Superman Retrospective: Superman: The Movie

Superman: The Movie (1978)
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando
Directed by: Richard Donner


We're less than a month away from the Man of Steel returning to the big screen, so there's no better time than now to finally try and sit through all the Superman movies. I've seen the 2 most recent Superman films, but I've never immersed myself in the complete filmmaking journey it takes with documentaries and binge watching the franchise that I've done with the MCU or the Batman films. The ones that I knew were going to be the true test of appreciation and approval were the Christopher Reeve's Superman movies. Not only were these four films I'd never seen before, but they're films that a lot of people my age probably wouldn't be able to enjoy when there's a more modern version of Superman out there today. So, heading into Superman: The Movie, I was very intrigued with the kind of cinematic experience I would be in for. And for the most part, I was very satisfied with the results. Naturally, it hasn't aged the greatest over the course of  nearly 40 years, but there is still plenty that make this film an icon of the silver screen and one of the most important comic book movies of all-time. So let's see what elements of Superman: The Movie are still soaring high all these years later.

The star that shines brightest in this entire franchise is Christopher Reeve as Superman. He's such a delight as both Superman and Clark Kent. Those glasses might be a stupid disguise, but you can still detect the nuances he does to differentiate the two. Knowing that the role could have gone to someone like Robert Redford or Paul Newman, I'm thankful they gave the part to a virtual unknown actor. There's something about him that just looks and feels like the genuine article when it comes to Superman. It's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. When you say Superman, Christopher Reeve is probably the first person that popped into your head. And how could you not? He's campy, but he has a charm to him that I really like. He's the Superman moviegoers needed to see on the big screen at the time, so I would never shun his performance for lacking the dark and gritty nature that we cling to nowadays.

One of the key names attached to Superman: The Movie early on was Marlon Brando as Superman's father Jor-El. I've heard enough stories of how much of a nightmare Brando could be to work with, but you can't deny the talent in front of you. He's one of the best actors of all-time and he is responsible for commanding your attention for about the first half hour of the movie while Superman is an infant. The entire planet of Krypton is such an interesting aspect of the movie, reflecting a world we have never seen before on film.

But a lot of that has to do with the insane amount of quality production design for the film. The technical aspects for Superman: The Movie are off the charts, displaying many iconic locations in Superman folklore. We see Krypton, Metropolis, Smallville, all showcasing a different look and tone from the others. It helps paint a realistic and visually stunning part of Superman's world. Of course, the exterior shots of Metropolis are CLEARLY New York, but that's a minor gripe.

As far as Superman: The Movie is concerned, a lot of it has aged well. But whatever doesn't age well sticks out like a sore thumb. A lot of the characters are over the top and cartoony. The costumes for a lot of characters look like they're out of the '70s. And of course, a lot of people complain about the scene where Superman turns back time by circling the Earth backwards. Silly? Yes, but it gave everyone a happy ending, so I consider it pretty harmless. But other than that, the movie really holds some value. It has great effects and production design, a memorable cast of characters, and it proved that one of the most legendary superheroes can come to life on film. Without a film like this, filmmakers may never had taken gambles on adapting superheroes like Spider-Man, Batman, or The Avengers for film. Even if you think this movie series hasn't aged well, you have to admit that the landscape of the modern movie industry would be completely different if a film like Superman: The Movie never existed.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Superman: The Movie may seem trapped in the '70s on the surface, but there's a lot going for it. Amazing production design, great editing, a terrific score, groundbreaking special effects, a well-rounded supporting cast, and the debut of the world's most recognizable Man of Steel. All these things come together to give you a fun adventure that proved a man could fly and that comic books can come to life on the big screen.

Superman: The Movie and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Command Center Commentaries: Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie (1995)
Starring: Jason David Frank, Johnny Yong Bosch, Amy Jo Johnson
Directed by: Bryan Spicer


If you've seen my TV blog, you'll know that I'm a HUGE fan of Power Rangers. But, the Power Rangers haven't just had adventures on the TV screen. To date, there have been 2 Power Rangers movies, with a film reboot in the works that could turn into a franchise, so I'm going to try and tackle those films to coincide with the timeline of my TV reviews. With that in mind, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. I can't begin to tell you how many times I saw this film growing up. This is easily my most nostalgic film of my childhood. I'll absolutely love this movie no matter how old I get. That being said, even I can't ignore just how cheesy and full of the '90s this film is. But, if you're part of the fandom, you'll most likely forgive how goofy this movie can come off and accept it as a guilty pleasure of a time when these spandex-wearing teenagers were the biggest pop culture phenomenon on the face of the Earth. So, what are we waiting for? It's Morphin Time! Let's dive right into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie.

Of course, we couldn't have the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie without the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. At this point in the show's history, we are with the second incarnation of the team. That includes Kimberly (the Pink Ranger), Billy (the Blue Ranger), Rocky (the Red Ranger), Adam (the Black Ranger), Aisha (the Yellow Ranger), and Tommy (the White Ranger). If you know their characters on the show, then you'll be satisfied with them in the movie. Tommy is still the leader, Billy is still the smart one, Kimberly and Aisha represent '90s girl power, and Rocky and Adam have their own little best friendship that is evident. Not much else to it that's out of the ordinary with the show.

But there is a bunch of new stuff thrown into the mix in order to give this adventure a bit of freshness. For starters, we have a new villain Ivan Ooze, played by Paul Freeman. I really love Ivan's look, even if it is really ridiculous. He makes the most of the scenes he's in and is definitely one of the biggest challenges the Power Rangers have ever faced. The Rangers also get new powers and zords, based on the fighting style of ninjas, and I like the look of their new powers. The ninja suits are a change of pace from the traditional spandex, while still reflecting the tone and aesthetics of a traditional Power Rangers suit. The zords leave a lot to be desired though, thanks to some really horrible CGI that makes me desperately miss the guys in the rubber zord suits from the show.

Speaking of the show, the plot of this movie has no direct continuity with the show. In fact, the origin of how they got their ninja powers is completely rebooted for Season 3 (which I'll cover on my TV blog very soon). It has enough in common with the show to be a proper representation on film, while also feeling like its own entity made for the big screen. I mean, look at those armored suits, the larger budget, filming in Australia, the soundtrack full of tons of big name music acts from Red Hot Chili Peppers to Van Halen, and the fact that this is an hour longer than your average episode of Power Rangers. The major reason that I get a kick out of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie is that it's an episode of the TV show injected with steroids. The film was released at the height of the show's popularity and delivered a popcorn flick that could market the general appeal and premise of the show to people who have never seen the show before, as well as the show's biggest fans (like yours truly).


Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

I watched this film a lot when I was younger, but I'm older and can accept that it is very heavily flawed. Still, this was a dream come true for me to see the Power Rangers on the big screen for the first time, so I can't separate my attachment to such a campy film, since the mere concept of the show is already campy enough. If you like Power Rangers, give Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie a try and I'm sure you'll find some entertainment out of it.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and movie images are copyrighted by 20th Century Fox

Favorite Franchises: The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Tom Hardy
Directed by: Christopher Nolan


Here's another Batman movie that I'm not going to sugar cut. I hate this movie. I HATE this movie! I sat in the movie theater on opening day, ready to see the Dark Knight trilogy come to a glorious end. And by the time I left the theater, I thought to myself "What the heck was that?" I knew that this film would have a really tough time living up to the cinematic achievement that The Dark Knight set, but I was at least hoping for a movie that was up to par with Batman Begins. I didn't get that. Instead, I got a film that I found myself to be in a minority on for hating. I went on for years, telling all my friends how much I was disappointed by The Dark Knight Rises, and everyone told me I was overreacting. It's been over 3 years now, and I think there's a good number of fanboys out there that have stopped sipping that Christopher Nolan Kool-Aid and have finally woken up to admit this was a disappointing finale. It's not a bad movie on a technical standpoint, I will admit that. Just because it's a movie I hate, doesn't make it an entirely bad movie. But, there's enough fouls on the creative directions for the film that leave the film feeling completely bloated and underwhelming. So let's look at the major cons and minor pros of The Dark Knight Rises.

So let's start by addressing the major villain advertised for the film, Tom Hardy as Bane. For starters, I hate the voice. This voice is dumber than Batman's and really easy to make fun of. It's just silly sounding and you can barely understand half of what he's saying. Also, I'm not a fan of how he doesn't really look that physically imposing in comparison to Batman. I know they couldn't really incorporate the Venom steroid into this film, and they at least gave him his sense of intelligence and psychology. But if I can't imagine him being physically imposing to Batman, I can't believe that he would be able to cripple Batman in a fight. That's just common sense on selling a threatening villain to an audience. I also hate the ending of this film, making Bane a sidekick to *SPOILER ALERT* Talia al Ghul, played by Marion Cotillard under the character name of Miranda Tate. That just completely pulls me out of everything the movie was going for and enters the "jumping the shark level." They tried to replicate the ending they had in Batman Begins, this time ending up as a predictable and underwhelming plot twist.

The only major villain that works for me is Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Ok, villain is a strong term. She's more of an anti-hero. Anyways, I wasn't expecting much from Hathaway when I heard she was cast, but one scene in and I was completely fascinated by her character. Her unassuming demeanor really plays to her advantage and I like how a lot of her outfit is made to be a functional part of her cat burgling. I also really enjoy the chemistry Hathaway has with Christian Bale. You could believe in a short period of time that Batman and Catwoman would fall for each other. Well, kinda. I guess. It does come a little out of nowhere considering how much Bruce couldn't get over Rachel. In fact, a lot of that happened with Bruce Wayne's scenes with Miranda Tate. I'm suddenly reminded why I hated a lot of the directions this film takes with the storytelling.

The other actor that is trying hard to do well in the movie is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Detective John Blake. He's one of the most morally pure characters in the film, and leads to both Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon trusting him with valuable information and tasks. Of course, there's a huge spoiler attached to his character, which you don't find out til the end. But trust me when I said, I also saw this twist coming a number of months before the film came out. It's not a bad twist, leaving the film on an ambiguous "to be continued...?" note. I liked how Levitt played the part, making me care about his character more than most of the established characters in this universe that appear in this movie.

Hans Zimmer did the music for this movie, and it isn't bad music to listen to. The only problem is that it doesn't really sound like great Batman music. I still think the Danny Elfman score is still the most appropriate soundtrack for a film about Batman. Not much else to say. The music is good, but it isn't the best Batman music I've heard.

For a nearly 3-hour runtime, The Dark Knight Rises has a serious pacing issue. Trying to cram in a whole bunch of new material, while trying to tie together all the loose ends from the last two movies. It's just a creative mess. You can throw a whole bunch of new characters and plot devices our way, but it has to mean something. This should be something that properly feels like it's the logical payoff for both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but something feels off. Maybe something feel through in the story development process. Maybe it was going to have more direct mention of The Joker, and they had to scrap that due to Heath Ledger's death. There was probably potential for a really good finale, but this isn't it. It's in this installment where all the plot holes and questions you've been trying to ignore really begin to unravel everything. So, do yourself a favor and make a choice. You either check your brain at the door, which doesn't seem like something you would have to do during a Christopher Nolan movie. Or, you do what a lot of people have done with The Godfather trilogy and stop watching after the second film.


Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

The Dark Knight Rises is a film that looks good and has a handful of standout performances. But that's all it really offers. Every other accolade the fanboys have been giving it is pure fluff based on a bias love of Batman, the other two films in the trilogy, or Christopher Nolan films in general. It's a very polarizing comic book film. You're either gonna love it or hate it. Me personally, I hate it and that's never going to change. But maybe, like Batman & Robin, I can forgive it over time when another good Batman film comes along.

The Dark Knight Rises and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Favorite Franchises: Batman Begins

Batman Begins (2005)
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson
Directed by: Christopher Nolan


Now here's where things get tricky. I reviewed The Dark Knight, the SECOND installment in a trilogy as part of my 1001 Movies list nearly 3 years ago. So, there's no real need to touch base on that one again. If you wanted any modern thoughts, I would still tell you that it's one of my all-time favorite films to watch and one of the best films in modern history. But there's a lot more to this trilogy than just the second chapter. So, this weekend I'm going to tackle the first and third chapters, that way I have the entire trilogy reviewed before Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is released in March. With that in mind, Batman Begins. This was Warner Bros. big way of trying to return Batman to the big screen after completely wrecking the character's film legacy with Batman & Robin. Rather than trying to continue where they left off, they decided the strongest idea would be to reboot the story of the Caped Crusader, with a new director, a new leading man, and a much darker tone than we've seen before. The result is a film that definitely impressed people, but I think has fallen to the wayside over the last decade because everyone praises The Dark Knight. There's room for there to be more than one strong film in a trilogy. In fact, this trilogy has two. JUST two. But more on that next time. Let's look at what holds up in Batman Begins.

Christian Bale stars as the modern Bruce Wayne/Batman, and does a pretty good job with it. I just don't think he's my favorite. I've always been partial to Michael Keaton, but I will acknowledge Bale as a close second. I think he makes for a very compelling Bruce Wayne, but struggles a little bit when it comes to Batman. It's easy to mention how ridiculous his voice is, but in Batman Begins, it actually isn't noticeably raspy. At least, noticeably TOO raspy. In this film, we are given a true origin story that explains how Bruce Wayne evolved into becoming Batman, so we get to see many layers that Bale is able to bring to the role. I think that's why Bale really shines as Bruce Wayne and is only good as Batman. When he's Batman, it's nothing we haven't really seen before. We've seen Batman on the big screen and it really doesn't care who is behind the cape and cowl. Batman is the symbol and...sorry, I was dipping into some of the film's dialogue to create a metaphor. Anyways, Bale is the man who has played Batman the most on the big screen, so I have to give him credit for that, but I prefer his contributions to the character of Bruce Wayne.

Two of the characters that play the role of helping Bruce Wayne in his duties as Batman are Alfred Pennyworth, played by Michael Caine, and Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman. Both do very well in their roles, which just comes naturally because they're two of the most experienced actors alive, but part of me can't detach them from their actors. I don't necessarily see Alfred and Lucius. I mainly see Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. Some people might take this as a knock on the cast, but trust me when I say this trilogy has one of the best casts imaginable, including Caine and Freeman.

One of the true highlights of the cast is Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon. There's not a whole lot to say. He's one of my favorite character actors and fully transforms himself into the role of Commissioner (in this film Sergeant) Gordon. He shines the strongest in his scenes with Batman. You can tell that he really trusts the guy to save Gotham, and that he's one of the most morally sound people in Gotham that Batman trusts. Another cast member that I prefer in Batman Begins is Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Nothing overly great, but in comparison with what Maggie Gyllenhaal does with the role in The Dark Knight, I prefer Holmes. I can't quite put my finger on why, but it might be that I believe she would be someone that Bruce Wayne would want to be with. Gyllenhaal is more believable in her profession in the DA's office than Holmes is, but it's one of those pick and choose decisions. I think Holmes is the definitive Rachel simply because her romance with Bruce is the main focus of her character.

And the cast doesn't end there. We also have a great number of villains on display in Batman Begins. Cillian Murphy does a great job as the Scarecrow, but I wish he would have been used a little more once he puts on the mask. He's only in a few scenes in this film and regulated to mere cameos throughout the trilogy. The real villain standout of the film is *SPOILER ALERT* Liam Neeson as Ra's al Ghul. If you were watching the movie for the first time, it was probably a big surprise that Neeson was Ra's since we saw another high-profile actor, Ken Watanabe, play him during Bruce's training and Neeson was playing Bruce's mentor Henri Ducard. As we find out, the Ra's during Bruce's training was a decoy, and Ducard is the real Ra's. Watching that for the first time, that is quite a twist that I didn't see coming. Granted, I was 12 years old and not familiar with the character, so I bought it hook, line, and sinker. But there's probably a bunch of comic readers who saw it coming a mile away. Still, kudos for giving the casual viewers a shock with that reveal. Neeson is really good in this role, which shouldn't come as a surprise. He thrives in the mentor role, which is how we get to know him. And when he becomes the film's main villain, he steps into a place not many moviegoers are used to seeing him in a lot of the time, but I quite enjoyed seeing him as a villain.

I know a lot are quick to discredit some of the filmmaking decisions in this movie, like the quick edits and the shaky cam, but that's actually one of the elements I like about the film. It stands out against the Batman films we had seen before and has a look and tone of its own. Even in comparison with the sequels in the trilogy, that look so crisp and defined with its cinematography and locations, Batman Begins feels like a darker, grittier type of Batman film that hasn't been topped in tone. It's definitely underrated as far as mainstream comic book films are concerned, but it's been gaining some steam over time and is nowadays getting the recognition it deserves. I still think The Dark Knight is the best made film in the trilogy, but this is probably the entry that holds truest to being like an actual comic book adaptation. So I think that makes Batman Begins the Batman film we didn't need then, but the one we deserve.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

With all the love The Dark Knight gets, I wish a lot more people would give Batman Begins a chance. The origin story and the filmmaking techniques definitely hold the attention of the viewer, and I think this is the best entry in the trilogy for comic book purists. The film's style might seem a bit disjointed once you check out the sequels, but this is still one of the best Batman films I've ever seen and one I'll be watching a lot more often.

Batman Begins and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Deadpool Review

Deadpool (2016)
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein
Directed by: Tim Miller


This Valentine's Day weekend, the comic book world was able to celebrate a film event we never thought possible: a solo-film adaptation of fan favorite anti-hero Deadpool. I don't think the causal viewer will know just how impossible comic book fans thought this film would be to achieve. In the modern comic book film era we live in, it's a superhero movie with a hard R rating, for a comic book character that has one of the biggest cult followings out there, starring the guy that brought the character to life in that God awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine film, and has been in development hell for over a decade. Needless to say, I was excited but skeptical. And surprisingly, the film works REALLY well. In fact, for what it's trying to be, it's about as perfect as you can get. It has a great cast. It has great action sequences. And the humor is off the charts in being both completely raunchy and heavily meta. I'm not sure if I can give it much more praise than that, but darn it, I'm gonna try. These are my initial thoughts and impressions about Deadpool.

Ryan Reynolds stars as Wade Wilson, a cancer victim who undergoes a procedure that turns him into the anti-hero Deadpool. What can I possibly say other than Reynolds was born to play Deadpool. He's absolutely perfect. He knows this character so well and plays him to perfection. He has the humor down, the comedic timing, the smarmy, yet likable attitude. It's like seeing Hugh Jackman as Wolverine or Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man. I don't want anyone else playing Deadpool on film except for Ryan Reynolds. It's no secret that Deadpool was not handled well in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but at least Reynolds left an impression as the character. And considering that Reynolds helped produce this movie, you can tell he has an attachment to the role and handles his performance with a lot of love and respect.

But Reynolds isn't the only memorable performance in the movie. This film has a tremendous supporting cast. Morena Baccarin plays Wade Wilson's girlfriend Vanessa and you really get the chemistry between the two, even if it is through dirty jokes. Ed Skrein plays main villain Ajax, doing a great job at being a villain you want to see get beat up. He's one you love to hate, which is honestly hard to come by if you look at a lot of the modern Marvel movies. And that's just the tip of a rich cast of great characters. I can't talk about all of them, or else we'd be here all day and there'd be no reason to check it out. But trust me when I say this, Deadpool knows how to get on each of their last nerves.

One thing that made the film great to watch was the action sequences. And no, it's not just because of how gory it was, although that does help. The action was boosted by the unique set pieces, which created scenes that felt very fresh to watch. When you're a comic book fan and you see a fight scene that feels fresh to watch, it is a completely exhilarating, balls to the walls kind of experience that has you raging in your theater seat going "YEAH!!! DEADPOOL!!! WOO!!!" We live in a time where the action genre in mainstream films is nearly non-existent. Nothing feels that new anymore, so I was very refreshed to see a joke-spewing Ryan Reynolds hack and shoot every bad guy in his path. Does that make me a bad person? I don't know. I don't care. I just know what I like, and that action I liked a lot.

But the element that allows Deadpool to live up to the hype is the humor. Known for breaking the 4th wall and having some of the most inappropriate humor in all of comic books, the humor was key to get right. If they hadn't hit the right note in the humor department, or God forbid made it a PG-13 film, it wouldn't work. This film made me laugh. HARD. My goodness, I was crying in the theater. They hit every reference that you'd expect them to hit. Sex jokes, X-Men jokes, MCU jokes, drug jokes, jokes about Green Lantern, jokes about Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, jokes about Ryan Reynold's acting ability, talking to the audience, referencing another film to do the post credits sequence. It just keeps you laughing over and over. This is the superhero movie for adults to sit through, thoroughly enjoy, feel completely bad about themselves afterwards, and not give a crap about the consequences. And that's the kind of feeling I think a film like Deadpool needs to leave on its audience. And that's why it's awesome!


Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Deadpool delivers everything you would be hoping for in his big screen adaptation. Great action sequences, adult humor, memorable characters, and enough meta humor to satisfy everyone out there on the internet. If you're a fan of the property, you won't be disappointed. If you're a casual superhero fan, give it a shot if you're looking for something a little less formulaic. Just PLEASE do not take your kids with you to this.

Deadpool and movie images are copyrighted by 20th Century Fox

Favorite Franchises: Batman & Robin

Batman & Robin (1997)
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Chris O'Donnell
Directed by: Joel Schumacher


Oh merciful heavens! We've come to one of the superhero films that I have been dreading the most on reviewing. It's no secret to the world that Batman & Robin is considered one of the worst movies in history, and I won't be treating it lightly. It isn't an elephant in the room. It's a giant turd and everyone knows it. But I have somewhat of an ironic appreciation for what I see whenever I watch it. If you watch the bonus features on a DVD of Batman & Robin, you will see that the filmmakers put effort towards making this film and took such pride in their choices. This review will more or less dissect why all of those decisions were the wrong ones. I can't deny that the production value is nice, but this is the epitome of style over substance. The filmmakers and actors have gone on record to admit that they were filming as if they were making a cartoon or a toy commercial. It's a complete contrast in styles from the Tim Burton films that launched the franchise that this film DESTROYED! With how much I love the Caped Crusader, Batman & Robin is Batman blasphemy, and if I have to sit through every painfully hilarious moment of this piece of crap, I'm going to make you feel my pain as well.

We'll start by talking about the film's leading man: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yeah, I know George Clooney is the one playing Batman, but he doesn't get top billing against Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze. Just look at the guy. Do you see this guy being a threatening villain? Look at the costume. Listen to that thick Austrian accent spewing ice puns every other sentence. It's awful. Completely awful. From someone who just reviewed the Mr. Freeze from Batman: The Animated Series, I consider this version a complete insult. Seriously, was their no other actor in Hollywood that they thought would have brought a bit of dignity to Mr. Freeze for the film? What a waste of something that could have actually been a deep, thought provoking villain for a Batman film. Instead, we have the Terminator as a refrigerator. Oh, and don't make his ice puns a drinking game because you'll die of alcohol poisoning an hour into the movie.

As I said earlier, George Clooney is our Batman in this film and he does an awful job at it. He just feels like he's playing himself and that he doesn't feel quite comfortable being there. I think he does an ok job at playing Bruce Wayne, especially in his scenes with Alfred, but again being good looking and charming is just another day for George Clooney. At least his chin looks good in the Batsuit, which could've possibly been the basis for why he was cast.

Another new addition to the cast is Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. Again, another awful performance from someone who doesn't look comfortable in their role. I can get away from the idea that this version of Barbara isn't the daughter of Commissioner Gordon and is instead Alfred's niece, a decision probably made due to the fact that their Gordon sucks in these movies. What I can't get away from is just how bland she is.

The one cast member who is dripping with personality is Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. I am under the belief that Uma Thurman would be a great Poison Ivy in a good Batman movie, but we weren't so lucky here. Everyone around her is so dull in their delivery that everything she is dishing out is beyond over the top. She is supposed to be this sex symbol for the movie, but she's saying way too much ridiculous dialogue and innuendos to kill whatever sex appeal she has going for her. Her performance needed some modern nuance to make Poison Ivy not feel like a dated performance from decades earlier. Not to mention she's flanked by a HORRIBLE version of Bane that gets the outer appearance right, but reduces all intelligence that Bane had in the comic books. Seriously, he walks around usually saying one word like a meathead. Awful. Just awful.

There's a great amount of effort put into the production design, but the effort is towards ideas that absolutely SUCK! Batman & Robin gave us such memorable moments as nipples on the Batsuit, the Bat Credit Card, a neon-light Batmobile, and a bunch of other set pieces that are far removed from the days of the Tim Burton movies. The remainder of the film becomes a combination of hilarious and horrifying all at once. It has about as much dignity as the Adam West version, and considering that it followed both the Tim Burton movies and the amazing animated series, this is definitely a step in the WRONG direction. So much so that a fifth film in the franchise was cancelled and future plans for another Batman movie would be put on ice for about 8 years. Wait, an ice pun? CURSES!!!!


Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

I'm ironically giving Batman & Robin half a star. Not for the effort that was put forward in the effects or production design. Not for any level of acting ability. Not for a well-written screenplay. And certainly not for being a proper representation of Batman. A half star rating was given to this film because it is one of the most hilarious botches in film history. If you value all things Batman, proceed with caution. Once you've seen Batman & Robin, you can't unsee it.

Batman & Robin and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Favorite Franchises: Batman Forever

Batman Forever (1995)
Starring: Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey
Directed by: Joel Schumacher


After Batman Returns failed to be the success that Warner Bros. was looking for, the decision was made to go forward without Tim Burton as the director. When plans for Batman Forever were underway, the studios also had a problem at hand when Michael Keaton decided to not return either. So with Joel Schumacher taking over as director, the franchise had to have a new flavor thrown into the mix. Gone were the dark shadows and in its place, bright colors and a lavish production design. Add some more memorable villains to the fray and the introduction of Batman's young sidekick, and you have the makings of another great Batman film, right? Well, no, actually. While a huge financial success at the time, Batman Forever has garnered a severe fan backlash over the years. Considered a film that is too goofy, lacking in quality compared to the Burton movies, or simply hasn't aged well over the last 20 years, it has garnered nearly as much hate as the follow up to this film. If you know you're movie history, you'll know what movie I'm referring too. But I'll never think that this movie is THAT bad. It's just a bit silly. So, riddle me this, what is so good about Batman Forever that I'll never call it a piece of crap or a disappointment?

Replacing Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Batman is Val Kilmer. I'm one to think that Kilmer gets a bad rap as a Batman actor. He isn't as famed as Michael Keaton or Christian Bale, but he does pretty well for a guy that only played Batman in one film. I will say, he does have a better time at playing Bruce Wayne than Batman. Suave, sophisticated, yet rugged. I actually think he draws inspiration from the Bruce Wayne of Batman: The Animated Series. If not, they're very similar in the way they present themselves and it is very distinguishable from the way Keaton or played Bruce Wayne. Val Kilmer won't go down as the greatest actor to ever play Batman, but I think his performance in Batman Forever is worth another look for fans of the Caped Crusader.

We have another double dose of villains for this film. The most memorable is Jim Carrey as The Riddler. Seriously, look at the guy. He's having an absolute blast playing Riddler and steals the whole show. Is he hamming it up? You better believe it, but it's Jim Carrey at the height of his popularity doing what he does best while playing a Batman villain. You get what you pay for. He's joined by Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. Listen, Tommy Lee Jones is a great actor. Two-Face is a great Batman villain. Heck, even the makeup job in this film is spectacular. But this isn't a good casting decision at all. He's just too over the top. He's playing it for laughs. As someone who just reviewed the Two-Face origin in Batman: The Animated Series, I know how this character should be played. They just missed the mark with Two-Face. It doesn't help that he starts out as the main villain and gets completely upstaged by The Riddler. Thankfully, we got a much better version of Two-Face down the road in The Dark Knight.

Batman and Bruce Wayne's love interest for the film is Dr. Chase Meridian, played by Nicole Kidman. A psychologist that is in love with Batman and also has Bruce as a recurring patient. Yeah, her behavior is completely unprofessional, but even she admits that she's like a school girl with a crush. She doesn't really add much to the movie except something nice to look at from time to time. At least female characters like Vicki Vale and Selina Kyle had a little more richness and character to enjoy. There was more to them than just looks. And just because you say that your character has a brain by calling her doctor doesn't automatically make her a smart and thought provoking character. There IS a difference.

One of the more fleshed out characters in the movie is Dick Grayson, played by Chris O'Donnell. Of course, we know that Dick Grayson becomes Robin, so this film serves as the origin and introduction of the Boy Wonder himself, with a '90s twist. Usually the butt of many jokes among comic fans, it's evident that the idea was to make Robin a teen heartthrob. Make him rebellious, put him on a motorcycle, and give him an earring. Stuff like that. I know Robin gets REALLY whiny by the next film, but here it's tolerable. He's younger, inexperienced, full of teen angst, and wants revenge for Two-Face murdering his family. You can see where he's at mentally and emotionally because you'd probably be there too. He has great chemistry in his scenes with Bruce Wayne and Alfred and makes for a welcome addition to the Batcave.

Yes, it's campy, cartoonish, and flawed, but I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Batman Forever. It's a guilty pleasure of the '90s and my first major experience with Batman. It's missing that dark production design that the Burton movies had, but has a number of fun highlights. I swear, you'll be seeing neon colors, particularly green, all throughout this movie, but that's where the film has some of its charm. It had to define its own tone and look with a new director at the helm, and I'd call the film, for the most part, a success. It was a bright hope that the franchise could have been in safe hands with Joel Schumacher. Unfortunately, it proved to only be the beginning of the end for the original Batman franchise, as the success of Batman Forever led to the creation of one of the biggest blunders in film history. But I can talk about that next weekend.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

While not exactly the same style as the Burton movies, Batman Forever has a flashy flavor that works for the type of film it's trying to be. It's trying to be a living comic book or cartoon series, but it never goes TOO over the top, at least not frequently. The portrayals of Riddler and Robin are done very well and there's even an underrated Batman performance in there as well. Don't set your sights too high, and you should be able to have a fun time with this one.

Batman Forever and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Favorite Franchises: Batman Returns

Batman Returns (1992)
Starring: Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer
Directed by: Tim Burton


In less than 2 months, my favorite caped crusader will be back on the big screen. To get ready for it, I think it's time I cover the rest of the Batman movies. Here's where things get tricky. More than 2 years ago, I reviewed 1989's Batman as part of my 1001 Movies series, but it's time to cover the sequels. That isn't so bad, just pick up where I left off, and address this as one of my favorite franchises. That's easy. The Dark Knight Trilogy, there's the challenge. But on to Batman Returns. Batman had become a huge hit at the end of the '80s, so the door was definitely open to continue the series. Michael Keaton was on board to return, but how do you top Jack Nicholson's amazing portrayal of The Joker? An even bigger question is how Tim Burton could re-create a production design that felt familiar, but was still something fresh for the eyes. The idea was simple, you add more than one villain into the plot and you set the movie during Christmastime. How did Batman Returns fare out? Well, let's see.

Michael Keaton is back as Bruce Wayne and Batman. I still think Michael Keaton is the man and gives a strong performance as Batman. He's my favorite portrayal of the Dark Knight at this point and it's because of the little things. He uses the detective skills that don't show up that often in Batman movies, disguises his voice without giving himself a sore throat, and if you separated the two as individual characters, it would actually be difficult to figure out that they're one in the same. Not to mention he's able to be a main part of the story, while also looming in the shadows, allowing newer characters the time to get introduced and fully developed.

We're given two main Batman villains for the price of one in this film, starting with the mysterious Penguin, played by Danny DeVito. Give the makeup crew some serious credit for this one, because they took a character in the comics and completely reinvented him for the modern age. Instead of making him a sophisticated gangster, they make him some mutated, disgusting, penguin-looking creature. And if you listen to interviews, Danny DeVito was the first choice and for good reason. He absolutely OWNS every scene he is in. He's the highlight of this film. And we also were given Catwoman, played by Michelle Pfeiffer. Um, she's a, well...sorry, lost my train of thought. But look at that photo, how could you blame me? She added some raw, sex appeal to the role that made her one of the ultimate femme fatales of the comic book movie genre. Pfeiffer's chemistry with Michael Keaton is another strong highlight of the movie, and is probably the best romance I've seen played out in any Batman movie. The combination of both Catwoman and the Penguin in the movie make this one of the most memorable chapters in the Batman film legacy because they are well acted and visually striking. Once you've seen their performances, they stay with you forever.

And then we are given the bonus of a third villain, businessman Max Schreck, played by Christopher Walken. Oh Walken, how I love thee. He's just so good in how awkward and nonchalant his delivery is in every role he's done. I really like him as Schreck. If it was anyone else, I don't think the character would have worked as well. I mean, this guy has to work scenes with men dressed as bats, women dressed as cats, and a man that physically looks like a penguin. He has to have an out there kind of personality on Donald Trump levels to compete with that and Walken accomplishes that really well.

The two characters that tie the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher Batman movies together are Alfred and Commissioner Gordon, played by Michael Gough and Pat Hingle. Alfred is one of the best cast characters in the franchise, always knowing how to take care of Bruce, while also assisting Batman in his crime fighting and detective work. He's a kind, older gentleman that offers the occasional, well placed quip when the opportunity presents itself. No offense to Michael Caine, but I think Michael Gough was the definitive Alfred in these Batman movies. Now the ball is in Jeremy Iron's court, so we'll see what he can do with it, and I might touch base on that when I review Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Gordon on the other hand, is one of the most useless characters in these movies, at least when he's portrayed by Hingle. This guy doesn't do a gosh darn thing to even remotely help Batman. If you see The Dark Knight Trilogy or even Batman: The Animated Series (which I'm currently reviewing on my television blog), you'll see that Gordon is a competent commissioner that feels like both an ally and an equal to Batman in his crime fighting. This Gordon springs onto the scene whenever Batman has already done all the dirty work. I'm surprised they never tried to recast him. He's not exactly an important character in these movies, so I don't think he would've been missed or even widely noticed had he been recast. I'm done with my rant, let's end on a more positive note.

Now THIS feels like a Batman movie made by Tim Burton. It's much darker than the first film, using much more bizarre imagery and creativity. The production design is definitely at a higher caliber than the first. The Danny Elfman score is in full capacity, using the iconic score from the first film, while adding new songs to it. It's a movie that feels like it belongs in Burton's filmography. So why did a lot of people think Batman Returns was a bad movie? They said it was too dark and didn't appreciate it at the time, but I definitely think it has caught some traction over the decades and is a strong contender for one of the great superhero sequels. Not as iconic as the first, but definitely worth your attention if you're a fan of either Tim Burton or Batman. Or both, both is always good too.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Dark and brooding, but with that proper Tim Burton humor, Batman Returns is a very well-made sequel. The characters are great, the production design is both haunting and whimsical, and I'm left here wondering what could have happened if Burton would have stayed on to do a few more Batman movies. Definitely worth your time if you love the Caped Crusader.

Batman Returns and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.