Dumbo (2019) review

It’s safe to say that out of all the live-action remakes that Disney has been making since 2010, Dumbo has been one of the more controversial entries to come from this venture. A lot of this stems from the legacy of its source material, which was Disney Animation’s 4^th official feature. The original Dumbo was released in 1941 and provided the studio a way to recoup from the financial losses of their previous outing, 1940’s Fantasia, by being a far more simplified project from a production standpoint. Nevertheless, the film went on to become yet another classic for the studio and has continued to be a staple of Disney’s pop-cultural identity, including the creation of one of the most iconic attractions at Disney theme parks, Dumbo the Flying Elephant. In other words, while a lot of animation fans have been against the idea of remaking Disney’s animated classics, to begin with, it probably doesn’t help that this latest live-action remake happens to be one that’s using one of the studio’s Golden Age features as its source material. There was also some skepticism when it was announced who was directing it, Tim Burton, effectively making this the second live-action Disney remake that he’s directed after 2010’s Alice in Wonderland. Sure, Burton may be one of the most iconic directors in the industry, but his recent directorial efforts haven’t necessarily been as successful as his earlier outings. And yet, you may be surprised to find that Dumbo kind of fits perfectly into Burton’s directorial wheelhouse. Thus, while it may not be perfect, this new take on the story of a lovable flying elephant manages to be a charming endeavor complete with Burton’s trademark visual flair.   

Following the end of World War I, veteran Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns to his old job as one of the performers for the Medici Brothers’ family circus. Unfortunately, the circus has fallen on hard times recently to the point where owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) had to sell the horses that were key to Holt’s original act after the death of his wife. Thus, Medici assigns Holt to be the circus’ new elephant handler, and as luck would have it, one of the elephants, Jumbo, ends up giving birth to a young calf. However, when it’s discovered that the young elephant has abnormally large ears, thus earning him the derogatory nickname of ‘Dumbo’, Medici tries to keep this a secret from the public to avoid any potential humiliation. Things begin to change, however, when Holt’s daughter Milly (Nico Parker) and son Joe (Finley Hobbins) discover that Dumbo can fly with the help of his ears and a single feather. Thus, when Dumbo’s ability is eventually revealed to the public, he quickly becomes a sensation. This ends up attracting the attention of theme park tycoon V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Medici a business partnership to have Dumbo perform at the circus at his lavish theme park, Dreamland. There, he’s partnered with Dreamland’s star performer, trapeze artist Colette Marchant (Eva Green), to become what Vandevere hopes will be his latest and greatest attraction. However, when it’s discovered that Dumbo’s mom is being held in one of Dreamland’s exhibits, the Farriers and their friends begin to formulate a plan so that they can reunite the young elephant with his mama.

To this film’s credit, it arguably has a lot more opportunities to do something new with the story of Dumbo when compared to most other Disney live-action remakes. At just 64 minutes long, the original Dumbo is one of Disney Animation’s shortest features and, as a result, is very simply-plotted. In fact, the iconic moment where Dumbo discovers his flying ability doesn’t even occur until the very end of the film. Thus, the remake does expand upon this plot to the point where almost all the major moments from the original film, including Dumbo’s mom being locked up for attacking people, the famous ‘clown firefighter’ circus act where Dumbo flies in the circus for the first time, and of course, the ‘Baby Mine’ sequence are covered in just the first half hour. Admittedly, though, the new stuff that is added in to bolster the narrative for a longer runtime is sort of in the same simplistic vein. Compared to the original, this version relies a lot more on its human characters, thus meaning that there aren’t any talking animals; no baby-delivering storks, no ostracizing adult elephants, and no Timothy Q. Mouse (though he is alluded to, for the record). Despite this, however, the new plot that’s built around them is a rather basic ‘stop the corrupt businessman’ storyline that doesn’t really give these new human characters a lot to work with. Ultimately, though, there are still plenty of great moments of emotional poignancy in this film, and yes, many of them involve the adorable CGI elephant that shares its name.

As with any Tim Burton film, one of the biggest reasons to watch this new take on Dumbo is to see the latest showcase of that lavish visual style that he’s well-known for. And while this one doesn’t rely on his usual gothic imagery, it still manages to capture the majestic atmosphere of a classic circus of yesteryear with its bright color scheme and grand locales. Plus, unlike Burton’s previous Disney remake, Alice in Wonderland, this film has a far more balanced mix of practical sets and CG imagery instead of being a case of actors in front of a green-screen for a good chunk of the runtime. Speaking of actors, this film’s cast manages to do solid jobs in their respective roles even though, as noted earlier, they don’t really have a lot of material to work with. Much of the main cast is made up of Burton’s most frequent collaborators. Danny DeVito, for example, provides much of the film’s comic relief as the occasionally bumbling Medici while Eva Green (one of Burton’s newer regulars) gets a decent little arc in which her character Colette slowly but surely warms up to the little flying elephant. Meanwhile, Michael Keaton manages to overcome his character’s straight-forward ‘corrupt businessman’ persona thanks to his slick charisma. And yes, I too am amazed that this Disney-released film managed to get away with a villain character who’s clearly meant to be a caricature of Walt Disney himself. Finally, closing out the main cast is Colin Farrell as Holt Farrier and Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins as his children Milly and Joe, all of whom help bolster the film’s big emotional moments due to them taking on the role that Timothy Q. Mouse had in the original as Dumbo’s biggest allies.

As noted in the intro, there was quite a bit of skepticism when it was announced that Tim Burton would be directing this film because it didn’t seem like the kind of project that he’s known for doing. And yet, it ironically makes perfect sense for him to direct Dumbo because the character’s status as an outsider amongst his peers at the circus due to his large ears ties very effectively into Burton’s tendency to do films about outcast-type characters as evident from the likes of Edward Scissorhands and his two Batman films, and that’s just to name a few. Sure enough, this new take on Dumbo once again succeeds in endearing audiences to its titular protagonist. And while the new stuff that’s added in to buff up the plot is ironically just as simple in execution when compared to everything that we got from the hour-long 1941 original, its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, as one would expect from a Tim Burton production, its gorgeous visuals are second to none right down to the various nods to the original… and yes, that includes a reference to the infamous ‘Pink Elephants on Parade’ sequence. In short, while I’m not saying that it’s ‘better’ than the original Dumbo, it’s still a worthy adaptation of a Disney classic. And as anyone who’s been following this blog for a while will recall, this sums up my views on Disney’s live-action remakes in a nutshell. Contrary to what some may claim, these aren’t meant to be ‘replacements’ for their animated counterparts. Instead, they’re simply interesting new takes on these iconic stories, and regardless of how they turn out, the originals will still be there at the end of the day for both young and old to enjoy. And while this film does break the streak of well-received remakes that the studio has been experiencing since 2015’s Cinderella, I’m still genuinely looking forward to all the new spins on the animated classics of my childhood.

Rating: 4/5

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) review

It could be argued that Spider-Man is Marvel Comics’ most popular character. His characterization as a regular high-school student from New York who finds himself immersed in the larger Marvel universe has made him an incredibly endearing character to audiences young and old. This has also translated well to the web-slinger's time on the big-screen, as Spider-Man films have grossed over $3 billion worldwide. Of course, it all started with the trilogy of films directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire in the lead role, which ran from 2002 to 2007. The first film was one of the three major releases, alongside Bryan Singer’s X-Men and 1998’s Blade, that helped revitalize the superhero film genre after the low point that it experienced in the late 90’s. It was then followed by an even better-received sequel in 2004… and then an extremely polarizing third installment in 2007. That would ultimately be the final installment of the series, as Raimi backed out of directing the impending fourth installment when he felt pressured by the studio into getting it done by 2011. Thus, just one year later, Sony decided to reboot the Spider-Man franchise, with Marc Webb taking over as director and Andrew Garfield cast as the new Spidey. However, the short amount of time that had gone by since the Raimi series ended, paired with the fondness that many had for those films, ended up having a majorly negative effect on the Amazing Spider-Man films. While the first Amazing film managed to hold off a decent amount of the skepticism that had been surrounding it, the second Amazing film ended up being even more polarizing than Raimi’s third film. It was also the lowest-grossing Spider-Man film to date, barely grossing over $700 million worldwide.

The harsh reception to Amazing Spider-Man 2 put a lot of pressure on Sony, who have owned Spider-Man’s film rights since the 80’s. Clearly, their plans at the time to develop their own ‘Cinematic Universe’ a la Marvel Studios were not going over well with critics and audiences. And so, in 2015, they decided to strike a deal with Marvel Studios who, due to Marvel’s initial handling of their characters’ film rights, were originally unable to use some of the company’s biggest heroes for the first few years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s existence. This new deal, which was made official in February 2015, would allow Sony to hold onto Spider-Man’s film rights while also giving Kevin Feige and his team at Marvel Studios creative control over future films, thereby allowing everyone’s favorite neighborhood web-slinger to finally appear in the MCU. However, this also meant that the series would see another bit of rebooting for the second time in five years. Tom Holland, breakout star of 2012’s The Impossible, took on the role of Peter Parker and officially made his MCU debut in last year’s Captain America: Civil War. And overall, his turn as Spidey in that film was well-received by critics and audiences, proving that he was more than ready to take on the lead role in his own film. And so, here we are now with Spider-Man: Homecoming. General newcomer Jon Watts takes on directorial duties for this collaboration between Sony and Marvel Studios. To reiterate, because Sony still owns Spider-Man’s film rights, this is a Sony release, unlike the other MCU films which are distributed by Disney. However, given the involvement of Kevin Feige and co., it’s also the newest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Thus, with the involvement of the studio that has continued to deliver top-quality hits time and time again, I’m pleased to say that good ol’ ‘Underoos’ is indeed back and, more importantly, is better than ever in his latest on-screen adventure.

During the events of Captain America: Civil War, teenager Peter Parker AKA Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who gained spider-like abilities after being bitten by a genetically-altered spider, was recruited by billionaire Tony Stark AKA Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) to aid in the Avengers’ internal conflict in that film. Afterward, Tony gives Peter the new and improved suit that he had made for him but also tells him that he’s not yet a member of the Avengers. Thus, Peter returns home to Queens, where he lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), and his life as a ‘regular’ student at Midtown High while continuing to fight crime around town under the ‘supervision’ of Tony’s long-time bodyguard, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau). But despite this, Peter is still left wishing for an opportunity to do more than just deal with minor incidents. He eventually manages to find a chance to prove himself when he starts to come across criminals that are using new and dangerous weapons that have been crafted from the Chitauri remains of the Battle of New York in the first Avengers. This soon leads to him coming into conflict with the man in charge of these recent criminal operations, Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), who uses a mechanical wingsuit to become ‘the Vulture’. However, the intensity of the situations that Peter soon finds himself in also gets him into trouble with Tony, who wanted him to maintain a more ‘grounded’ lifestyle. Thus, Peter now finds himself being pressured into proving that he’s capable of dealing with the kinds of threats that the Avengers face on a regular basis.

In the months leading up to its release, the filmmakers promoted Spider-Man: Homecoming as a high school film that was reminiscent of the classic 80’s films written and directed by John Hughes. And overall, the film does deliver on being just that, from its greater focus on the younger members of its cast to its various homages to films like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. But, of course, at the end of the day, this is still a ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’ film, so it also has all the great things that you’d expect from the MCU at this point. The action sequences are excellent, which in turn are backed by solid visual effects, and there are plenty of humorous moments that never take away from the more emotional moments of the story. And because this film is centered on a superhero who’s still in high-school, the advice that his mentor gives him (‘Stay close to the ground’) applies nicely to the overall scope of the film. Instead of being one of the high-level Avengers films, this is just a nicely scaled solo film that sometimes verges into the larger-scaled escapades of other MCU films but never once diverges from its high-school setting. I mean, if I had any sort of issue with this film, it’d be that it admittedly feels a bit overlong. Now, to be fair, this film is only about two hours and ten minutes long, which is on par with most of the other ‘solo’ MCU films. Heck, this isn’t even the longest Spider-Man film to date; The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a little over two hours and twenty minutes long. Still, this film’s second half is made up mostly of its biggest action sequences, so it sometimes feels like the film never ends. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that there were any points where the film dragged or anything, but perhaps it could’ve benefitted from some better pacing.

As noted before, this film focuses heavily on its younger stars, and all of them do excellent jobs in their respective roles. Of course, leading them all is Tom Holland who, as we already saw from Captain America: Civil War, is a great fit for the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Not only does he have Spidey’s trademark quips down perfectly, but he’s also given a great overall arc in which he finds that he must prove himself within the larger world of the MCU. In some ways, it’s a lot like the arc that Tony Stark went through in Iron Man 3, in which he realized that his suit didn’t define who he was. And in this film, the fact that Tony knows himself well enough to not want Peter to go down the same route that he went truly goes to show how effective the MCU has been in terms of developing its characters in a consistent manner with each new film. Meanwhile, Holland is backed by some memorable supporting characters, including Jacob Batalon as Peter’s best friend Ned, who ends up learning about Peter’s big secret. And thanks to Batalon and Holland’s terrific camaraderie with each other, Ned proves to be one of the great MCU sidekicks, up there with the likes of Luis from Ant-Man and Wong from Doctor Strange. Another standout is Zendaya, who plays one of Peter’s classmates, Michelle. Her role in the film is a minor one but she does get some great lines of dialogue thanks to her hilariously dry wit. Rounding out the main ‘youth’ cast is Laura Harrier as Peter’s main love interest Liz Allan, who has solid chemistry with Holland, and Tony Revolori as Flash Thompson. It’s a different Flash than the ones we’ve seen in the previous film incarnations of Spider-Man but he still serves his purpose as a constant pain in Peter’s side.

As for the film’s adult leads, there was some controversy surrounding the casting of Marisa Tomei as Aunt May due to Tomei being the youngest actress to date in the role. However, Tomei does prove to be a great fit as the MCU version of Peter’s loving aunt. She works well with Holland while also getting one of the best humorous bits in the entire film right at the very end. Meanwhile, Jon Favreau gets to work with what is easily his biggest role in an MCU film to date (outside of directing, of course) as Happy Hogan, characterized excellently here as Peter’s begrudged liaison between him and Tony Stark. On that note, I’m aware that a lot of people were worried that Robert Downey Jr. was going to hog the limelight in this film to the point where it’d practically be Iron Man 4. Trust me, though, when I say that this isn’t the case. Tony’s only in the film for about 10 minutes and is used perfectly, both in terms of being the goofy genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist that we all know and love as well as being an effective mentor for Peter. And, of course, there’s the main villain, Adrian Toomes AKA the Vulture. Is he another one of Marvel’s ‘mediocre’ villains? No, not at all… in fact, I’d dare say that since the start of Phase 3, Marvel Studios has improved quite a bit when it comes to their villains. Michael Keaton is excellent in the role and the character is set up solidly as a former salvage operator who got screwed over by Stark Industries after the events of the first Avengers. This effectively continues the series’ tradition of having Spider-Man’s adversaries be more ‘sympathetic’ than just pure evil. And then, if that wasn’t enough, there’s one big twist surrounding the character that makes him even more of a personal threat for Peter.

There was quite a lot of backlash surrounding this film prior to its release, from its ‘allegedly spoiler-y’ trailers (personally, I didn’t think that they gave away too much) to its admittedly subpar main poster (though, seriously, how does a poster impact the quality of the film that it’s for?). Thankfully, though, that didn’t stop Spider-Man: Homecoming from becoming yet another satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as a much-needed win for Sony after their last few attempts from this franchise fared poorly with audiences. Sure, this is still technically the second time in half a decade that Spider-Man has seen an on-screen reboot, but the filmmakers wisely avoid going down many of the same routes that the character’s previous incarnations went. Jon Watts’ direction is solid and the film finds a nice mix between the high-school antics that its young protagonist deals with on a regular basis and the grand-scale adventures within the larger MCU. And thanks to its terrific ensemble cast and the continuously great atmosphere that one can always expect from the MCU films, Spider-Man: Homecoming is a fun new spin on this beloved character. Now, with that said, I’ll admit that I’m still a little bummed about how the previous incarnation of Spider-Man, the Amazing Spider-Man series, was rather unceremoniously tossed aside after only two films. Yeah, I know I’m in the minority when it comes to liking those films, but why couldn’t they have just been given the opportunity to continue but through the way that they’re doing now and have Kevin Feige and his team come in to fix things up, allowing Andrew Garfield’s Spidey to be a part of the MCU? Still, I won’t lie… after his appearance in both Civil War and now this film, I’m fully onboard with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man and, therefore, any future films featuring Marvel Studios’ version of the friendly neighborhood web-slinger.

Rating: 5/5!

Batman Film Retrospective: Part 1 (Live-Action Films)

75 years ago, during this month in the year of 1939, DC Comics introduced the character of Batman in Issue #27 of Detective Comics. Since then, Batman has gone on to become one of the most iconic comic book superheroes of all time, if not arguably the most famous. He’s been one of the main heroes of the DC universe and as far as his franchise’s films are concerned, he’s had the most successful run out of all of DC’s heroes (and possibly every other comic book superhero, for that matter). And today, to honor the 75^th Anniversary of the Dark Knight’s first appearance, it’s time for a Batman film retrospective. Now I was originally going to save this for when the upcoming ‘Batman vs. Superman’ was to come out in 2015. But, as we now know, that has gotten pushed back to May 6^th, 2016. Basically, I figured that now would be a good time to do it just for the occasion of the Caped Crusader’s 75^th Anniversary. This is the first half of a two-part retrospective, and today’s entry will encompass all of the live-action Batman feature films, from the film adaptation of the 1960’s TV series to the Christopher Nolan ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy. ‘Part 2’ of this retrospective will cover a select few of the animated Batman films.

BATMAN (1966)

Technically, Batman made his first on-screen appearance in two separate serials, 1943’s ‘Batman’ and 1949’s ‘Batman and Robin’. But we’re starting off this retrospective with the 1966 film ‘Batman’ (AKA ‘Batman: The Movie’), the first feature length film that the character starred in and the film adaptation of the 60’s television series of the same name starring Adam West as Batman and Burt Ward as Robin. For those who haven’t seen this show before, let me start by saying this… this show is very, very campy. This was way before the darker ‘Batman’ films that we’ve seen in the years since this film came out. Need proof of that? In one scene, a shark is grabbing onto Batman’s leg and Batman defeats it by spraying it with ‘Bat Shark Repellant’. The shark then proceeds to blow up once it hits the water. Yeah, this is a very goofy movie. But for what it’s worth, compared to a certain film that we’ll get to in a bit, this is a good kind of campy. It’s clear here that everyone involved was able to roll with this film’s silliness and that’s really the reason why this film is so entertaining; it’s campy 60’s fun with an enthusiastic cast. One of the best scenes in the entire movie (and quite possibly one of the funniest scenes ever put on film) is when Batman is trying to get rid of a bomb but he finds that he has a lot of trouble just finding a spot to put it. It’s like they say, ‘Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb…’ Overall, if you’re able to accept this film’s corny tone, then you’ll find that it’s a pretty fun superhero film. It may not be the Batman that you’re expecting, but it certainly captured the essence of the show it was based on.

Rating: 4/5

BATMAN (1989)

But for some, the 60’s ‘Batman’ was not the kind of Batman film that they wanted… and they eventually got their wish in 1989 with director Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’. Even after all of the Batman films that have come out since this was released to theaters, the 1989 film is still one of the best in the entire franchise. Granted, though, it has aged a bit, namely in regards to some of the designs and the soundtrack (which features songs by Prince). Despite that, this film is still a solid superhero film that perfectly captures the dark tone of the character of Batman. Basically at the end of the day, Burton, known for his dark and gothic style, was a great choice to direct the film. However, most people weren’t in support of the casting of Michael Keaton in the role of Batman, mainly because of his previous work as a comedic actor. In other words, this was pretty similar to the reaction that Ben Affleck got when he was cast as Batman for the upcoming ‘Batman vs. Superman’, only this was way before that ever happened. This was WAY before the time of social media and the internet.

However, in the end, Keaton was fantastic in the role and out of all of the actors who have ever played Batman in a live-action film he is perhaps the best in portraying both Bruce Wayne and Batman, whereas other actors have done better as Bruce Wayne then they had as Batman. He has a great presence as Batman but as Bruce Wayne, he is effectively unsuspecting. You would never guess that this guy was Batman, which is pretty ironic considering that this was exactly the reason why many people were against having him in the role and yet that’s why he was so damn good in the film. But of course it is Jack Nicholson who steals the show as ‘The Joker’. What else can I say? It’s just Jack Nicholson at his finest. The ‘hero-villain’ relationship between the Batman and Joker of this film is one of the best in any superhero film, mainly because they each were responsible for making the other who they were today. We see that it was the Joker, back when he was just a criminal by the name of Jack Napier, who killed Bruce’s parents and Bruce, as Batman, was responsible for Jack falling into a vat of chemicals, effectively turning him into the Joker. With an excellent cast, a great production design, and one of the best film scores of all time by Danny Elfman, 1989’s ‘Batman’, though rather dated by today’s standards, is still one of the high marks of the superhero film genre.

Rating: 4.5/5

BATMAN RETURNS (1992)

Following the success of ‘Batman’, Burton was brought back for the sequel and this time, he was given far more creative control than he had during the last film. However… maybe that wasn’t the best idea that Warner Bros. had made. For the record, I’m not saying that ‘Returns’ is a bad superhero film… far from it, in fact. It’s just this is a very notable case of when you give a director too much free reign to do whatever he wants. This is very much a Tim Burton film, but far darker than that of its predecessor. Stylistically, it’s not a big problem and you can really admire the film for its atmosphere and look. However, for a film that was generally aimed at a younger audience, it wasn’t the best move. It’s so dark and sometimes disturbing to the point where it could potentially give kids nightmares. It’s also sometimes a bit too adult at times, like during the scene where Catwoman meets with Penguin for the first time and the Penguin’s dialogue mostly consists of innuendos (‘Just the pussy I wanted to see’… need I say more?). You know… for kids!!!

Also, this film showcases a rather noticeable problem in how the character of Batman is portrayed in Burton’s films. This is not the fault of Michael Keaton, who is once again fantastic in the role. It’s just that it’s very clear that in these movies, particularly here, Burton focuses more on the villains than Batman. In fact, for the previous film, it was Jack Nicholson who got top billing as the Joker. It was fine there because in that film, Keaton still had a very substantial role that was solidly balanced against Nicholson’s. Here, he’s not even in the Batman suit for the majority of the film. He’s still in the film, but the character of Batman basically disappears from the film altogether for large periods of time. As for the villains, this film’s portrayal of the Penguin is a far contrast from what the comics were like. Instead of being a sophisticated criminal, this Penguin is far more sadistic and frightening in this film (like I said, this is potential nightmare fuel). He’s portrayed to be a misfit (a common theme in Burton’s films) but because he’s a despicable character, we can’t really sympathize with him and yet the movie is trying to make us do so. Despite all that, Danny DeVito does do a very good job in the role as it was written. It’s Michelle Pfeiffer, however, who truly steals the show as Catwoman; she really captures the dual personality of the character quite well. Finally, we have a third villain, businessman Max Shreck, played by Christopher Walken… simply put, it’s Christopher Walken. That’s all I need to say about that.

Ultimately, ‘Batman Returns’ is not a bad film, as it is a solid follow-up to its predecessor. However, it’s clear that Burton was given way too much creative control on this film. It’s very much a Burton film, but as a Batman film, it’s way too dark when compared to the other films in the franchise. Also, this one really doesn’t give Batman much to do here to the point where the villains are the main characters in the film. Again, keep in mind that the best of the Batman films are known for their dark atmospheres and tone, but this was a case where the film was just way too dark (figuratively, not literally), especially when considering that it’s basically being marketed to a younger crowd. And now it’s clear why Warner Bros decided to go in a different direction for the next film. Again, this one’s entertaining, but I can’t say that it’s one of my favorites.

Rating: 3.5/5

BATMAN FOREVER (1995)

Because of the controversy surrounding ‘Returns’ for its darker tone, the film wasn’t as big of a hit at the box office as Warner Bros had hoped for; this led to them to make a few changes for the next film, ‘Batman Forever’. In the position of director, Tim Burton was replaced by Joel Schumacher, though Burton did stay on as a producer for this film. This was also the first film to not have Michael Keaton in the role of Batman. Here, he was replaced by Val Kilmer but he would not return for the following film. Simply put, ‘Forever’ is, without a doubt, a far different kind of film than the two Burton films that came before it. Schumacher took his inspiration from the older Batman comics from the 50’s as well as the 60’s television series. The result is a far more ‘family-friendly’ film than Returns and while I can’t say it’s good as something like the 89 film or Nolan’s ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’, I have to admit that, in some ways, I actually think that this is a better film than ‘Returns’. In other words, I feel that it’s actually a little underrated.

For the record, it’s still not the best in the series. Just like its immediate successor, this film is very bright and flashy in regards to its look and tone, resulting in a film that can be quite loud and bombastic at times. However, Schumacher does do a few things here in this entry that work better here than they did in ‘Returns’; namely giving the character of Bruce Wayne a far more substantial amount of development than in the previous film as in this one, he battles his inner demons and begins to question his act of vengeance as Batman. Val Kilmer does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne but as Batman, he sort of stumbles. It’s not really his fault, though, as in this film he’s mainly stuck with just quoting one-liners (“It’s the car, right? Chicks dig the car!”). If this were more along the lines of how Keaton’s version of the character was written in the Burton films, then Kilmer would have arguably been one of the best to have ever been in the role but as is, he’s just not as good as either Keaton or Christian Bale.

This film also introduces the character of Robin (who was originally supposed to be in ‘Returns’ played by Marlon Wayans but was then cut due to an overabundance of characters). While he does come off a bit whiny at times, this film does give him a pretty solid character arc as we see his journey to avenge his family after they are murdered, which almost directly parallels how Bruce looked to avenge his parents’ death many years earlier. For what it’s worth, Chris O’Donnell does a good job in this film. As for the villains, we have a good one… and a bad one. As the Riddler, Jim Carrey may just be Jim Carrey playing… Jim Carrey, but he is easily the scene-stealer of the film. It’s clear that he’s channeling Frank Gorshin’s performance in the role from the 60’s show and in that regard he does succeed in doing so. Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand, just comes off as way too cheesy in the role of Two-Face. That’s rather sad because if in a different movie, he would have been a great choice to play Two-Face but here, he’s just as campy as Carrey as the Riddler though in Carrey’s case, that worked out much better for him. So overall, I’m not saying ‘Forever’ is a ‘great’ film as it is still a very campy film and sometimes a little too goofy. However, some of the good things in this movie turn out really good, namely Bruce Wayne’s character arc. If anything else, it’s better than the next Batman film that Schumacher did.

Rating: 4/5

BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997)

I don’t think I need to go into this one that much because everyone else has, but if for some reason you haven’t seen or heard of this film yet, here’s the rundown. ‘Batman and Robin’ is not only the worst Batman film ever, but one of the worst superhero films period. The campiness factor is through the roof on this one. The sets and designs are ridiculous, the villains are terrible, the acting is just as bad from all involved, and the script consists of nothing but one-liners, especially from Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze. As much as I (along with many others) love Arnold for being one of the best at spewing one-liners, this was a case of a huge miscast. Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy actually could have worked… if in a different movie. As for the main characters, George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman is just… that; George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Chris O’Donnell’s Robin gets way too whiny in this one, and Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl is basically just an afterthought. Also, what the hell did they do to Bane?

But with all of that said, is this the absolute worst superhero film of all time? Actually, it isn’t; don’t get me wrong, this is still a terrible film but I’ve seen far worse in this genre, like 1990’s ‘Captain America’, ‘Catwoman’, and ‘Superman IV’ which, like this film, killed its franchise for many years. However, unlike ‘Superman IV’, there is actually somewhat of an ‘entertainment value’ to this film because it’s so bad. Like ‘The Room’ or ‘Troll 2’, it’s one of those ‘so bad, it’s good’ movies whether it’s because of all of Mr. Freeze’s ice-related puns or the infamous Bat Credit Card. As a result, it’s not really the absolute worst thing ever. Though, as a Batman film, it’s definitely an ‘epic fail’. This effectively killed the franchise for years (a fifth film, ‘Batman Triumphant’ was canceled because of this film’s terrible reception) until Christopher Nolan brought it back to prominence 8 years later and thank god he did.

Rating: 1/5 (Film), 3/5 (as far as Entertainment value is concerned…)

BATMAN BEGINS (2005)

Following the debacle that was ‘Batman and Robin’, there were numerous attempts to get the franchise rolling again, including a potential crossover with Superman that is actually now getting made, just years later with a different cast and crew. Ultimately, it was director Christopher Nolan who brought the franchise back from extinction with ‘Batman Begins’. It effectively returned the franchise to its darker roots and did an excellent job at detailing the origin story of Bruce Wayne, an origin story which we haven’t really seen before. I mean, we all know about the moment when his parents are murdered, but this goes beyond that as we see how Bruce Wayne truly became ‘The Batman’, part of which includes his vigilante-style training with the ‘League of Shadows’. Christian Bale is excellent as Bruce Wayne, as he is given some of the best material that any actor has ever gotten in this role. He does a pretty good job as Batman too, as he has a very nice intimidating presence and as for that highly controversial gruff voice that he uses… I’m not too bothered by it, mainly because it’s just so fun to imitate (‘WHERE ARE THEY!!??’).

Overall, out of all Nolan’s Batman films, this one is perhaps the closest to the comic books, though that is sort of up for debate. Now, with this trilogy, Nolan’s intent was to make a superhero film that was much more grounded in reality. On that note, he does that very well, but he still sort of maintains the atmosphere and lore of the comics. The only problem in this one, though, is that the camerawork and editing during the fight scenes is, well, kind of bad. It’s one of those films where the action is shot close up and the editing is very fast, meaning that it’s sometimes rather hard to see just what is going on during the action sequences. However, I attribute that more to the fact that this was Nolan’s first full-fledged action film. Thankfully, this aspect of the films improved with its sequel but as is, ‘Batman Begins’ is a rock-solid superhero film that we can very much thank for making the character of Batman prominent once again.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Like ‘Batman and Robin’, this is another entry that I don’t really need to delve into that much given that pretty much everyone else has. But where ‘Batman and Robin’ was universally despised, ‘The Dark Knight’ is universally acclaimed and for good reason as it truly is an excellent film. Coming off of ‘Begins’, Nolan takes the superhero genre to a whole new level with this film, giving us a really effective  and compelling story where Batman is pushed to his limits by the Joker and I’m just going to come out and say it; Heath Ledger’s Joker is the best live-action portrayal of the character to date. It’s nothing against Jack Nicholson, but Ledger’s Joker is a much more fascinating character; an ‘agent of chaos’ who’s ‘ahead of the curve’. He serves as a great foil to Batman just as the character always has been in the comics, other movies, and various television shows. In many ways, he’s far more frightening than Nicholson’s Joker, who mainly came off as being rather creepy. It was rightfully fitting that, following Ledger’s tragic death on January 22, 2008 he was awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for what truly was one of the best performances of this past decade.

But while Ledger has basically gotten the bulk of the film’s praise for his work, another member of the cast who is fantastic in this, just as much as Ledger, is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Like the Joker, Nolan does a fantastic job in portraying Dent’s rise and fall where he eventually becomes the criminal Two-Face though he sort of ends the character’s story a bit too early by having him killed off at the end of the film but I think that the implications of what will happen to Gotham because of what he did and the decision that Batman makes to deal with this problem serve as an excellent set-up for the following film.  There’s not much else I can say except… if you haven’t seen this movie yet, where have you been?

Rating: 5/5!

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

This film is apparently becoming a case of what I like to call the ‘Phantom Menace effect’. By that I am referring to a film that is highly anticipated, perhaps more so than usual, but ends up disappointing a lot of people. Now, this is not entirely the same case as ‘Phantom Menace’. This film did get very good reviews from critics and, like its predecessor, it grossed a billion at the box office. However, I find that many people have expressed a lot of disappointment towards this film, specifically more recently. There were some detractors of the film when it first came out (and those detractors more than likely received death-threats from Nolan ‘fan boys’), but apparently after a few more viewings, some are beginning to change their minds about the film. Once again, this shows us that overhyping a film is never going to turn out well. But at the end of the day, I still stand by this film. I mean, yes, it’s not as good as ‘The Dark Knight’, but as we all know, that was an extremely tough act to follow and for what it’s worth, this is one of the few great superhero film ‘threequels’ out there.

So what is it that many are complaining about in this film? Well, amongst some other things, the most common thing I’m hearing about this is in regards to the film’s ‘plot holes’. They include, but are not limited to; Why would Bruce avoid his responsibilities as Batman for eight whole years? How did Bruce’s back get fixed after just being hung from a rope for a few hours? How did Bruce get back in Gotham after it was put on lockdown by Bane? The list apparently goes on and on. There are definitely a few more that I’ve heard people mention, but these are the ones that are pretty much being brought up the most. Overall, these have not really bothered me in the slightest, though I did sort of find the back repair one to be a bit of a stretch. The one about him getting back into Gotham is actually kind of plausible but then again, they don’t really explain it either. He just shows up and the film moves on from there. I do want to point out that plot holes in films are common all the time. It’s just that this film just so happens to be one where the plot holes are frequently talked about for some odd reason. Why? I don’t know…

There is more to the film than just that. What I really admire about ‘Rises’ is its finality. This was truly intended to be the finale of the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy. It brings the story of Bruce Wayne to a close but also ends in a way that, while it won’t be followed up upon (even though they do bait us with the possibility of a sequel), does an excellent job at exemplifying the character of Batman; a symbol that can’t be corrupted, as Bruce noted in ‘Batman Begins’. That is exactly the case as Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character John Blake, whose real name is revealed to be Robin (not the actual character, but still a very nice nod to the fans), discovers the Batcave, implying that he will take over as the protector of Gotham City. It is also here where Christian Bale gives his best performance as Bruce Wayne, who here is a shell of his former self that must get back into action when his city is threatened. Also, sort of like ‘Iron Man 3’, he may not exactly be in the Batman suit for long, but like that film, it’s not much of a problem because this is very much a Bruce Wayne story and as I always believe in regards to these superhero films, the suit doesn’t make the man. The man makes the suit.

Of course, like in the previous Nolan films, he’s backed up by an excellent supporting cast. All of the returning members, including Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine are fantastic once again. Caine is not in the movie as much as the others, which is understandable considering how the character of Alfred isn’t really necessary for this story, but he makes the most out of his time on screen. The scene where he tells Bruce he is resigning is one of the most effective and emotional character moments in any superhero film I’ve ever seen. The newcomers to the cast are excellent as well. As the main villain Bane, Tom Hardy makes the most out of having his face covered up by a mask (like Batman, his muffled voice is fun to imitate) and as Selina Kyle, Anne Hathaway is phenomenal taking over the role of Catwoman (without ever being referred to by that name) from Michelle Pfeiffer. The only one problem I do have with the entire film is how they handled the character of Talia Al Ghul, played by Marion Cotillard. It’s not a problem with her as she does do well in the role, but I feel that they should have introduced her character in one of the previous Nolan films rather than being sort of hastily introduced in this film especially when considering the relationship she has with Bruce in the comics.

Still, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is one of only two ‘third films’ in any superhero trilogy that I can think of that is truly excellent, the other being ‘Iron Man 3’. No, it’s not as good as ‘The Dark Knight’ but it doesn’t need to be. Instead, it is a solid finale to this trilogy and it ends the series on a high note rather than a low one.

Rating: 5/5!

To end off this part of the retrospective, here are my rankings for the live-action Batman films (not counting the ’66 film because it’s its own thing).

1. The Dark Knight

2. The Dark Knight Rises

3. Batman (1989)

4. Batman Begins

5. Batman Forever

6. Batman Returns

7. Batman and Robin

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this Batman retrospective as we’ll look at a few, not all, of the animated Batman films, including ‘Mask of the Phantasm’ and ‘Under the Red Hood’.

Robocop (2014) review

I’m guessing that when this film was first announced, most of you reacted rather negatively to the news. That’s usually the typical reaction that a lot of people have whenever a remake is announced. After all, if the original film is really good, then why bother remaking it when there’s no real need to improve it? I mean, there is potential if someone’s remaking a bad film, but these days Hollywood will just remake anything even when most audiences aren’t that supportive of it. This scenario certainly applies to the remake of Paul Verhoeven’s 1987 classic ‘Robocop’. It’s one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, and it still holds up quite even after 27 years. So with all of that in mind… why then would I be one of the few who was actually looking forward to this film? Well, that’s because this series is in desperate need of a fresh new start because the two sequels to the original film were both terribly inferior follow-ups. So even though this was still technically a ‘remake’, I went into this hopeful that this could be the first good Robocop film since the original… so I was relieved, and also somewhat surprised, to find that I really enjoyed this new Robocop.

In the year 2028, multinational conglomerate OmniCorp has enjoyed much success overseas with the use of their ‘robotic soldiers’ in law enforcement. However, they have been unable to use their technology in the United States because of a national law, the Dreyfus Act, which prevents them from doing so. In order to work around this, OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) suggests that they create a product that combines man with machine that could be accepted by the public, who have been influenced by the Dreyfus Act. OmniCorp then proceeds to look for a test subject for this new machine, which they eventually find when local cop Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is critically injured by a car bomb that was planted on orders from a local crime boss. With consent from his wife Clara (Abbie Cornish), OmniCorp outfits Alex with robotic body armor, turning him into the ultimate law enforcer; Robocop. However, because Murphy’s consciousness is still present even though most of his body isn’t, OmniCorp now find themselves having to deal with Murphy’s emotions as he tries to not only reconnect with his wife and son, but to also take down those who tried to have him killed.

I did refer to this as a remake earlier, but you may be surprised to find out that, in execution, this isn’t really that much of a remake. Yes, this film does share a couple things in common with the original (heck, they even use Basil Poledouris’ classic theme a few times) and it is sort of telling the same ‘origin’ story. But at the same time, this film manages to do some things to distance itself from its predecessor. For one thing, while the original was a satire full of over-the-top violence, this film has a more political view with themes of corporate greed and safety at the cost of one’s liberty. I also really liked that in this one, Murphy’s family plays a bigger role in the story whereas in the original film (as well as its sequels) they were barely in it. Even some of the ‘questionable’ filmmaking choices that a lot of people were worried about actually turned out fine in the end. Robocop’s new black suit does look pretty cool and it actually fits pretty well within the film itself. Even if you’re still not that much of a fan of it, don’t worry because he is in the classic silver suit for a brief time. Also, while this film may not be as violent as the original, the action sequences are pretty darn good for a PG-13 rated film.

Like the original film, this one also benefits from a terrific cast. In the case of this film, it’s especially in regards to the supporting cast. Michael Keaton, Gary Oldman (who plays the head scientist responsible for the creation of Robocop), Abbie Cornish, and Samuel L. Jackson (who plays the host of a television program in support of robotic law enforcement) all do excellent jobs, as does Joel Kinnaman in the lead role of Alex Murphy/Robocop. Sure, it’s not the ‘best’ performance in the movie but in the end he turns out to be a very worthy successor to Peter Weller in the role. If I did have any complaints about this film in general, it would be that its villains are actually really weak. There’s one villain who you think would play a major part in the film seeing how this one has a hand in Murphy’s accident, resulting in him being turned into Robocop, but they don’t really do anything with him. Then you have another villain who’s basically the ‘main villain’ but you would never really guess that he’s a bad guy because he doesn’t really act like one, even at the end when Robocop is trying to take him down.

I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed the 2014 iteration of ‘Robocop’. That’s mainly because this is more of a reboot than a remake, managing to do things differently from the original while maintaining a few similarities to it. Even though the film does have some pretty weak villains, the action sequences are really good for a PG-13 rated ‘Robocop’ film and the acting is very good from all involved. The bottom line here is that this film was ultimately not the disaster that a lot of people were speculating it would turn out to be. Is it as good as the original? No, but then again it doesn’t have to be. The original will still live on as one of the great sci-fi films but this reboot manages to do things good enough that it ends up being one of the better remakes to have ever come out and the best Robocop film since the original. I’m pleased to say that Paul Verhoeven’s classic is no longer the only good Robocop film.

Rating: 4/5