Having watched all the Superman films, I decided to follow that up with a review of the “90s” Batman films. * This encapsulates Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
To kick things off, here’s my famous quick and dirty guide to the Batman films:
Batman: directed by the artsy Tim Burton, produced by the blockbuster-minded Peter Guber and John Peters, it strikes a perfect balance between the two, delivering one of the best comics-to-film experiences ever.
Batman Returns: directed again by Burton, but essentially freed from intereference (he co-produced with Denise Di Novi), this one goes too far in Burton’s twisted, dark direction, making it too cumbersome for most.
Batman Forever: Joel Schumacher takes over direction, but Burton stays on as co-producer, tempering Schumaker’s natural excess with his own dark overtones. The balance of the first film is reversed but still delivers solid entertainment.
Batman & Robin: Burton moves on, leaving Schumacher basically in full control and he delivers an over-the-top, bloated piece of cinema with nary a thing to recommend it.
Lesson learned? These kinds of films work best when there is a balance between the “pop” and the “art” and between the “dark” and the “light”. But if you’re going to favor one or the other, try to make it the “art”.
It’s hard to realize today how unlikely it seemed that a Batman film franchise could ever be successful back before Batman came out. In those days, the general public’s idea of Batman was still firmly held by the Adam West TV show and film. In fact, I remember there being a lot of talk at the time about why they weren’t continuing with the actors from TV. West cast a large shadow over the role and it is to the credit of director Tim Burton that he was able to find in Michael Keaton the perfect choice to break that mold and establish the character anew. Everything that has happened to Batman since (the two animated series, popular toy line, Batman Begins) is down to this. Batman’s campier side had long been discarded by the comics, but to the general public he was still “Pow” and “Zap”. Batman changed all that in 1989.
Michael Keaton proved to be ideal for the role of the Caped Crusader. He brought a realism to the role that somehow works better because of his comedic background. He could simultaneously convey the gravity of Bruce Wayne’s situation while not hiding the ludicrous nature of his alter ego. A “dramatic” actor may not have been capable of the same. Jack Nicholson does much the same with The Joker. While by that time he was a well respected actor with Oscars under his belt, let’s not forget that he started off in films like The Little Shop of Horrors and The Raven. He knows how to play both edges of the sword and yet keep things clear. Kim Basinger gives one of her better performances as Vicki Vale; a bit of a screamer, but strong and something more than purely a damsel in distress.
But perhaps the greatest strength of Batman is its vibrant and well-chosen supporting cast. From small parts like Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams), to the bigger roles like Boss Grissom (Jack Palance), everyone who gets serious screen time proves themselves worthy. Robert Wuhl brings lots of honest humor to the role of reporter Alexander Knox. Michael Gough is a great Alfred, full of wisdom and support. Best of all is Pat Hingle as Commisioner Gordon in an interpretation still unsurpassed. **
The unifying point is that here, like in Superman, they treat the material seriously, without a hint of irony, despite how outlandish it all is in the cold light of day. A solid script, Burton’s stylish direction, a score from Danny Elfman in the days before he fell into formula and a few neat songs by Prince all add up to an all-time classic. Oh, and it’s got the second-best Batmobile of all time.
Now, it wasn’t only in the area of comic book adaptations that Batman broke new ground. It was also one of the first examples of two phenomena that have become commonplace in the days since. First, it was an early example of corporate synergy. Batman was completely home grown by the Time Warner company. Produced by Warner Bros., based on a property owned by DC Comics, books by Warner publishing, albums from Warner Bros. Records and a so on. Every corner of the Time Warner empire was brought full bear onto this project and it proved a huge success.
The other area where Batman showed the path of the future was in its release. This came in two phases. First, with a media blitz, Batman had a huge opening, breaking records left and right. It then plummeted in its second weekend, dropping something like 35%. *** This was the beginning of the front-loaded blockbuster, pushing audiences that used to go see a movie over several weeks into the early release window when studios make a larger percentage of the gross. The second phase of release was home video. Batman was the first major video (VHS in those days, kids) to release at the “sell-through” price of $14.99 right out of the gate before reverting to its full MSRP later. This, also, is commonplace today, with most major films discounted heavily in their first week on the shelves.
With all of this, it was only natural that a sequel would be on the way and that Warner Bros. would do everything they could to bring back as much of the original cast and crew as they could. With Nicholson out of the picture due to the Joker’s death, it seems it was felt that one villain couldn’t fill the void. In the Joker’s place we find the Penguin (Danny DeVito), Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) and a new character, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken).
Unfortunately, all these characters and the plots they bring with them leaves very little space for the small touches that made Batman such a rich experience. Only Alfred gets equivalent screen time and he’s relegated to a much smaller role in the proceedings. Commisioner Gordon gets a couple of nice scenes, but isn’t really central to the plot as he was in the first film.
And Burton, unfettered by studio producers is allowed to push things to far to the dark side. With so much emphasis on the villains, little of Batman’s heroism is allowed to show through. To make matters worse, someone decided that the Penguin needed to be turned into a disgusting, vile, sex-obsessed monster instead of the witty, intelligent mastermind he had always been. The changes to Catwoman were actually in line with her (then) recent revamping in the comics and not *that* far out of line with her past. Shreck is, surprisingly, more two-dimensional than the comic book characters with whom he shares the screen. Luckily, the actors in question are usually able to overcome the deficiencies of their characters. Only Devito (given nothing of real value to do) can’t pull his character out of the muck.
Particularly good is Pfeiffer, who plays the “good/bad girl” as well as I’ve ever seen it done. She is, of course, much edgier than previous incarnations of the character, but perfectly in keeping with Burton’s dark vision. That she is able to maintain her appealing nature in spite of all the things she does is also a credit to her. She and Keaton (who had been romantically linked previously) have real chemistry on screen and their interactions go a long way towards making up for the film’s other shortcomings.
The score from Elfman begins to show his tendency to repeat himself when covering similar material. Although he can be as eclectic as anyone, give him a “super hero” film to score and you can pretty much make up the compositions in your head and be sure he’s going to deliver just what you expect.
One place where it *does* improve on Batman is in its looks. With the confidence of a hit behind them, Warner Bros. was willing to really spend on the sequel. It looks fantastic. The Batsuit is sleeker and less clunky than the original and all the sets seem bigger and less stagey.
Overall, Batman Returns is a successful film, but it comes off as such a downer that even Pfeiffer’s stellar performance can’t save it. It had a great deal of potential, which it just fails to deliver.
Batman Forever, on the other hand, seemed to have everything going against it. First, they lost the director. Burton was tired of Batman and wanted to do other things. In comes Joel Schumacher. Then, they lost Keaton, as he felt that the script gave him too little to do. And to my mind, they were making a terrible mistake in not only matching Batman Returns‘ number of comic book villains, but also trying to squeeze in the entirety of Robin’s origins as well, plus a romantic interest.
But as the film made its way through production, I kept hearing encouraging things. The casting of Jim Carrey as the Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face indicated that they were serious about giving the characters the weight (and wackiness) they needed in order to succeed. This continued with respected actors like Chris O’Donnell as Robin and Nicole Kidman as love interest Chase Meridian. The choice of Val Kilmer to take over as Batman was less clearly a good choice, but I trusted him enough to feel he would do well with the part.
All of this was borne out in the final product. Batman Forever lacks a lot of the “darker” tones that had marked the first two films, but it was still deep enough to keep the interest of those who like that sort of thing (Bruce dealing with the two sides of his nature) while simultaneously increasing the “fun factor” by making the villains a bit more cartoonish. It is this, of course, that set off the critics. They like their movies dark and brooding and hate anything that might make a film just plain fun to watch. (See many of the criticisms of the Star Wars prequels.) But I felt that Batman Forever had a really nice balance, much like the first film, between the seriousness of a man on a mission and the fun of a guy in a costume fighting crime.
It certainly helps that the cast I mentioned earlier really step up to the plate as far as selling the material is concerned. This is particularly true of Kilmer and Carrey. Kilmer had the daunting task of stepping into Keaton’s then very popular shoes and he is able to present a character consistant with the previous portrayal, but distinctly his own. And he gets to interact with a wider variety of people than Keaton did. Bruce may have said that Alfred was like family in Batman, but in Batman Forever, we really feel that it’s true. Kudos are also in order for Kilmer’s deft handling of the tricky relationship between Bruce and Dick Grayson/Robin. Given the relative closeness of their ages compared to the comics, the dynamic is, of course, very different, but still valid. Bruce still comes off as an elder and a guardian and not as a contemporary.
Carrey, on the other hand was facing a task similar to that of Keaton in the first film; making people accept his portrayal in light of a decades-old iconic performance, in this case by Frank Gorshin. But it is even worse in this case than it was with Batman, because Gorshin was, in fact, responsible for much of what constituted The Riddler’s persona by the time of Batman Forever. Prior to the TV show, the Riddler had very little about him to distinguish himself from other super villains. He had a quirk, but otherwise was just another bad guy in spandex. The maniacal laughter, the sleek suits, the incisive brilliance, were all inventions of Gorshin (he even had the original Riddler dress suit made for himself just to get out of wearing tights) and the crew of the show. On a show as nutty as Batman, the Riddler was always the “straightest” of the bad guys. (Excluding Catwoman, of course.) Carrey does a great job of not only staying true to the essence of the character, but also layering his own, particular brand of lunacy on top.
Chris O’Donnell’s situation was much more like Keaton’s; trying to re-establish a character with a new dynamic. It was a bit controversial to introduce Dick as a young adult, instead of a boy, but it was really the only way to go. Batman had suffered enough nonsense about living with a young boy already and the film series didn’t need any of that attached to it. O’Donnel proves appealing in the role and he and the filmmakers were able to make Grayson’s story arc not only entertaining, but believable. His family’s death has as much, if not more, emotional impact as Bruce’s parent’s murder in the first film.
Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian, on the other hand, is a bit too cartoony for her own good. She lacks the emotinal weight brought to Vicki Vale and Selina Kyle in the previous films. Her obsession with Batman and eventual attraction to Bruce are too obvious and lack force. Still, she looks great and is able to sell even the silliest of psychobabble.
Ultimately, the only performance that does not live up to its potential is Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. It’s not that Jones doesn’t do well with the material, he does. He plays the dialogue for all that it’s worth. It’s not that Two-Face as portrayed is not an entertaining character, he is. The problem is that this is Two-Face, one of Batman’s most complex characters and he’s been reduced to a simple, brutish thug. The dichotomy of his character is reduced to mere show (his biforcated headquarters and dual girlfriends). In a film that delves into Batman’s split persona, it’s unfortunate that the most obvious counterpoint to his situation isn’t given the chance to provide that counterpoint.
Still, in the end, Batman Forever proved a huge success, bringing in significantly more than Batman Returns, at a time when it was still rare for a sequel to make more than the previous installment (especially the third in a series). Although well liked by audiences at the time, its reputation has taken something of a hit in more recent years. I don;t think this has anything to do with the material at hand, but is more of a reaction to the horror that came after it, the horror known as Batman & Robin.
*sigh*
Batman & Robin.
It’s almost painful to have to even dredge up my thoughts about this film in order to write this review. It goes without saying that it is the worst Bat-film, nay, the worst Bat-product, ever produced. **** It’s just so wrong from start to finish that it almost seems pointless to cover all the missteps.
Where to begin? Okay, the casting. There’s some good things to say here. Arnold Schwarzenegger proves a good choice for Mr. Freeze. Having been portrayed by different actors everytime he appeared, there was no historic portrayal to play against, so the filmmakers were free to do with him as they would. Arnold hadn’t played a villain in many years at this point, so it seemed a good opportunity for him to flex that muscle again. Uma Thurman, with her long, lean body, seemed a perfect choice for the plant-obsessed Poison Ivy. And even good-looking-but-not-as-popular-as-Hollywood-seems-to-think George Clooney should have had a decent chance at pulling off Batman. In fact, the only casting that looked disastrous on paper was Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. *****
But, in fact, they all proved wrong. Even those held over from previous versions suddenly seem out of place in the mire that is the script to Batman & Robin. Clooney, I give a pass. Batman is so marginal in the film full of characters that it’s hardly fair to even judge his performance. There just isn’t enough of it. The same, to a degree, is true of O’Donnell in his second go as Robin. He gets more to do (and does it badly). At least his costume is stronger this time (with heavy influence from Grayson’s post-Robin persona, Nightwing).
On the villain front, Schwarzenegger is given a series of horrible one-liners that completely undercut the sympathetic vibe the filmmakers were obviously trying to create for Mr. Freeze. The same goes for Thurman and Posion Ivy, but she stacks a horrible characterization and implausible costuming on top. The less said about the wasting of a perfectly good character like Bane, the better.******
Silverstone lives down to her potentail as Batgirl by not only being spectacularly wrong for the part, but she is also saddled with the most inaccurate portrayal of any major character in the series. Gone is Barbara Gordon, daughter to Commisioner Gordon. In is Barbara Wilson, niece to Alfred (despite not even a whiff of an English accent). Gone is the girl driven to join Batman by an unnerving need to do good. In is a spoiled little girl, acting out her rebellion by racing motorcycles. And that costume! I mean, it’s hard enough suspending one’s disbelief to accept people running around fighting crime in costumes. But Batgirl in thes film is quite clearly Barbara in a mask. She doesn’t even change the color of her hair or do *anything* to properly disguise herself.
On the emotional front, everything the first three films did to build up the characters is wasted in the this film on a sappy, “Alfred is dying” subplot that somehow fails to convey the emotion found in him calling Bruce “young man” in Batman Forever. Add to this a hyperactive music score, action sequences that make no sense and an overabundance of obvious CGI effects and you have just the kind of film that can bring a successful franchise to its knees.
Which is, of course, exactly what Batman & Robin did, bringing the Batman cash machine to a virtual grinding halt, at least until The Batman gave it the shot in the arm it so desperately needed. Ultimately, it’s not surprising that when Christopher Nolan took on the task of making a new Batman movie (which would ultimately be Batman Begins), he chose to start afresh*******, ignoring the continuity so completely ruined by Batman & Robin.
Where to put the blame? That’s the question. Me? I put it squarely on the shoulders of Warner Bros. themselves. The Batman franchise had been chugging along at a very nice pace; a film every three years. But the brass got greedy. They wanted one every other year. So Batman & Robin was rushed into production without the usual time that could have allowed the kinks to be ironed out. The quickened pace is why they lost Kilmer (he was already committed to The Saint - not that that proved a better choice). It’s why the CGI is so lousy (it was done too quickly). And it is probably why much of the script made little sense. All three of the previous films had experienced a significant bit of re-writing before production to tighten things up and they were all better for it. This one feels like it could have been shot from a first draft.
And so the series that started with such promise in 1989 came to crashing halt a mere eight years later. Still, ignoring that last, fatal step, even the flaws in the previous entries didn’t stop the films from being some of the most entertaining, well-made comics-to-film adaptations of all time.
* Obviously, Batman came out in 1989, but you know what I mean.
** Gary Oldman’s Gordon in Batman Begins is a very different character, perhaps as good as Hingle, but not better.
*** Of course, nowadays, studios would kill for a 35% drop from a huge opening weekend. 50% is more common. But back then, it was a huge drop.
****This includes Legends of the Super Heroes, so that’s really saying something.
*****And not becasue of her body weight. She’s just wrong for the part in every conceivable way.
******Okay, I’ll say this. At the time, Bane had the potential to be the first new top-tier Batman villain since the introduction of Ra’s Al Ghul. He had “broken Batman’s back”, after all. But the filmmakers decided, instead, to reduce him to a grunting, deformed henchman. Even worse treatment than Two-Face got.
*******You see, he’s a smarter man (and better filmmaker) than that hack Bryan Singer.
The crash of the Exchange
No, not that one.
I’m talking about the disastrous “relaunch” of the Hollywood Stock Exchange. For those of you unfamiliar with HSX (as it’s called), it is what is known as a “Prediction Market”. In a Predition Market, players buy and sell stocks, bonds and derivatives based on various aspects of popular culture. There are markets devoted to film like HSX, but also markets devoted to sports or music or just about anything else on which industry people would want to be able to guage popularity.
At HSX, MovieStocks are based on films themselves and close at a value equal to one H$ for each million the film takes up to its fourth weekend of release. So Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, for instance, closed at $332.11, since it was at $332,109,171 after the fourth weekend. When a film closes, the StarBonds for the director and the actors who appear in that film adjust to match their “Trailing Average Gross” (or TAG), which is the average total gross of the actor or director’s last five films. Again, that value equals one H$ for every $1M in the TAG. The maximum TAG value of a film is $250, even if it makes more than $250M. So George Lucas’ TAG is $250, since he has only three films covered by HSX (the three Star Wars prequels) and each of them made over $250 Million. Then there are derivatives, such as an item that closes at one H$ for every episode that a particular television show airs before being cancelled or how close a particular film comes to a goal during its opening weekend.
The point of all of this is that market forces (the people playing and buying the films and actors they think will succeed while selling or shorting those they think will fail) can give studios a good idea how those films will perform in the real marketplace. They pay for this kind of information (details deeper than those seen by the players) in order to best plan their sales and release strategies. HSX has proven pretty reliable. I’ve often been shocked by how poorly some films perform on HSX only to see those low expectations bear out when the film finally opens. Of course, there are always surprises. No one really saw The Blair Witch Project coming and The Dark Knight was a real shocker this year. (I mean, everyone knew it would do well, but really…)
As a fanatical box office watcher (I have Box Office Mojo bookmarked), I had a lot of fun playing that game. I played it once about ten years ago for around 18 months and managed to build my portfolio up to around H$65M. (You start off with H$2M.) But I eventually stopped and then about three years later started up again. This new portfolio currently stands at $473,394,053. I was in the top 4,000 (I think) – the 94th percentile out of hundreds of thousands of players. I felt confident I would cross the half-billion mark by the end of the year. I can’t tell you how many times I pulled people aside and said “Hey look! I made $2M today!”
But no more. A recent redisgn of HSX has left it a sloppy mess. They’ve made all of the organization parts of the game more cumbersome. I can’t even see my entire portfolio on one page anymore. But this thing that has killed it for me is that they’ve taken to focus off the exchange. Bonus H$ are given for — get this — “Schmoozing”. That means posting on the blogs or message boards, playing games or answering poll questions. And it now keeps track of this stuff, too. I saw one guy who had made H$300,000 from Schmoozing. I used to fight hard to earn H$300,000 through careful investing. It was an important part of my week. (I always used to set aside time on Mondays and Tuesdays to deal with the MovieStock closings and StarBond adjusts.)
I suppose I should be thankful that the HSX people have decided that the world needed another god-awful “Web 2.0″ networking site. It took up a lot of time and mental effort and I was tiring of it a bit anyway. Maybe they weren’t making enough money with the old model and had to try something to turn the tide.
Who knows?
Who cares?
All I know is that it’s not for me anymore. So I felt I needed to write this quick obituary to say goodbye to a formerly beloved pasttime.
Oh, well.
Now I’ll never see that half-billion.