someone who worships Batman Begins and everything Christopher Nolan has done for the saga (such as myself), but it helps - barely - to understand that the intent of this movie wasn't to be good, even. Which is a monumental shame. It's that aim which killed the Bat franchise for several years. The dark knight became a laughing stock, an embarrassment. We've reached the pinnacle of its 1960's cartoonish glory, and when it's resurrected eight years later, audiences and fans were treated with the pinnacle of Batman being Batman, for good. Just sad it had to come to this before we came to that.

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman Forever [1995]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman Forever

"Because I Choose To Be" | Full disclosure right now: this review of Batman Forever is going to be a predominantly positive review, because of the fact I saw it for the first time at the age of five and I loved every little second of it. The hilarious jokes, the thrilling opening sequence with Two Face at the bank, the Batmobile, the over-the-top performance from Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey, the vibrant colors, the fight scenes, the ending, Robin, the riddles - everything about Batman Forever I loved unabashedly and to this day, despite its many problems and just plain badness, I can't hate it, because Batman Forever made me fall in love with the caped crusader. This was my movie, and although this film signals the beginning of the end of the Batman series on the movie screen for quite some time, I find myself constantly going back to it and, at times, defending it.

So that's what this is going to be. Me saying, I like Batman Forever, and this is why.

First and foremost, let's look at the films depiction of Bruce Wayne. What they could have done is make this character unrecognizable to the one began by Keaton, or turned him into a super muscular dude with snark, or given him super powers, or something. Point is, they could have messed up this character majorly. They did not. In fact, they kept Bruce Wayne very much grounded and in tune with Keaton. Michael Keaton brought a darkness and damage to Bruce Wayne, and in Returns there was a bit of comedy to the role, and all these elements remain true in Batman Forever. More than that, this film pushes the psychology of Bruce Wayne further than any film outside of Batman Begins [2005].

The memories of his father's journal that will never be written in again. The singular bat that emerged from the darkness and heralded the beginning of his destiny. The choice and drive to ensure that no one would ever have to endure what he endured ever again. The lecture to Dick about revenge and the countless faces that become your victims. Right there, the basic elements that constitute Batman are explicitly stated. This is Batman. So anyone saying that Keaton is the definitive representation of Bruce Wayne and Batman, I daresay take a closer look at Kilmer and this films interpretation. For all intents and purposes, it's the same guy. Keaton could just as easily walked into this role. But the point is that whatever negative press directed towards this movie, they got Batman and Bruce Wayne down. So that leads me to believe these are the areas people hate:

- The nipples on the batsuit. Honestly, it wasn't distracting, so I didn't care too much. It will become more dominant and obnoxious in the next one, so I'll probably complain during that review, but here, it doesn't hurt it. A commenter I read frequently brought up that women's garments are sexualized by heterosexual males in the comic strips, sporting nippes or giant breast plates that don't really serve the character well. A understandable argument. After all, including nipples on the batsuit makes no sense. Guess we'll chalk it up to artistic liberties taken by Schumacher for his own personal reasons.

- Two Face and the Riddler. Understandable hatred directed towards these two, and I won't fault anyone for hating the film because of them. But, again, I'd probably just say, your enjoyment or hatred of these two, and much of the movie, depends on how you approach Batman Forever.

- The jokes. Y'know, I didn't mind 'em too much. They were chuckle worthy. Again, this is a hammy Batman movie, not Burton's dark and serious tone. This was to be expected. So reflecting the mood of the film, it fits right in home. Can get to be a little much, that said...

Er, nevermind, actually. I feel like I'm rambling too much and not making a point. So, in essence, Batman Forever, it's a favorite of mine. Why? Because as a child, it made me fall in love with the Bats. I enjoy that the writers continued making attempts at analyzing Bruce Wayne (there's apparently a deleted scene after the attack at Wayne Manor that has Bruce with temporary amnesia and is reminded of who he is by the visage of a giant bat - I'd like to see that, gorgeous symbolism). I enjoy the wackiness of Two Face even though the Batman fan in me should absolutely hate it. I love the nifty gadgets and rides Batman and Robin use to thwart evil. I just have fun watching the flick.

If we were to look at these four original movies as a timeline of storytelling evolution, we've now exited the dark, somber, moody, analytical part of the character and are now in the transition period to something far, far worse than anyone could have expected, but at the same time, a movie that excels mightly at what it is....

Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman | You either love him or hate him. Kilmer says every line of dialogue as Wayne and Batman in the same measured, deep, kinda sleepy tone. His face never changes with the sole exception of a far-too wide grin spread across his face when Dr. Chase reveals that, instead of Rubber Nipples, she actually fancy's a normal bloke for once. But it works. By the same token, though, by maintaining the same manner of physicality and speech pattern, there's so little to discuss about Val Kilmer's portrayal as Bruce Wayne/Batman, that, in actuality, it's the script I'm most impressed by and not so much him. Perhaps it's the strength of the script that sorta....transferred that haunted, tortured persona onto the screen instead of Kilmer himself.

Concerning the character of Bruce Wayne, I have two objections about what happens in this movie: [1] Bruce states that he's never been in love, which goes entirely against the established mythology of the first Burton Batman movie. And really, what does Chase offer that the other gals didn't? More directness? And [2], what sense in the universe makes Bruce quitting being Batman so he can enjoy his love-fueled days with Dr. Chase reasonable? It's a stupid subplot, and at the very least, if a writer is going to make this action reality, it deserved more than just one brief scene before he dons the cape and cowl again. It needs to be a monumental decision, not a simple, 'well....I think that's about enough of that being Batman thing...cos this chick, who I've only been on a few dates with....yeah, gotta give up everything to be with her...' Ugh.

But enough negatives. Kilmer was fine as Bruce. And even though Keaton emoted more, there's just something about Kilmer that - despite what I wrote above - I find him to be the second most enchanting Bruce next to Christian Bale.

Tommy Lee Jones as Harvey Dent/Two-Face | This is a pretty big area where my opinion tends to differ from pretty much everyone else. See, I flippin' love what Tommy did here. It's as if he saw what Jim was doing, and thought, 'Screw you, you aren't going to over-top me!' and bolstered his performance up several pegs. This is Tommy Lee Jones as a unbridled psychopath who is very much treating Batman Forever as nothing more than a comic book movie (and, perhaps, deservedly so). Obviously I wouldn't call this the definitive portrayal of Harvey Dent as a character [since there's very, very little of the true Harvey Dent in this character at all], but it's an absolutely hilarious, totally fun interpretation of Harvey using his one-side deformity as a sort of excuse for MPD. The key to just enjoying Two Face and the Riddler is resigning yourself to just sitting back on your couch, and just allowing these two actors to simply ham it up times a billion, because they aren't playing characters, they're reinforcing the cartoony cultural depictions of villains. Exaggerated movements, lots of yelling, obsession with money and jewels, scantly clad ladies at their service, a lavish, secret lair, and in the Riddler's case, some Ridiculous Evil Scheme. But where Jim Carrey is annoying, Tommy Lee Jones is just brilliantly crazy.

In this day 'n age where there's shorts every once in a while before the movie (typically before Pixar flicks, I know, but still...), I would have loved to see some five minute mini-thingy with Tommy's Two Face stuck with another dweeb of a villain and teaching him the ropes or something. Overall, in the end, I loved Tommy's Harvey Two-Face because he's just so much damn fun. He's silly, he's psychotic,and he's a memorable nutters villain. Yes, he's not the Two Face he should be, but under the context of this movie, he's exactly the Two Face he needs to be.

Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian | Three ladies in three movies. Batman moves fast. So now we have a psychiatrist, Dr. Chase Meridian, who wants nothing but to bone the rubber out of Batman. But then she encounters Bruce, and realizes that he's a cool dude, and to make things even more nice, he's a bit of a damaged bloke, that he's got some darkness in him. At night, Batman arrives outside her door for a booty call, but Chase, ever the tease, declines the rubber monster and instead decides she fancies herself some dark and brooding turtle-neck wearing Bruce Wayne. Things get even better when it's revealed that she really doesn't have to choose at all! She can have both Bruce Wayne and Batman all in one! So she's got a damaged psyche she can assist nursing back to health, and she's got a tall, dark and handsome billionaire ready to quit his profession as a hero and spend his days immersed in a love fest with her! Life is good to Dr. Chase Meridian.

Surprisingly, despite what I wrote above, Kidman's Dr. Chase actually isn't all that bad of a character. She seems to be able to take care of herself (minus the being captured part in Act Two), she likes to wear sexy outfits instead of casual, comfy ones, and in regards to the plot, she helps peel layers of Bruce's mind to reveal memories he's long suppressed. So Dr. Chase isn't a rubbish female protagonist, or worthless or unnecessary for that matter. It's a good character who just seems to be very outwardly horny (good for you, luv). But as for the connection between Bruce and Chase, that comes across as a little less believable, especially the whole leaving-Batman-behind-cos-I'm-in-love bit. The scenes these two share don't emphasize enough of a connection to make that subplot make sense.

Jim Carrey as Edward Nygma/The Riddler | Just wanna note, The Riddler laughs more often than the Joker ever did in Batman [1989]. Just sayin'. Alrightey then, I think we can all agree that Jim Carrey was cast as the Riddler only for star power. As to whether it was the right choice or not, in the context of what this movie is, I'd say yes, absolutely. If I were to objectively look at the character of the Riddler (who Carrey's Edward Nygma hardly shares any similarities to), then Carrey and this Riddler would be one epic fail of epic proportions. Carrey exaggerates every tiny thing. His eyes. His hair (!). His legs. His arms. His head. His words. His vocals. This is a man who approached the character not as some sort of performance, but more like, 'How fuckin' crazy can I get?' And with an approving nod from Mr. Schumacher, amped up his insanity even more. These are caricature villains, and deserve to be looked at such. I mean, c'mon, let's take a gander at the Riddler's big, brilliant evil plan: using his device thingy to channel the brains of Gothamites watching the tele and taking their bank accounts and credit card number information so they can rich and happily ever after. Laaammmee.

Chris O'Donnell as Dick Grayson/Robin | If Robin were ever to be resurrected in the Batman reboot following this Friday's The Dark Knight Rises, this is a model example of how to do it. O'Donnell is wonderful in the role, full of rage at the death of his parents, finding purpose in fighting crime, battling with his desire to kill Harvey, trying to one-up Bruce, etc. This is how Robin needs to be done. If there's one bright spot for fans, I would think it would be O'Donnell's Dick. Sure, he might not completely adhere to the character established in the comics, nor the circumstances of his family's death, but O'Donnell sells the character quite well. It's a shame the script doesn't seem to have too much time for him, though, and O'Donnell does the best he can with what he's given. All that emotional character stuff is handed to Bruce, leaving Dick very little room to change as a person. In the Third Act as the decision comes whether to allow Two Face's death or save him, Dick makes the choice we all expect him to....because that's what's expected, not because it comes organically from his character. So as Robin, he looks great, and this is the right way to go. Just sad thing is, they should have done better with his character.

Gotham City | Still a combination of miniature work and digital imagery, Gotham stays very much in line with the design of the Burton Era, but, y'know, everything that was once dark, is now lit up like a freakin' Christmas tree - times a thousand. Vibrant colors abound. If we're under the assumption - as the movie is - that Batman Forever takes place in the universe first established by the Burton movies, then I guess we can surmise that Gotham entered a new period where the dark and brooding Gotham instead celebrated lights and decorated its gothic architecture with lush designs and...I dunno, glowy stuff. And it's populated with its own unique-to-this-generation gang of Neon/Blacklight street thugs with glow sticks and other sparkly weapons ready to take on anybody who enters their turf. So it's a different vibe to Gotham, but it's still very much the same, and I respect that creative decision. Pretty awesome, I dare say.

 Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• Riddler: "Was that a little over the top? I can never tell." Yes, Carrey, your entire performance can be constituted to a little over-the-top.
• Chase: "You like strong women. I've done my homework. Or do I need skintight vinyl and a whip?" Very nice reference to Batman Returns, and also emphasizes that, despite how jarringly different in tone these Schumacher movies are to the Burton films, they are, nonetheless, supposed to constitute one single universe/chronology. 
• Batman Forever. Quite often I hear/read folks who absolutely despise this title. What does it mean? That's rubbish! Who makes these titles? To me, I think it's a great title, and better than Batman Returns. With that title, it makes no sense in the context of, well, he never left! Batman's been swinging around Gotham doing his own thing, y'know? Now if it were the case of Dark Knight Rises, when he's gone from the spotlight for a period of time and then re-emerges in Gotham, that title would be apt, but as it is, it ain't so much. Anyway, that aside, this title makes great sense in context of some nifty dialogue. In the Third Act Batman tells The Riddler, "I am both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not because I have to be. Now, because I choose to be." This about sums up the Schumacher interpretation of Batman and explains away the title. He chooses to be Batman, and he will be Batman to his dying breath. Or if that isn't satisfactory enough answer, who Batman is, what he symbolizes, Batman, in life or death, will be forever.
• Two-Face: "Yes of course you’re right, Bruce. Emotion is always the enemy of true justice. Thank you, you’ve always been a good friend." These simple lines allude to a greater relationship between Bruce and Harvey than is ever realized in the movie, and that's a big, gigantic pity.

The Final Word | Let's say, if I was a teenage or adultish Batman fan in 1995 and I saw Batman Forever, my initial reaction to watching the film unfold before me on the screen would be utter outrage at the blasphemy and ridiculousness that's tarnishing the Batman name. As it is, I was five, and this movie seemed, in its own weird way, designed for me. I loved The Riddler, Two-Face, the gadgets, the whole damn lot. I can also say the whole Dr. Chase Meridian having a hard-on for Batman flew over my head, thankfully, nor did the thought cross my mind of 'damn, Bats, you're cycling through girls at a pretty quick rate, dude.' Point is, Batman Forever is the type of movie that's very dependent on your taste. As opposed to Batman & Robin, which is a bad movie no matter what way you slice it, there's actually some genuine good fun and depth here, making it not entirely a piece of crap. I genuinely like the movie, but I can entirely understand why others wouldn't. Acquired taste. RATING: 8/10

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman Returns [1992]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman Returns (1992)

"Two Truths" | Batman Returns is an interesting movie to take in. Whereas with the previous film, it was a Batman movie with Tim Burton at the helm, it's reversed here - Batman and the characters are the mercy of Burton's method of madness and oddities. Furthermore, Returns pushed the boundaries of a 'dark' superhero movie to surprising heights, to the point it's baffling Warner Bros. released this Christmas-themed beast (in June). Honestly, it's almost as if there is no right/wrong, good/bad with this movie, because it's one of those films that easily divides people - lots of people love it, and others despise it. As for me, there are parts of Batman Returns I like a lot, specifically the dynamic of Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne together, but otherwise, I can comfortably say I'd be fine holding off rewatching the movie until the Batman reboot hits theaters in about five years from now.

So what I did like - every scene with Selina and Bruce together. The super awkward but kinda-nice-in-a-weird-way dimly lit date at the mansion, or the absolutely exquisite scene at Shreck's dinner ball which boasts excellent dialogue and performances. And when in costume, the energy that ignites the movie as Batman and Catwoman circle one another and then strike. It's brilliant, and I don't exaggerate in saying that Catwoman quite easily makes the movie for me. That's not to say I particularly liked her 'origin' story, specifically the whole resurrection-by-cat-licks thing, which is, well, too bizarre for my taste. But to see that change in Selina, from humble, mumbling secretary to Max Shreck to this outward, confident, no-hold-barred individual, it's great to watch that, and it's well written to boot.

In fact, the script's pretty damn good. Sure, they change up the Penguin's origin quite a bit, take some liberties with Selina Kyle, and Max and his wicked evilness pretty much go nowhere, but all things considered, this is a solid endeavor. It touches on the psychological aspects of each of the characters, it gives motives to everyone, and even offers some genuine humor, this time not solely from Alfred. Danny Elfman comes back onboard as composer, crafting a less atmospheric tune and instead going for a vibe that fits the circus folk that assist Mr. Penguin. But despite how good the script and its actors are, there's just something about Batman Returns that doesn't make me fall in love with it, like I should. When Batman and Catwoman share the scenery, the movie is firing with electricity and I perk up in my seat anxious to see where this goes, but when the Penguin and Max come into view, it's still well written, just far less engaging.

Maybe that's the rub. Lacks the ability to grab me and immerse me in that world. Christopher Walken didn't help, either. For a movie that plays itself very seriously, Walken is simply unable to make anything work. His style just gives me the giggles, and the eye liner and pure white hair do him no favors.

So with this as Burton's last time in the directing chair of a Batman movie, what can be said about him and the two films he gave us? They certainly were ballsy going the route they went, and although I know the fans appreciated the more straightforward tone, I am curious how the general public reacted. Were they receptive of Batman how he should be presented, or were they crying fowl at the lack of camp and camera winks? Burton developed a world, takes on Gotham and its characters that are entirely his own. Tim Burton is the greatest asset and greatest villain to Batman and Batman Returns, in that ultimately, his very specific style can impede on the viewing pleasure (specifically with this one, in regards to Penguin and Max more than anything else). But it's hard to really judge Burton, because during this time period Frank Miller graced comic readers with The Dark Knight Returns which went darker and weirder than any film has ever attempted, making these movies nearly Disney by comparison.

I'll end it with this: I don't love, love, love these Burton movies. I hardly take a look at them. I like the Batsuit design. And Danny Elfman's score. But I don't enjoy them or become super engaged by them. When I watch these two movies it's more like I'm trying to find what other people love about them so damn much instead of liking or hating it myself. And writing that is going to be contradictory because elsewhere I write how I think this is a damn good movie. Maybe that's the best way to sum up the Burton films. Contradictions. It's good... ... ... but it's bad.. ... ..

Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman | Even moreso than the '89 film, Keaton shows off his strength as both Bruce and Batman. We see a Batman who appears to have a slight bit of glee in his job, as he smiles when placing an explosive on one of the clown folk, and a Wayne that actually cracks a joke at least once in a scene. Plus, in accordance with working the dumb-playboy angle, we get to see a good amount of Wayne's aloofness. He shows the outside world that sure, he's Mr. Billionaire, but he doesn't seem to be a confident figure (as seen in his conversation with Max in the beginning where he comes across as a bumbling idiot). To the outside world, he's got them fooled, but when he starts letting people close to him (e.g., Selina), a bit of that facade starts to shed and the two of them reveal their second sides.

Just blimey - honestly, Selina/Bruce/Catwoman/Batman make this movie. I said it before and I'll say it again, damnit!

As a kid watching this for the first time, I recall being floored by the moment in the climax as Batman rips his rubbery mask off to reveal the face underneath. It was astonishing! Batman revealed himself! The mask came off! It was a beautiful, powerful moment and cool beyond description. Now, it's still a highly effective scene as two damaged people try to find a 'happy ending' together, only for Selina's lust for revenge to win out [hey, Bruce got his revenge last movie, so why not her?]. Though this time, I did notice how the black around his eyes disappears when he takes the mask off. How bouts that for some humorous inconsistency. But I get the purpose - it'd be a tad freaky for Bruce to have two black circles around his eyes during a rather emotional scene.

Taking this as Keaton's last outing as Bruce Wayne and Batman, gotta say - I was highly pleased with his performance. Forcing myself to block the Nolan movies out of my head as much as possible, I have to appreciate exactly what Keaton brought to the table. He presented the man with dual identities, who is haunted by the murder of his parents, who doesn't approach dressing up as a bat as something funny, but a duty, a horrific image to inspire fear. Keaton isn't the definitive Bruce Wayne, but he got so much right he's a very close second. 

Danny DeVitto as Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin | What a poorly developed character. Borderline tragic, really. Well, poor choice of words, the character's meant to be a tragic dick. It's difficult to suss out my feelings about this guy. Sure, I'm a tad peeved that the Oswald Cobblepot we get here isn't the one from the comics, that we don't have a intelligent man who aims to take the Bat down. Nah, what we got instead is a true Tim Burton creation - which is understandable, because it's the freedom to be as Burton-y as he wanted that got him to come back for another go at the Bat - a small, fat, curly, frakkin' ugly misunderstood, sociopathic, horny guy who is more toad-y than penguin (the male version of Dolores Umbridge!). But fine, accepting what we have here, let's take a look at his character.

Continuing with the duality theme, Oswald is struggling between his animalistic side known as 'The Penguin', where he chows down on fish all day long and hangs with some circus freaks, and the respectable public figure that is, for some reason, running for mayor as his destined legal name, Oswald Cobblepot. In the end, Oswald's nature wins his ambition to order Gotham around, and basically just decides to blow the whole place to nothingness. Well, at least be satisfied with the deaths of several thousand Gothamites. No hateration towards Danny DeVito, he did just fine with what he had to work with, but something about the Penguin just doesn't work. Maybe it comes down to him simply not coming across very villain-y, which is, I recognize, a odd thing to say for a guy who was about to kill thousands. But Penguin, he's more like an adult child still in diapers and complaining about how the world doesn't understand him. Bats should just lock him up at Arkham and be done with it. And Gotham's fascination with the Penguin, and willingness to even take him seriously as a mayoral candidate - baffles me.

The grossest, and maybe even the funniest, thing from the whole movie? Penguin's death. He picks out an umbrella with the intended purpose of using it as a gun against Batman, only for it to be one of the cute ones. And this is the gross, perhaps too much part: black 'blood' gurgling from his mouth as he dies and his bulbous thuds to the floor. Not the prettiest sight, and makes the character all the more pitiful. So Batman was all about revenge and our dark side, Batman Returns is about our duality and animalistic nature? Overall, no fault to DeVito, Penguin just didn't work for me.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle/Catwoman | A performance so damn good it nearly makes up for the abomination of that Halle Berry Catwoman [2004]. Almost. For the two scenes she's Ms. Dorkable, Pfeiffer sells it perfectly, a disheveled woman who has no social life to speak of, is consumed with her work, and not remotely appreciated by her employers. And what does she get for it? A near-near death experience. Thanks to a certain connection to a cat or a dozen, she gets a second chance. A rebirth, as someone entirely new. Complete opposite of the clumsy, mumbling Selina Kyle she was. Now she's a woman with complete control over her body, her attitude, and takes everything by the balls. No bullshit. Her taste in costuming is questionable, but with such a perfect performance - and chemistry with Michael Keaton in each of their scenes together - who am I to complain about her outfit? It works.

Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• The Bat Signal. Sure, it's cool and all, Bruce seeing the signal up in the sky and standing all heroically. But the downside of that is, it takes a bit of time to get everything on, go zoom zoom with the Batmobile, and then arrive at the scene of the crime. So, depending on where the crime is happening, hypothetically, Batman really wouldn't be there until, say, a half hour after the signal lights up, in which case there would really be no reason for his being there by that time. Thus, erm, I think it would be better if Burton just shot Batman already in Gotham, overlooking the people from one of the many gothic skyscrapers, cos that would make more sense - plus be very pretty!
• Alfred: "Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?" 
• Does there really need to be so much posing? Ugh. Sadly, it's something that's not leaving anytime soon. I did find it a nice visual confirmation of Bruce's obsession, that he looks at the world in an orderly fashion, and picks out his identical rubber suit and boots in a seemingly orderly, meticulous manner. 
• Bruce: "Security? Who let Vicki Vale into the Batcave? I'm sitting there working, and I turn around, there she is: 'Oh, hi, Vick, come on it.'" One brilliant line accomplishing both a fan service and just being hilarious (harkening back to Bruce's sense of humor, which seems to have grown loads since the first film). After all, that was a head-scratching 'huh?' choice on Alfred's part. Vicki knew something was up, but I wouldn't credit her with the wisdom to find out Bruce's deep, dark secret on her own. And Bruce's explanation of Vicki's being goneness isn't exactly completely satisfying, but, y'know, we got Selina now - see ya later Vicki!
• Just a quick note, but I did appreciate how the movie seemed less filmed on studio lots and instead had a more expanded range, opening up Gotham City to more than just a few street corners. Amazing what a few establishing shots and new locations can do. Still, Gotham lacks the grandiose, gigantamus, industrial vibe it should, and we sorta get that in Batman Forever, but more on that later...
• Penguins blowing up Gotham. Just want to, y'know, emphasize that plot point...

The Final Word | A commenter on the SuperheroHype! forums said not to look at Batman Returns as a action movie. After all, Burton isn't particularly skilled with choreographing and shooting the action to make it look nifty and fluid. But to look at the film as a simple character study. Bruce and Selina attracted to each other as broken creatures ("split right down the middle"), the similarities of Batman and Catwoman, and a hint of...I don't quite know...something between Batman and the Penguin ("Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?"/"You're just jealous I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!", "You might be right.") in the 'freak' department. It's a movie that definitely works in the script and the chemistry between Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer, but at the end of the day, Returns is a movie that just doesn't ask me to come back to it. The film's dark, sure, but it's not too dark in tone, just visuals. There's not too much here you wouldn't find in The Dark Knight, really.

Overall, good movie. But yeah, a tad over-rated. 6.5/10