Batman's 25th anniversary

While there's a lot of churn around the 75th anniversary of Batman's first comic book appearance this year, Tim Burton's Batman had its opening weekend twenty-five years ago. A lot of people at the time thought casting Michael Keaton, who was mainly known for comedic roles, was a huge risk. But I think it paid off hugely.

Jack Nicholson's Joker remains iconic, even in the wake of Heath Ledger's terrific take on the character years later. Batman defined 1989 for me, and to this day I will still watch it any time it's on television (which is a LOT).

It remains to this day one of my all-time favorite genre films, helped shape modern superhero films, and was the inspiration for Batman: The Animated Series, which remains another favorite of mine. Thanks and congratulations to all involved in that groundbreaking film from a quarter century ago.

Gotham TV series trailer

I was originally skeptical about a Smallville-like show that presented Bruce Wayne, Selina Kyle, etc. as kids. But I have to say this looks pretty good.

Behold the new face of Batman

This just in... Ben Affleck will be playing Batman in the sequel to Man of Steel:

Yes, the Ben Affleck who did such a bang-up job in Daredevil, will now be playing an older Batman taking on Superman in the next movie. There's probably no middle ground on this one. It's either going to be great, or it's going to be a spectacular disaster.

Yes, I made sure to check the date of the story. It's not back-dated to April 1st.

Next Superman film will feature Batman as well

Looks like it's official, and here's the start of the wind-up to that Justice League movie that DC hopes will do 1/10th as well as the Avengers:

On the heels of the worldwide success of “Man of Steel,” director Zack Snyderis bringing together the two greatest Super Heroes of all time—Batman and Superman—for the first time on the big screen.

Zack Snyder, who made a surprise appearance at Comic-Con today, breaking the news to audiences there, later said, “I’m so excited to begin working again with Henry Cavill in the world we created, and I can’t wait to expand the DC Universe in this next chapter.  Let’s face it, it’s beyond mythological to have Superman and our new Batman facing off, since they are the greatest Super Heroes in the world.”

A Modest Proposal: Batman the Series

I think it's high time we had a new live-action Batman series on television.

With CW's new series Arrow, focusing on the Green Arrow, we're seeing a gritty, realistic, drama about a millionaire who fights crime as a costumed alter ego at night. If they can pitch that, why the hell aren't we seeing a Batman series? With no slight at all intended towards Green Arrow fans, of course. 

Laying aside the rather schlocky superhero shows of the 1970's and 1980's, over the last twenty years, we've had two separate very successful series centered on Superman (Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman 1993-1997, and Smallville 2001-2011), but nothing for Batman. 

Now, Batman has seen more than his share of cowl-time in movies and animated shows, I'll grant. We've had no fewer than seven feature films, most of which have been huge commercial successes, and a number of animated series; Batman The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, Batman Beyond, The Batman, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Young Justice (in a supporting/cameo role), and Beware the Batman coming next year. In fact, I think it's reasonable to say we've had a glut of Batman in animated form (even if Batman: The Brave and the Bold was something of a palate-cleanser in terms of its lighthearted tone compared to the others). All the more reason to tackle the Batman milieu in live-action form.

I envision a show that's a cross between the first Michael Keaton Batman film and Batman The Animated Series, with a little dash of The Dark Knight. Forgive me for not delving into more detail or drawing more inspiration from the comic books, but I'm much more familiar with the film and television material. 

From Keaton's Batman, take a lot of visual cues; the stylized look of Gotham City, Batman in body armor, and a Gotham City whose criminal element is more mob bosses and petty crooks than a never-ending parade of costumed super villains. From Batman The Animated Series, take more visual cues; the art deco interior decor, the general "film noir" style, the more realistic looking Batmobile (but not so realistic that it becomes something more suited for the streets of Baghdad than Gotham). Take also the idea of introducing Bruce Wayne's background preparing to become Batman in flashbacks; his martial arts training in Japan, his training to become an escape artist under Zatara, etc. From the Dark Knight, take the more realistic portrayal of the equipment in his arsenal and the emphasis on more prosaic crime bosses. For goodness' sake, stay away from the garish colors and campy attitude of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

I'd do hour long episodes, with season-long (or even multi-season) character and story arcs, but still crafting the individual episodes so they're fairly self-contained. You shouldn't have to watch the entire season to have fun watching a particular episode, even if some of the nuances of character growth and building story lines are lost upon you. Make at least a third of them non-super villain stories. Mob bosses, hoods; ordinary crimes that need solving and ordinary victims that need protecting. 

For a fantasy cast, as I've said before, you don't cast for Batman. You cast for Bruce Wayne. I might give the nod to either Henry Cavill or Sam Worthington. Who would you choose? (Difficulty: it can't be someone who played the role in one of the films, and has to be someone who could do the part today.) For others, I could see Harry Lloyd as the Joker (I would have picked Tim Curry, but he's getting a little old), Jason Momoa as Bane, David Tennant as the Riddler, Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze, Jolene Blalock as Poison Ivy, and Toby Jones as the Penguin. Your suggestions are more than encouraged in the comments!

Review: The Dark Knight Rises (Caution: Spoilers)

Preface: No discussion of The Dark Knight Rises is possible without addressing the horrific mass murder that took place in Aurora, CO on opening night. It should go without saying that my thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and their families, and that while the shooter is obviously mentally ill, there can be no possible justification for such an act. We don't yet know why he did what he did, or why he picked this particular film. That said, life must go on, and we cannot allow ourselves as individuals or as a society to be paralyzed into inaction by the actions of a single sick individual. Don't let the horror of what happened in Colorado keep you from seeing this or any other film. Don't let him win.

----------

CAUTION: Spoiler-heavy review below. Bear in mind that I saw this film directly after watching the first two films in the series, so my impressions were filtered through a more direct comparison with the others than some film goers might have.

Shortest possible version: The Dark Knight Rises was a good film, and a very good Batman film, but it was hardly the best.

This is a very large film, one might even go so far as to say ponderous. Eight years after Harvey Dent's death in The Dark Knight, he has been lionized by the citizens of Gotham and the Batman has been made a scapegoat for Dent's crimes. Bruce Wayne is a recluse, shutting himself off from the world as he wallows in self-pity due to the death of the woman he loved at the hands of the Joker.

Right off the bat, I didn't like that tone. Bruce Wayne has dealt with pain and loss before-- it's the entire motivation behind his assumption of the Batman persona. It seemed very incongruous. Most of the other characters were right on-target.

The plot revolves around Bane, a terrorist mercenary, attempting to complete the work that Ra's Al Ghul failed to do in the first film; destroy Gotham to restore balance. In a very complex plot, Bruce Wayne's fortune is destroyed after the Gotham Stock Exchange is attacked, Roland Daggett's construction company is used to (literally) undermine Gotham city, and an experimental fusion reactor built by Wayne Enterprises gets turned into a nuclear weapon.

In and amongst all this, Selina Kyle/Catwoman (although never called by that name, as far as I remember) alternately hurts and helps Bruce Wayne and Batman, eventually betraying him to Bane, who breaks his back in a one-on-one fight and consigns him to a prison in Uzbekistan where the only escape is to climb out.

Eventually, Bane seizes the city of Gotham not to hold it for ransom but to turn it into an anarchist paradise. Almost all of Gotham's police are trapped underground, and Bane has control of a nuclear weapon that will vaporize the city if anyone tries to flee or if the outside world tries to interfere. Eventually, of course, Bruce Wayne escapes from the prison, and Batman returns to Gotham and stops Bane.

While this film was visually stunning, and the acting was excellent, I found it to be oddly disjointed. While the director seemed to be going for "big", he ends up with "sprawling" instead, and there were a number of plot holes that ultimately distract from the whole:

• Why did Bane take the time to fly Wayne to Uzbekistan from Gotham, right when his plot was coming to fruition?
• How did 3,000 police officers stay trapped underground for five months without a single one escaping? (And how, after all that time, when they finally emerge, are they all clean shaven, their uniforms clean and in fine shape?)
• How did Gotham become completely (and conveniently) isolated on an island? What happened to the "eastern overland routes" that were explicitly mentioned in The Dark Knight when the Joker was setting up his trap on the ferries?
• How did it take five months for the Army to think to send in soldiers with the relief supplies that were being trucked into Gotham? And then when they do arrive, they are pretty well hapless?

And, while it's not a plot hole, I found the fight scenes between Bane and Batman to be... meh. Just back-and-forth roundhouse punches with no real feeling.

Don't take this to mean that I thought the film was terrible-- I don't. Bane was a good villain (although I found the mask an unnecessary contrivance that ultimately added nothing to the plot or character; in the comic books it's part of the delivery system of the Venom that gives him his strength) who effectively coveys a sense of menace, and the scenes where Alfred is trying to convince Wayne to come back to the world were top-notch. They did an admirable job of attempting to tie together the first and third films both thematically and through the story and characters, and there were some excellent plot twists and surprises (although some of them were just groaners-- Robin? Really?).

Some of the foreshadowing-- such as the final scene in the bistro in Italy-- were a bit heavy-handed and could be seen a mile away, but others were done very well.

On the whole, I would place this film between Batman Forever and Batman Begins on my rankings of all the Batman films. I think it's the weakest of the three most recent Batman films, but that still puts it in the top half of all Batman films.

EDIT: Added some pics of costumed fans from the midnight showing at the AMC Rockaway theater, where I saw Dark Knight Rises. 

Ranking the Batman Films

With the impending release of The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow (I've already got my ticket to see the whole Dark Knight trilogy, starting at 6 PM today, culminating with DKR at midnight tonight), I thought it would be appropriate to throw up my own ranking of the various big screen incarnations of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego.

I will go on record as saying that one does not cast for Batman. One casts for Bruce Wayne. You could put almost anyone into the costume, especially since half the time it's a stunt double anyway. But the scenes where he doesn't have his mask, where it's the pained and vulnerable Bruce Wayne on the screen, is where an actor in the role really gets a chance to prove his mettle (or lack thereof).

So here, from least favorite to most favorite, are my rankings of the films. How do you rank them? Let me know in the comments.

Batman and Robin. I like George Clooney and I like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but this movie was terrible. The campy tone, the crappy dialogue, the costumes, the absolutely terrible batmobile, and the overabundance of villains (and heroes) made this mish-mash just painful to watch. Mr. Freeze singing the Cold Miser song? Poison Ivy imitating Mae West? A totally mindless Bane? Spare me. Joel Schumacher said he didn't want to make a film about guys in tights with capes, and it shows in every frame.

Batman (1966). Although this was the Batman I grew up with as a kid (thanks to the television show that accompanied the movie), once my eyes were opened up to other takes on the character, this one swiftly slid into the bottom tier. Sure, Caesar Romero is a terrific Joker, and Frank Gorshin a terrific Riddler, and Burgis Meredith a terrific Penguin. And all of the Catwomen are... terrific. But that can't make up for the comparison with the later films.

Batman Returns. While I think Michael Keaton is one of the best Bruce Waynes ever cast (see below), I didn't much care for either Danny Devito's Penguin or Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman (heresy, I know). The fact that the Penguin in the first few seasons of Batman the Animated Series was based on the physical design of this Penguin is something that I wish hadn't been done, but there it is. I suppose it beats a Penguin with a British accent. I was somewhat disappointed that the production design was so obviously the same as that seen in the previous film, with little or no memorable additions, that it felt more like a sequel than most sequels do.

Batman Forever. While I hated Jim Carrey's Riddler, I loved Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face. I thought Val Kilmer was a decent enough Bruce Wayne, and he had a sort of snobbery that was refreshing to see in the character (especially evident in the scene where Carrey's Edward Nygma tries to pressure him to agree to back his project). I'm not too much of  a fan of the bright colors that this film made up of, though. And while the addition of Robin was predictable, it was also unnecessary, making the film feel more crowded than it needed to be.

Batman Begins. The first of the newest Batman series was ground-breaking. It took a much more serious, practical approach to the character and his world. Gone were the fantastic science-fictiony elements, replaced with military hardware and rigorous training that we actually got to see. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne was genuinely haunted, seeking to lash out at a world that had hurt him so terribly, and he played that character excellently. Michael Caine's Alfred was equally terrific; a sympathetic and solid surrogate father for Bruce Wayne.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I'm so glad this was released (ever so briefly) in theaters, because it gives me a chance to talk about Kevin Conroy's take on the character. Here, because of the special circumstances surrounding animation, one actually does cast for Batman, because all of the actual acting is done solely through the talents of the actor's voice. and boy, does Conroy nail it. He can switch in an instant from the dark, gravelly, brooding Batman to the cheerful, almost dopey Bruce Wayne. Mark Hamill's Joker is rightly praised both for this film and the various television series that featured him, but Conroy is a superb bit of casting that kept the whole thing together. He is the voice of Batman.

Batman (1989). While it's easy to compare Michael Keaton's Batman to the others that have come since, it must be remembered that when this film came out, the only Batman audiences had ever seen was Adam West (or the various cartoon incarnations, such as Superfriends from the 1970's or the Batman/Superman Hour from the 1960's). At the time, knowing that Tim Burton was going for a darker, more serious tone than anyone had ever really seen from the character in film or television, people thought the casting of Michael Keaton (who at the time was mostly known for his comedic roles such as Night Shift) was a huge mistake. But as soon as the audience saw him hold the mugger off the edge of a rooftop and utter the line "I'm Batman", all doubts were erased. He played Bruce Wayne with a tinge of humor, but there was always a huge pathos in the background, which I found perfectly spot-on. And of course Jack Nicholson's Joker was over the top and absolutely terrific. Even the Prince soundtrack was wonderful (not to mention the Danny Elfman score). In my own mind, it's only a hair's breadth that separates this film from #1, which is...

The Dark Knight. Having established the character so very well with Batman Begins, Christian Bale stayed the course and delivered another outstanding performance as Gotham's millionaire playboy. The film is bigger, broader, and in almost all respects better than its predecessor. Of course it is one again the Joker that steals the show-- in this case by the late Heath Ledger, who won an Oscar posthumously for his performance. But even his Joker is grounded in reality; no esoteric chemicals to cause the famous grin here; his is literally carved into his face, and his trademark white face and green hair are affectations done simply to creep out his victims (and possibly to cause them to under-estimate him). If this film has a weak spot, it's the introduction of Harvey Dent/Two Face. The very end, where Batman takes the rap for Harvey's crimes, seemed a bit contrived, but not enough to knock the film out of its perch as #1. (My original review when it came out is here.)

Tomorrow I should have a review of The Dark Knight Rises up (if I wake up, that is-- I'm going to be in the theater 'til 3 AM tonight!).

New Dark Knight Rises Trailer

Why Doesn't Christian Bale Do Stuff Like This?

New Batman Movie News

And The Sun Is There! (That's their copyrighted image to the left, btw, used without permission and please don't sue me; I thought it was brilliant.)

I've got to say I can think of a lot worse people to play the Riddler in the next Batman film, "Gotham". Actors known for their comedy are often some of the best dramatic actors in the right role-- look at what Jonathan Winters did in the Twilight Zone episode "A Game of Pool". And I like the choice of the Riddler as the next villain as it is in keeping with the stated intent of the new series to be less campy and less fantastic. Sticking with a villain who doesn't have a sci-fi origin (like Mr. Freeze) is a good choice.

What bothers me is the insistence that a single villian can't sustain an entire movie. Jack Nicholson proved that wrong in "Batman", and it pains me that the new series is sticking with the necessity of throwing in Catwoman. And they're introducing Robin! The first two films got away with this gimick by linking the two villains in each, but it's getting old. Riddler or Penguin or Catwoman could carry an entire film by themselves, especially when you include a lot of deep character development of Bruce Wayne and his friends which has been some of the best parts of the new films. I wish the producer would have enough confidence to realize that.

I must say I love the decision not to include the name "Batman" in the title of the sequels. Beautiful move; we don't see "James Bond and the Diamond Laser Weapon". But Shia Labeouf as Robin? I think we could have done a tad better with the casting on that one, guys.

UPDATE: Apparently this is a false rumor floating around teh intarwebs. PHEW! The comments on multiple villains per movie, of course, still stand.

Film Review:The Dark Knight

Loved it.

I'll try to make this as spoiler-free as I can.

Let's get the bad out of the way so I can keep on gushing about the good. I found Heath Leger's performance to be exceptional, but not quite the "oh-my-god-movies-are-forever-transformed" experience that the hype has indicated. The Joker got a little preachy in places; he talked just a tad too much about his philosophy. I would have preferred that his motives were a little more opaque. Certainly not a deal-breaker, though. Two-Face was wasted, in my opinion. Why, oh why do they insist in squeezing multiple villains into these movies? They had set up the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character so well that he could have carried the entire next movie; if you didn't see any more of him after the scene in the hospital, it would have been just as good a movie. Better, perhaps. Alas. The soundtrack was good, but not exactly compelling. And I wish they could have dressed up Chicago (where the movie was filmed) a little more to make it less Chi-town and more Gotham. I like a more... Gothic... Gotham. This could have been any city, and the generic feel of the city detracted from the overall feel of the film. And why does Batman need to growl every line he has?

And now the good.

Heath Leger is as good as folks have been saying. He truly redefined the role from the Jack Nicholson interpretation. This is the Joker from "Killing Joke" rather than "Laughing Fish".
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are brilliant as Lucius Fox and Alfred as they were in the first movie. It has a lot of commentary to make relevant to the current tension between individual liberties and the necessity of gathering information to thwart terrorism (as well as the practice of "extraordinary rendition" of suspects in other countries), and I think they managed to work it in without being completely ham-handed about it. They resisted the impulse to do a big special-effects-laden chase until 90 minutes into the film, and while it was obvious that it was an obligatory scene, it fitted well into the plot and feel of the film as a whole. The suspense was incredibly well set-up, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they were able to make the audience really like and connect with the characters. I found myself really *caring* what happened to them in the final scenes, and that is a hard trick to accomplish. Very unexpected character death; well done. And the magic trick with the pencil is just... priceless. "Presto!" Hehehehe.

Perhaps what I liked most about this movie was the fact that Batman is hardly in it. It's not a "comic book movie" or a "superhero movie". It's a gangster / crime movie that happens to have a few extraordinary characters in it. It has that vibe, and I loved it.

Oh, and I saw a couple of people who brought their very young children to see it. I think, with my own seven-year-old daughter who loves both Batman and the Joker (ever since she "saw him" in person at the Shore Leave costume contest two years ago) as the benchmark, that it is definitely not a suitable film for young kids to see. The Two Face effect is creepy enough, but the Joker manages to pull off some definitely disturbing things, even if they cut away just before the blood, and I can really see it instigating some nightmares in young minds. I won't be letting my daughter see this for a few years at least.

I'll definitely be seeing it again, and I am officially spoiled when it comes to the Michael Keaton films. This one expands the milieu so much, and notches up the emotion and power inherent in the characters and setting, that the older films look cartoonish by comparison (and I mean the first ones, not the later more campy ones).

Give it four stars out of five.

The Dark Knight: Pre-Review

I am a huge fan of Batman, although I've never bought a single DC comic book.

I watched the old ABC show in syndication as a kid, not really understanding until later that it was supposed to be a comedy. But once I saw the first Michael Keaton movie, with that wonderful Jack Nicholson Joker, I was hooked. Then Batman: The Animated Series came out, and its sequels and associated spin-offs, and I was loving every minute of it. Hell, I even still watch Batman and Robin (the last, awful one with Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy), because it does have a couple of redeeming moments.

I absolutely adored the restart of the franchise with Christian Bale, and have been looking forward to the sequel The Dark Knight with great anticipation. I have been scouring the web for reviews, and haven't seen a bad one.

Until now.

Stephanie Zacharek at Salon.com seems to have a bit of an issue with the film, as she did with its predecessor, and if you go through some of her other reviews, you'll be treated to an incredibly condescending view from atop the Ivory Tower (which assuredly doesn't exist in Gotham City). Hell, she didn't even like the inescapably terrific WALL-E. Her liberal/feminist credentials come out in full force in her reviews, and it's sad, given that she is supposed to be giving opinions about films, not about how they interact with her particular socio-political views.

I'll have a full review of The Dark Knight after I see it this weekend. I cannot wait to see Ms. Zacharek's review of the upcoming Wonder Woman movie. Dollars to donuts she uses the phrase "I'm conflicted" at least once.