Pirates of the Caribbean: The Franchise So Far...

One would think that a theme park ride would only offer so many storylines but the folks at Walt Disney Studios evidently disagree and as we look down on what will be the fifth instalment of ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ franchise it seems only fitting to take a look back on the franchise so far. Wish me luck, I may not make it all the way through.

It must have come as a shock to everyone involved when that first film became the hit it did in 2003. Swashbuckling and pirate stories were not exactly a hot commodity at the time, but when ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’ opened it held a special kind of feeling that was radically different from any other major studio picture at the time. It was also significant in that it was the first film from Walt Disney to be rated PG-13 by the MPAA. Re-watching it today, with the mistakes of the sequels being so present in my mind, it was frankly astonishing how excellent that first film was. Critics will often praise a genre film for “knowing what it is” which is essentially a code phrase for being tonally consistent which is exactly what ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’ is. There is an array of action, fantasy, adventure, humour and dare I say some horror-esque elements but they all blend together brilliantly. Under the direction of Gore Verbinski the film has a finely crafted feel to it but also a sense of pulsating energy that permeates every frame.

What is more impressive still is the character work. In an odd way it reminds me of James Gunn’s recent films (and not just because Zoe Saldana is in it) in that every character has some sort of arc, development or running theme. Even minor characters get some sort of cathartic moment to an aspect of their personality that was earlier established and even though there is still a lot going on in regards to backstories and exposition it all feels intrinsically linked to the main focus of the film, as well as being delivered in a way that feels natural to the plot’s progression. Even the CGI holds up remarkably well, particularly in a climactic action sequence where the actors are repeatedly and seamlessly switched out with CGI doubles.

The real strong point though is the cast who are all terrific in their roles. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly share good on screen chemistry that can carry the emotional crux of the movie. It’s great to see Geoffrey Rush being so fully committed to the role as the villainous Barbossa, bringing great charisma and menace to the part. But if we’re talking charisma you know where this is going. Johnny Depp received an Oscar nomination for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow and honestly, taking this movie alone it’s not at all surprising. Depp so many distinct nuances and great physical traits to the character that he is instantly burned into your memory. Yes it’s a caricature but it’s a caricature done with such commitment and flawlessness that you have to applaud.

Sadly, like any caricature though, when it’s overused it can go from charming to annoying in a matter of minutes. That is one of the many problems with the higher budget sequel ‘Dead Man’s Chest’. That being said there is a lot to like in this mess of a film. It loses that tonal consistency that made the first one so enjoyable and the pacing and structure of the film is so convoluted that it feels exhausting to sit through it. Whereas you could argue Depp was just part of an ensemble in the first he seems to be thrust forward and centre here (I’ll elaborate later on why that is such a problem as it only gets worse as the films progress). The problem is that each plot thread and sequence feels enjoyable enough, but hardly any of them feel relevant to the main story of the movie, which is….I’m honestly not that sure. Take the reunion of Jack and Will, which is established via a lengthy sub-plot about cannibal tribes and false gods that feels fun at first but is treated with such seriousness and goes on for so long that it detracts from the main movie. But as I said, there’s still a lot to enjoy especially as Verbinski’s direction is still superb and the cinematography in particular feels like a significant improvement upon the first. Some of the set pieces are especially inspired, such as the three way duel. Not only is it brilliantly staged and orchestrated but every character involved has an established and relatable motivation, and the sequence itself escalates with such brilliant ridiculousness that just when you think it’s reached its height it goes on even more and is great for it. But then you reach the end of it, exhilarated and exhausted, and you realise there’s still half an hour of the movie left and you don’t have the energy to care. 

Mind you, all of this is nothing compared to what is next. When people ask about the most confusing movies ever made they recall the work of David Lynch or Ingmar Bergman. I however, point to ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End’. It seems that in the process of making these films someone forgot to tell the creative team that their movie isn’t ‘Lord of the Rings’. It’s not based on one of the most acclaimed works of fiction of the 20th century, it is based on a theme park ride. As I said before, the first movie still had a lot going on but it was all with the intent of going towards a single goal. You could sum up the plot in a few sentences and the rest was just there to enrich the characters and world. To this day I still have no idea what the plot of ‘At World’s End’. It’s just minute after minute of contrived plot points, overly complicated mythology and an infuriating amount of rules and regulation governing this supposed pirate fantasy. And it all goes NOWHERE, I mean literally nothing has any bearing or relevance to the ultimate plot. The pirate brethren, pieces of eight, detour to Shanghai, weird multiple personalities of Johnny Depp, something to do with an East India Trading Company and another ship of undead monsters, it all amounts to jack-shit. There are entire subplots of this movie that I had completely erased from my memory, subplots that take up a good half hour of the films gargantuan runtime. One scene isn’t just tonally inconsistent from another, it’s on an entirely different astral plane. Character development and motivations are almost as nonsensical as the actual character actions, with everyone betraying everyone else despite the fact that the previous movies led me to believe that they actually had some mild affection for one another, or at least enough not to sell them down the river when it’s convenient. What was even up with that whole Calypso thing? Was all that just so you could get a cool set piece at the end of your movie? You know there is such a thing as editing right?

So, I decided to bail on that before I drifted into insanity. So four years later Jack Sparrow returned yet again with ‘On Stranger Tides’ which at the very least manages to go back to basics. No more complicated squid monsters and sea Goddess’, just Jack and some fine adventure. Except it kind of sucks. By no means is there anything inherently wrong with ‘On Stranger Tides’ but it feels so completely devoid of that innovation and distinct charm that made the first film so enjoyable. The plot, action and general tone of the movie just all feel flat and uninspired. I think a lot of that is due to the character dynamic. As I stated earlier Jack Sparrow simply does not work when he isn’t part of an ensemble. For these films to succeed they rely on his antics and charisma being ever present throughout the story, which doesn’t exactly lend itself to character depth or dramatic range. He needs to stay the same throughout because any development would risk changing his character. In the first film we had Bloom and Knightly to provide the emotional arc of the movie whilst Jack reacted to them whilst setting the plot in motion. Sparrow is the maverick to the straight man that is the rest of the world. When you try to make a caricature the focus of your movie it doesn’t matter how well Depp plays him, he’s still a caricature. Which brings us up to date and up to the next one. Learn from your mistakes guys.

Star Trek: The Franchise So Far....

‘Star Trek Beyond’ is hitting theatres soon-ish and of course it’s a momentous occasion for ‘Star Trek’ as 2016 marks the franchise’s 50^th anniversary. Now I hope you know how this goes because there are so many movies in this franchise that I have to skip the obligatory intro and go straight into the reviews, all twelve of them. Ready…..go.

By 1979 it had been a decade since ‘Star Trek’ had been cancelled but with a growing desire for more science fiction franchises (for which you can thank 1977’s ‘Star Wars’) as well as its growing popularity of the series it was revived for a feature length film. The original cast were all returning to their roles, series creator Gene Roddenberry was returning to helm the project and it would be directed by two time Academy Award winning director Robert Wise and….it was a complete and utter disaster. Well maybe not on a financial level, in fact until ‘The Voyage Home’ this was the highest grossing of all the Trek films. But in terms of quality the film lacks any kind of structure or pacing. Which is odd because initially it seems to wield a strong narrative thrust but the premise soon wears thin and although it juggles some interesting and occasionally provocative ideas none of the characters undergo any development and are consistently overshadowed by the special effects. There are more effects shots in ‘The Motion Picture’ than there were in ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ but unlike those films the effects have no kinetic thrust or active role, we just get a steadily moving effect, a bland reaction and repeat for 132 minutes and believe me, it really feels it. You could liken the effects to ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ but without the poetic symmetry or Stanley Kubrick’s direction and the existential awe of the ideas it is carrying. Ultimately a slow and boring film that’s overshadowed by every other science fiction movie of its era.

But it’s alright because we move straight into ‘The Wrath of Khan’, often regarded as the finest of all the Trek movies, and it is difficult to argue. This time Roddenberry was forced out of the creative process and it does show because in many ways this makes up for all of the mistakes made by ‘The Motion Picture’. Firstly the film definitely packs a punch with its pacing, setting up the stakes and drawing out a personal connection for every character to the situation. Having Kirk and the crew personally involved with their nemeses (who is a physical person this time and not some weird space cloud) creates a sense of enthrallment within both the action and the development of the characters. We get both of those aspects in plenitude as well, both on a personal level with Kirk’s son and Spock’s moving sacrifice to the intensity of the battle and the nice twist of it being a duel of wits between Kirk and Khan, each manoeuvring to try and gain the upper hand. Maybe the duel in question becomes repetitive occasionally and no offense to William Shatner but he noticeably struggles to sustain a dramatic performance of this level. It may relegate the rest of the crew but by focussing on that trinity of Kirk, Spock and Bones it evokes the true spirit of ‘Star Trek’ and what it represented. Throw in that thrilling score by the late, great James Horner and you have a real science fiction classic, which is hard to do when your movie comes out the same month as ‘Blade Runner’, ‘E.T’, and ‘The Thing’ (best month in the history of anything ever).

Onto ‘The Search for Spock’ and while being one of the odd numbered ‘Star Trek’ films it is often associated with being inferior when in my opinion, it’s rather good. Granted it lacks the thrilling action of its predecessor and the humour of its successor but I always like to think of it as a decent blending of the two. Granted that makes it somewhat uneven in tone, pacing and character but there is still some decent emotional weight to the film like the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk’s son and that wonderful moment in which the resurrected Spock first recognises his old friend with the words “Jim…your name is Jim”. The only issue is that none of these moments feel as heavy as they should be, granted they do have some significant weight behind them but I can’t help but think that various factors and emotional arcs were pushed aside in favour of moving the already crowded narrative forward.   

I’ve always been somewhat conflicted over ‘The Voyage Home’, while I understand that the filmmakers were aiming for a more comedic tone and it was the intention of director and star Leonard Nimoy to go that route it sometimes feels like an odd match. Whereas the previous two films had done a commendable job at establishing a tone that harkened back to the true spirit of ‘Star Trek’ this one deviates almost disconcertingly. Then you have the strong environmental message and while putting such a theme in a blockbuster is certainly a good thing, it is not exactly what you call subtle, with the crew travelling back in time to save the whales (I guess if the charities fail than we can rest easy that Spock and the gang will be on their way any day now). With a contrived romantic sub plot as well it feels less like a science fiction film and more like a fish out of water romantic comedy. But audiences ate it up and ‘The Voyage Home’ became the highest grossing film of the franchise.

Its success meant that production was rushed forward with the next instalment and in no way does that come across at all apart from in every conceivable way. Hey, if Nimoy can write and direct one why can’t Shatner? ‘The Final Frontier’ is a laughably bad film, from the acting to the narrative and even the usually strong visual effects are all absolutely terrible. In the usual logical and rational franchise the plot revolves around a literal search for God. Now to be fair that premise could have potential if handled in the correct way but it’s so lacking in any cohesive structure and almost incomprehensible. The attempts at comedy are almost as painful as the rare attempts at action and there are so many plot holes that it isn’t even worth mentioning, you just have to accept them as they go.

Luckily though the original cast got to end on the high note that was ‘The Undiscovered Country’. It balances the humour and the action much better than its predecessor and is also able to tread in territory we’ve never thoroughly touched upon before. To see Kirk confronted with his own prejudices and reluctance to accept peace with a lifelong enemy is an intriguing one and provides some substantial emotional weight. In general the film’s production design and visual effects are back to their former glory as well and Christopher Plummer is on hand as one of the franchise’s strongest villains. Again it’s far from perfect with tonal consistency being a continuous problem and the cast themselves are mixed to average, with their age really starting to show at this point. But nonetheless it’s a dignified and subtly poignant way to wave goodbye to the complete original crew one final time.

I say complete because Shatner is immediately back for ‘Star Trek Generations’. With the original cast now gone a new series of movies were established to tie into the revamped Trek TV series ‘The Next Generation’ (which is better than the original, come at me internet). However that is not reflected in the new crew’s first film. Despite having homed the characters on TV for a good few years now the film was an unbalanced, unfocussed, nonsensical and sadly unsatisfactory entry. There are also so many strange subplots that go nowhere like Mr Data’s emotion chip and it deviates too often from the plot with trips to the holodeck and hanging out with Kirk in the nexus. None of it adds to the character development, plot or themes. I felt as if I had to remind myself of the main plot every ten minutes. Also I’m sorry, but Captain Kirk cannot die by falling off a bridge, I refuse to accept that is how an icon of science fiction dies and his final words are not “Oh my”, that’s wrong original cast member.

But it’s okay because we now reach ‘First Contact’, widely regarded as the best ‘Next Generation’ film and my personal favourite of all the Trek films (I know it’s not subjectively the best, but it’s my favourite so what can you do). I love how it feels genuinely cinematic for the first time in a while for the franchise, I love how it takes what we already know about each character from the series and manages to expand upon it one way or another. True, some get more attention than others but everyone feels as if they have at least one moment in which to shine. The cast themselves are utilized to their best potential here as well, with Patrick Stewart finally looking as if he gets to stretch his acting muscles aboard the Enterprise. By taking the story back to mankind’s first contact with alien life it reconnects with the human ambition and imagination that led to the creation of ‘Star Trek’ in the first place. The action genuinely feels enthralling and exhilarating as well as inventive, making good use of the improved special effects as well as their excellently realised practical sets. As well as that the Borg prove to be just as menacing and as intimidating as they were on the show. No it still isn’t perfect but in my nostalgic mind it is.  

Sadly, like the cruellest of addictions the high didn’t last long. We were back on that confused and tedious track with ‘Star Trek: Insurrection’. Far from the cinematic feel of ‘First Contact’ this instalment feels drastically scaled down which is remarkable with Jonathon Frakes returning to direct this one. Though to his credit he gives the film a slick and polished feel despite its shortcomings. But then again maybe that is what kills it, as instead of having any particular flair or style to compensate for the lack of development and painfully slow pacing. On top of that the film just has a general sense of being bland, from the action scenes to the visual effects and even the pseudo philosophical jargon. It is difficult to even find anything to write about due to how little it accomplishes, it’s not bad enough to marvel at but also not good enough to appreciate.

Sadly unlike the original crew ‘The Next Generation’ could not end on a high note. To be fair I would say this instalment is more entertaining and inventive than ‘Insurrection’ it fails to tread any new ground and hardly advances the ‘Star Trek’ mythology in any way. Not only that but we are not discovering new about any of the characters or introducing any new concepts. It is hard to watch ‘Nemesis’ and not feel as if the franchise has run out of steam. Also I don’t care if B-4 is supposed to be a clone or a digital copy or a brother or whatever relation to Mr Data, killing Mr Data and leaving B-4 to take his place is not how you end the movie. The original series had the cast united around a stirring speech from Kirk, The Next Generation had someone that looks like but isn’t Mr Data singing Blue Skies. Still, nice early role for Tom Hardy.

So with all the series cancelled and the movies long gone it appeared ‘Star Trek’ had reached its end. But along came JJ Abrams to bring new life into the franchise and he did just that fantastically. Like the best ‘Star Trek’ films it has a seamless blend of humour, action and development and while there is a noticeable push towards a more action oriented interpretation this is by no means a dumbing down of the franchise. It still retains that intellectualism and big thinking ideas the fuelled ‘Star Trek’ for so any years. On a technical level the film is superb, from the visuals to the sound editing and production design. The new cast may be the films strongest aspect, with each new addition being a unique interpretation of the characters we loved but also one that remains reminiscent to the core values of said characters. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, John Cho and of course the late, great Anthon Yelchin are all on hand to lift the film beyond your standard summer blockbuster. Having Nimoy return (as well as some inventive narrative choices) gives the reboot a real connection to the original series that maintains a grasp on the world we have spent so many years growing to love but simultaneously opening up a world of possibilities.

That only makes it more baffling why they felt the need to remake ‘Wrath of Khan’ for the next instalment. Technically this film is also well made with Abrams direction being just as superb as well as all of the other aesthetic elements being consistent to the previous film and excellently made. However I still don’t know why this newly established timeline felt the need to revert back to a storyline we have all already seen. At the very least they could have made it more ambiguous as to how one film influenced the other, I know we have a new incarnation of the character but does he really have to announce “My name is Khan”? A twist like that only alienates everyone, old fans are outraged that they have revised the series’ most iconic storyline and new fans are confused as to why the name is significant. It’s also a shame because along with the rest of the cast who do are still just as brilliant as their previous outing, Benedict Cumberbatch’s colder antagonist is played very convincingly and menacingly. When he says “Because I am better” you really believe him. I also quite enjoyed the role reversal between Kirk and Spock as it felt natural to where their character arcs were going, Kirk needing to accept the consequences of his own confidence, making the personal sacrifice for his ship and Spock realising the value of his emotional connection to others. Sadly the third act around them is so jumbled that any potential weight is minimal (though still present). I found the first two acts both riveting, well made and tonally consistent (something that many Trek films seem to struggle with). So while it’s undoubtedly a flawed film I can still find a lot of enjoyment from it.

That’s it, I made it through all twelve ‘Star Trek’ films. It’s been quite a voyage, one of great highs and terrible lows. With ‘Star Trek Beyond’ getting a positive buzz here’s hoping it can take the franchise to new heights and honour its 50^th anniversary. Can it boldly go where no one has gone before?

Captain America: The Franchise So Far

So ‘Captain America: Civil War’ is fast approaching, in fact for some people it has already arrived making this post slightly pointless, for them at least. This film has been set up as a lot of things, another ‘Avengers’ instalment, the reintroduction of Spider-Man, a versus movie between Marvel’s main heroes but most of all it should be viewed as a third Captain America movie because after all the film is called ‘Captain America’. But what of the other entries that have portrayed the adventures of Steve Rogers on the silver screen? Well I’m going through them now, and oh boy were there some oddities in this collection.

The original outing for Captain America was actually the first adaptation of a Marvel property ever, in fact it was so old that Marvel weren’t even called Marvel at this stage, with the character belonging to a division called Timely Comics. Released in 1944 this film serial was the most expensive of its kind at the time and starred Dick Purcell as Captain America a.k.a…..Grant Gardner. You heard me correctly, no more Steve Rogers, soldier turned superhero, instead we have U.S District Attorney Grant Gardner. This is just one of many baffling changes as the serial also neglects to include any super serum, Bucky does not make an appearance (as far as I can tell, none of the supporting characters are lifted from the comics), despite having fought Nazis in the comics until this point there are no Nazis within the film which is even more remarkable considering that it was made during World War 2 and you’d think what would be the perfect propaganda opportunity to have a dashing hero (that literally has America as part of his name) vanquishing them. Additionally, Cap’s famous shield also fails to make an appearance, with the hero’s weapon of choice being a standard revolver.

You may be thinking that this doesn’t sound remotely like a Captain America film apart from its title, and you would be right. Originally the script was titles ‘The Mysterious Doctor Satan’ but with the growing popularity of the character the studio were able to procure the Captain America name and shoehorned him into the existing script, making as few changes as possible. So this is a Captain America movie in name only and I’m sure that for the average movie goer at the time, who knew literally nothing about any comic book of any kind, it was still fairly terrible. In fact I feel as if rattling off the film’s production history says enough about its quality so I won’t go into it much further. I will say however that Dick Purcell was described at the time of filming as having an “average to overweight physique’. That description was probably justified when the process of filming proved to be too strenuous for his heart and he died weeks later in a locker room. Which is slightly sad, but then again the film itself is rather sad, in every possible way.

Amazingly though, things could only get worse. Captain America fans were treated to two straight to video releases that….well look I cannot find the strength to actually talk about that movie so I’ll just put a picture of Cap himself from the movie up at the side and you can judge for yourself.

Then there was another theatre release, in 1990…for the U.K at least (wow, aren’t we lucky). Over in America they had to wait two more years for it to be released on home video. So putting aside what may be the worst marketing campaign in history to not release a Captain America film in American theatres (maybe the makers were doing a service to America by not showing it) the film itself is even worse. From the makers of ‘Masters of the Universe’ and ‘Superman: The Quest for Peace’ comes ‘Captain America’. You heard me.

It stars Matt Salinger (best known as the son of J.D Salinger) as Captain America/Steve Rogers (well at least this version got that part right). When he partakes in an experiment involving super serum he goes from weakling to super soldier, despite undergoing no actual physical change at all. He ends up being frozen after preventing a missile from hitting the White House by kicking it with his foot and being dragged with it to the arctic. This does sound somewhat accurate to the story that is familiar to comic book readers and fans of the latest film incarnation, but imagine if every element of the recent Marvel films were executed so terrible and horrifically that it stifles any form of enjoyment whatsoever, and then you have this film. The characters are all shallow charisma vacuums and the production budget is laughable, as is the acting, and the plot and everything really, especially when you remember that in the summer of 1989 audiences were treated to Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’. So there is no excuse for this mess of a film.

But finally, finally, we arrive at Chris Evans’ portrayal of the character, who made his debut as Captain America in 2011’s ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’. Now I’ve never been overly fond of this instalment, viewing it as one of the more forgettable films of the MCU, but there is still a lot of fun to be had with it. It tells its origin story with good conviction and depth to make it engaging and interesting, I enjoy the way it approaches the character as a form of propaganda that morphed into a real soldier (it even throws out a quick reference to the 1944 serial) and there is a fun retro style to it, feeling more like an adventure serial from the era rather than an average blockbuster. Evans gives the character a broader emotional range and vulnerability just as well as he establishes his superb abilities and heroism. Nevertheless I still stand by my original complaints with the film, that ultimately it feels too simplistic and by the numbers to leave a lasting impression and ultimately just acts as a fancy set up for ‘The Avengers’. That is not to say it doesn’t have a unique flair to it, but not enough to be anything more than average.

Due to my opinion of ‘The First Avenger’ I didn’t go into ‘The Winter Soldier’ with high expectations and you can imagine what followed. I was blown away by it. It is a rare superhero film that can act as both a continuation and an entry point. It works to satisfy fans of the original comic while also working as a standalone film. Hiring the Russo Brothers to direct this may still stand as the best decision Marvel has ever made with their movies, they are directors who understand the source material and know what aspects of it work cinematically but they also craft a film that on an aesthetic level more closely resembles a political thriller from the 1970s. Movies like ‘Three Days of the Condor’ and ‘All the President’s Men’ spring to mind, and having Robert Redford in the cast only helps to emphasise those similarities.

That in itself is wonderfully subversive, as Alexander Pierce Redford is playing the antagonist he would usually be running from back in the 1970s. But in switching roles he shows the same amount of commitment as he always does and this is reflected by the entire cast, with Evans once again adding an unforeseen level of depth the character but at the same time loses none of the heroic charm. Scarlett Johansson is a great inclusion as she turns Black Widow into more than just the obligatory female companion, she becomes a mysterious femme fatale. Then you have Samuel L Jackson, Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan who are also mightily impressive.

The plot brilliantly and at just the right pace, never leaving the heroes a moment to breathe but somehow finding the time to include some emotionally heavy moments within it. As well as that the action scenes themselves are fantastic, once again it is down to the Russo Brother’s direction as they draw suspense from each action sequence, giving it a sense of weight and purpose but also injecting it with a visceral energy. It strikes the perfect balance between finding the right amount of realism so that you care for the characters, but not too much that it no longer feels entertaining. It is a rare blockbuster that is as entertaining as it is well made.

Batman: The Franchise So Far....

With ‘Batman v Superman’ just around the corner (we should be getting the first full and detailed reviews by tomorrow morning) I’m going through every entry in both the Batman and Superman franchises. For my rundown of all of the Superman movies, go here http://criticalfilmsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/superman-franchise-so-far.html (or just scroll down slightly if you’re on the main page). The man of steel has kind of a mixed bag when it comes to movies. But now onto the defender of Gotham himself, the world’s greatest detective, the dark knight. He’s Batman. Because of time restraints I only had time for all of the live action ones so please don’t get angry if you can’t find ‘Mask of the Phantasm’ here. Very quick review; it’s amazing and you should see it if you haven’t already.

We start with the 1966 version ‘Batman: The Movie’. Dramatic, gritty, thrilling, these are just some of the many words that cannot be used to describe the Adam West version of Batman. It was developed to promote the TV Series that was running at the same time and was mostly intended as a parody, recently it’s been theorised that the creators actually hated the whole concept of comic books and set out to neuter its most iconic character as revenge, which does seem worryingly malicious especially when you consider how much fun this incarnation was. Yes it’s campy, corny and ridiculous but in the best possible way. The opening scene involves Batman being attacked by a rubber shark and defeating it by using his famous shark repellent spray that’s passed down by Robin (so you have to ask who was flying the helicopter and when it’s later revealed that they have a boat you also have to wonder why they were even using a helicopter out at sea at all). Credit where it’s due they did set the tone early on.

It’s almost mind numbingly ludicrous. Bat far be it from me to even attempt to take that away from the film, after all the Batman comics of the time were also unusually campy and upbeat, a departure from the darker tone they started out with and would later readopt. Watching it as a comedy is the way to view it as in many ways this is a straight up parody. Everything in the Bat-Something, Batman is easily the smartest person in the world and every time someone gets punched, kicked or thrown the screen is filled with a giant word like ‘Pow’, ‘Kaboom’ or ‘Thrwomp’. You can hate this film for ruining the character in the public eye for a certain era but it’s just as easy to love it for how idiotic it is. It isn’t as painfully bad as the Schumacher movies and is actually enjoyable enough to re-watch.

I always felt that when it came to the Tim Burton 1989 ‘Batman’, he did two things. Firstly he created a very dark natured movie, one that was a massive departure from the previous incarnation almost as much as the Nolan era was from the Schumacher one. Secondly Burton created what may be one of the most Burton-esque movies he ever made. Looking at this film as a Tim Burton movie rather than a Batman movie has always made more sense to me, it’s dark, gothic, quirky at times, full of tortured and deranged characters, but ultimately hopeful.

I know there are a lot of devoted fans to this film, but for me it’s far from the perfect movie even though there is a lot to admire. Let me briefly state what I am not as keen on, for starters the pacing feels slightly odd, taking a while to commence with the central plot, it also lacks dramatic depth for most of its characters (the main exception being Bruce Wayne himself), Vicky Vale seems like an unnecessary character especially compared to the amount of screen time she has as she has no chemistry with Wayne and adds nothing to the story and Kim Basinger isn’t exactly great in the role and the movie feels somewhat dated for me with the amount of special effects and nonstop Prince music. Also, people complain about Heath Ledger outshining Christian Bale? That is nothing compared to how much screen time is devoted to Jack Nicholson’s Joker as opposed to Batman himself, it’s insane.

But as for things I did like, well it is style over substance but given that it’s Tim Burton doing the style, who cares? At the same time Keaton is great as Batman with a sense of intimidation and thoughtfulness although I only really buy one aspect of his Bruce Wayne performance, while he manages to reclusive and unhinged side of the character he doesn’t quite have the charisma to convince anyone in that world that he isn’t Batman (I feel as if anyone with a good amount of intuition could have worked it out). Nicholson is also amazing as the Joker, although I take issue with taking the ambiguity out of his origin he still conveys a sardonic and dark comedic tone, though essentially that is just Jack Nicholson rather than a genuine transformation. I must admit though, that soundtrack is absolutely amazing and though it seems like I’m only pointing out flaws, it’s because virtually everything else in the film is brilliant.

But if Burton put his own stamp on ‘Batman’ then he went even further for the sequel ‘Batman Returns’. I feel essentially the same way about this film as the 1989 one, it’s good but flawed. As with the first film Batman himself is essentially a supporting character and overshadowed by the likes of Danny De Vito’s The Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman. Both are cast perfectly within this world and give amazing performances, but especially Pfeiffer, to this day that remains the quintessential on screen Catwoman she’s magnetic, energetic and hypnotic in that role, why they decided to gove Halle Berry a solo Catwoman film instead of Pfeiffer is beyond me, I don’t care if it was fifteen years later she still would have been perfect. Keaton is still excellent as Batman, but it’s just a shame that he has so little screen time, especially given that he is playing the title character. Most of the hints of his damaged psychosis come from Keaton’s performance but as far as the writing of the character goes he seems rather one dimensional.  

In terms of style, yet again the movie is wonderful to look at, retaining that dark and gothic look from the first film. Tonally however, it seems all over the place. While it’s subject matter and style are immensely bleak and cynical the movie is populated with so many outlandish characters that they seem to have been picked up from another film and dropped into this one. Once again none of them are really developed beyond their initial origin story. The film just feels unsure over what it wants to be and as much as I love Christopher Walken, Max Shreck isn’t really that interesting a character. What turns me off most of all is that this feels like it would have been a much better Burton movie than a Batman one, I would have watched an original superhero by Burton and these kind of stylistics.

That being said, it was infinitely (no that’s still too small an amount) better than ‘Batman Forever’. The studio had had enough with Burton and terminated his role as director (just thinking about it maybe a third act would have improved the other two, by completing the story that seemed to end on such a sour note). I often find that when put against ‘Batman and Robin’, the true terribleness of ‘Batman Forever is often forgotten. The film manages to be so excessively active and yet so amazingly boring that it almost baffles me. There are just as many ridiculous aspects as ‘Batman and Robin’ such as Batman’s photo on the cover of TIME Magazine, I mean for that to happen they would have had to contact him, arrange a time of meeting and then organise an actual photoshoot with him, and the secretive caped crusader agreed to all of this for some reason. Or what about Two-Face drinking two drinks at the same time, because he has two faces so that apparently means he has to do everything twice and is split even in his preference of alcoholic beverage.

Let’s talk about Tommy Lee Jones’ as Two-Face, though I’m glad that he seems to be having the most fun he’s ever had on a film set, the idea that an actor of his talent playing a character that is supposed to be so conflicted, is reduced to a cheap caricature angers me immensely, as does Jim Carrey’s The Riddler which may have seemed perfect on paper but ultimately just becomes Ace Ventura with less dark undertones. Chris O’Donnel and Val Kilmer are just so strangely miscast as well. Joel Schumacher’s direction is just so outright bizarre, with his various tilted shots and neon stylistics that make the movie feel like a bad drug trip. I assume.

But on to the main event, ‘Batman and Robin’. What do you want me to say about this film? We all know it’s terrible beyond belief, I don’t even find it hilariously bad, it is one of a few terrible movies that I can’t even enjoy as a bad film. It is genuinely horrific in every sense of the word and more depressing than ‘Batman Returns’. How could a one make George Clooney this bad? ‘Batman and Robin’ found a way to do so. The film is just so shamelessly commercialised, almost as much as it is needlessly fetishized. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr Freeze may be the most random, nonsensical and terrible piece of casting in film history. Alicia Silverstone is playing someone but it isn’t Barbara Gordon or Batgirl. Robin becomes the most annoying character in comic book movie history. The dialogue is on another level of badness, from the god awful one liners to the unexplainable moments of exposition and moments that make no goddamn sense like “This is why Superman works alone”, “Batgirl, that’s not very PC, what about Bat-Person”, says the person who is called Batman. I haven’t even mentioned the bat credit cards or bat nipples. You know it’s bad when literally everyone involved has apologised for the film, it ran the Batman franchise into the ground and buried it with a bulldozer.

The only silver lining is that had ‘Batman’ and Robin’ been anything less than the colossal failure it was, Christopher Nolan might never have had the chance to reinvent the franchise with ‘Batman Begins’. This film holds a special place in my heart, I remember going to see it for the first time and not only enjoyed the film itself, but be impressed by the whole process of making such a movie, what the actors went through to pull off these characters, how the writing evolved and how the action was staged. Watching it today I admire how so much of it is driven by character and emotion, they really put an emphasis on how Bruce Wayne chooses his own fate and though we’ve seen Batman’s origin before it has never been given this much depth or explored in such a way that would make his association with bats and resort to donning a mask to fight crime seem logical.

The result is that characters resonate more deeply with the audience. I never really truly felt that Gotham city was worth saving until now, not because it was portrayed any more favourably but because I connected more with Batman as a character and because he cared about the city I felt compelled to do so as well. Even the supporting characters become compelling, none more so than Michael Caine as Alfred, who wants to preserve the Wayne legacy and the wellbeing of his friend (because they are most definitely friends in this movie, that much is obvious) but at the same time, realises that this is the life Wayne has chosen and must support him in that. Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon is also excellent as is Liam Neeson. Nolan filmed his action in such a grounded and realistic nature right down to the inclusion of human error. No one is indestructible and therefore I’m more invested within the action as anything could happen. He well and truly reinvigorated the franchise.

But no one could have expected what would happen next as Nolan not only went on to craft a superior sequel but what is, for me at least, indisputably the greatest comic book movie ever made. It almost transcends the whole genre to become an epic tragedy, a thrilling crime drama a haunting portrait of good and evil. The writing, the direction, the performances, they all redefine what a film of this genre can be and serve as a reminder to anyone currently working in the genre. I can understand people thinking the film is overrated (it seems like nearly everyone proclaims it as one of the greatest movies ever) or disliking certain aspects of it, but if you outright hate this film then at the risk of causing controversy you have no concept of what good filmmaking is.

Some people feel that in ‘The Dark Knight’ Batman is overshadowed by The Joker but I’ve always disagreed. The film keeps Bruce Wayne at its centre and concentrates on the choices he must make to overcome the challenges before him, the character is allowed to reflect a range of genuine human emotions and becomes a man of depth and complexity. Harvey Dent is also portrayed as the tragic hero of this saga and in many ways is written as c ounterpart to Bruce Wayne. They each want to be the other, Dent has a desire to act beyond the law and under a shrouded mask from which he cannot be scrutinised by the public (which is perhaps a secret, personal motive to claiming to be Batman later on the movie, not just to protect the crusader’s identity but also because he wants to be). At the same time Wayne finds himself in a position where he no longer wants to go unrecognised and unrewarded, almost wanting to cast off is mask and let the world know his true identity. It is what makes his end sacrifice all the more poignant, he sacrifices the only sense of recognition he has left by making Batman the enemy in the public’s eye. That ending is so brilliantly composed because it’s so tragically hopeful. Though it’s not the victory we wanted, it is a victory. One that is undeniably necessary and immeasurably meaningful.

When you look at each character, their relationship with Batman and how they develop they all just come across as perfect representations. Jim Gordon, Rachel Dawes, Lucius Fox and of course Alfred, they are all vital to the story and its development but are never reduced to one dimensional exposition vehicles. They all serve a purpose and undergo some form of development. Let’s talk about Heath Ledger though, it’s one of the few performances in which I have seen an actor truly transform into another human being, truly one of the greatest performances in cinema history. It’s such a perfect character as The Joker understands his own role within Batman’s world, he knows he is the folly to him and he understands the morals and limitations of his counterpart and exploits them through these morally bleak conundrums. And he doesn’t care. That may be what is most terrifying about the character, he fully understands his role and fate and he revels in the idea.

Add to that Nolan’s masterful direction, the fact that each action scene has such a visceral feel to it with genuine weight behind it as well as the pitch perfect tone and excellent style. That interrogation scene is one of the best scenes ever filmed just through performance and writing. As well as how the film feels so tightly contracted yet epic in scope and Hans Zimmers score (though I can understand why some dislike it) for me is absolutely brilliant. In case you can’t tell, I like this movie, a lot. Again it was one of those early movies that I saw at the right time and ignited my interest in film as an art form. For me it really is that good, and it always will be.

So that brings me on to ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. When I first saw this film I thought it was amazing and now, years later….it’s gone down in my estimation a bit. I feel as if it’s good, but not great in the same way that ‘Batman Begins’ and especially ‘The Dark Knight’ were. For a start it seems to be tonally confused, whereas ‘Batman Begins’ had the look of a classic noir and ‘The Dark Knight’ resembled an epic crime drama, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ just feels broader and less focussed (I think Nolan would have benefitted by taking more inspiration from gangland dramas like ‘City of God’ or even ‘Once Upon a Time in America’ as societies plunge into chaos with the violence within them). That tone also reflects some problems with the film, through it starts and finishes strongly it gets lost within the middle. I understand that Nolan felt as if he had to ramp things up further but by trying to include so much the film felt scattered and not nearly as watertight as the other instalments.

While Tom Hardy’s Bane is fine, I’m always comparing it to his performance in ‘Bronson’ or ‘Legend’ where he can be intelligent and eccentric but also frightening and psychotic at the same time. In comparison to those roles Bane feels somewhat tame and underdeveloped, we saw the calm and controlled side of him but we never see him loose control or get genuinely angry. His eloquence isn’t contrasted by a form of sheer brutality (how’s that for criticism?). His whole demotion to henchman at the end is just outright idiotic. I praised the earlier films for allowing every character to develop beyond just a vehicle for exposition but here a lot of them become just that. There are also far too many scenes that just fall through, upon re-watching the film I was surprised by how many moments I had completely forgotten. I also feel as if there should have been a major death, someone like Gordon or Fox (but not Alfred, no one’s killing Alfred) to inject a major sense of tension. By killing Rachel halfway through ‘The Dark Knight’ there was an unpredictable and thrilling nature to it, but as it becomes increasingly apparent that no one is going to die in this film the tension is somewhat defused. It would have been even better for Bane to have killed them to provoke an emotive response and cement his position as a genuine threat.

But again there is a lot to enjoy. The likes of Bale, Oldman and Freeman are still just as good in their roles. Anne Hathaway is surprisingly brilliant as Catwoman (I just wish she had more screen time, I would have replaced J.G Levitt’s character with her instead and if anything it would have shaved off some unnecessary scenes). I admire how Nolan introduces Batman a good forty minutes in and still makes the film mostly enthralling to that point and those final fifteen minutes are amazing spectacle. The stakes are set out, each actor can shine, tension is ramped up, it’s brilliantly directed and the overall payoff for both this film and the whole trilogy are excellent. There are also plenty of emotional moments that come mainly from Alfred, if there’s one star of this movie it is definitely Michael Caine who has some of the best human scenes of the entire trilogy, let alone this film. While there are plenty of missteps and flaws ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ serves as a fitting end to Nolan’s trilogy and an enjoyable film, just not a great one.

But what are your thoughts on the Batman movies? Comment below to let me know.

Superman: The Franchise So Far...

So ‘Batman v Superman’ is fast approaching, and whatever my personal worries might be concerning the fact that I feel like I already know most of the plot, the issue I take with how they seemed to have jumped over a couple of movies to get to this stage or the fact that I haven’t really liked any of the director’s previous films I have to admit it is kind of awesome to finally see both iconic characters on the big screen together. So with that in mind I thought I would look through their previous individual outings. First up is the son of Krypton himself.

‘Superman: The Moive’ came at a unique time for American cinema. It was nearing the end of the New Hollywood era and was about to enter the phase of blockbusters that had been founded by ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Jaws’, but was now ready to take flight, and what better way to do that than with a movie whose tagline was ‘You’ll believe a man can fly’. It is very important to understand that prior to this film the biggest way in which a superhero had sprung into the film industry was the 1966 Batman TV Series which was ridiculous even then, so the concept of taking a superhero seriously and dramatically was in itself a new idea or the big screen.

It has dated in some ways. I admit I don’t really have a nostalgic connection with these movies, I was part of the Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man generation when it came to superhero movies. Some of the effects have dated a little, there are a few too many melodramatic performances, it’s rather difficult to fear for the safety of a protagonist who can literally turn back time if he needs to and speaking of which, that ending…..yeah.

What I quickly realised is that this movie lives and dies with Christopher Reeve’s performance. That man is Superman and he always will be. No matter how good Cavil is, Reeve will always be ingrained into our subconscious as the man of steel. Even if those flying effects are a little dated it is the conviction and expression of Reeve as he takes off that still sells it. The filmmakers searched the globe to cast their Superman (shortlisted names included Robert Redford, Warren Beatty and even Muhammad Ali) but they settled on a 26 year old stage actor and history was made. Reeve embodies the character with such ease and brilliance, from the sincere confidence of Superman and the bumbling awkwardness of Clark Kent, right down to that final friendly smile he just completely and utterly nails it.

There is also no denying that ’Superman: The Movie’ did bring a great sense of grandeur to the superhero concept. Richard Donner’s direction balances perfectly between realism and fantasy, it doesn’t feel realistic for a second but it feels real. Marlon Brando does a lot to bring a sense of gravitas to the movie (which he should as the Oscar winner was paid $3.7 million for his 12 day shoot as well as a percentage of the profits). There is a subtle brilliance to its simplicity such as its classic three act structure, Krypton, Smallville, Metropolis. There are too many iconic scenes to list and then there’s John Williams legendary score. Go on, hum it now, I know you want to.

But moving on to ‘Superman 2’ and fans seem pretty divided over which is superior. There is also an interesting history behind it, with Donner being kicked out of the project as the studio disagreed with how he was handling things, and brought on a different Richard, but this one had the last name of Lester (best known for directing ‘A Hard Day’s Night’, as well as ‘Superman 2’ obviously). Donner had apparently completed 75% of the movie, but was cut out of the editing and assembly process as well. There is a Donner cut of course but for me it feels somewhat mismatched, which is to be expected as Donner didn’t complete everything he wanted to and though I have no doubt a completed Donner version would be superior, as it stands this version, while admirable and subtly different in tone isn’t quite as complete.

Lester’s version however is also somewhat mismatched. It bounces around in tone with certain moments and plot points that simply do not make sense. It never really balances as perfectly between the camp and dramatic as Donner’s did. Once again it feels somewhat dated, but I’d say even more so than the first. I also take issue with how by the end of the moive, everything is exactly the same as it was at the beginning, Superman is protecting the earth and Lois has no idea who Clark Kent really is. There is still a lot to enjoy though, including some terrific performances from Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman, and who can forget Terrance Stamp’s legendary General Zod. ‘Superman 2’ (along with the likes of ‘Godfather Part 2’ and ‘Empire Strikes Back’) was also integral to the notion that sequels should strive to be just as good as the original, not half-heartedly made in an effort to simply make a little more money, put some real effort into it.

This is where it stops being fun. For some bizarre reason they decided that instead of maintaining the grandeur of the previous two movies or taking the franchise to darker places, they would go for comedy. ‘Superman 3’ starts with one of the most misplaced and poorly executed attempts at slapstick comedy in the history of cinema to such an extent that you just have to wonder what they were thinking. And you end up replaying that sentiment in your head over and over again for the entire movie. Why they decided to include Richard Prior was even more baffling, nearly as much as the ‘evil Superman’ who is duplicated from the real Superman by Kryptonite, somehow. To be honest though he’s more of a nuisance than anything that remotely resembles evil, I feel as if he would be that annoying kid in high school that everyone just avoids, like they’re just too busy with other things to even care about his actions that, though annoying, are only a mild inconvenience every now and then. What is remarkable is that there is one legitimately amazing scene in this film, in which Superman’s alternate personalities engage in a fight in a junk yard, it’s well directed, pleasingly acted and surprisingly dramatic (as far as these movies go at least). It’s just a shame that the rest of the film exists as well.

But things can only get better right? Wrong, as we now reach ‘Superman 4: The Quest for Peace’ which as well as being possibly the worst title in cinematic history is also one of the worst movies in cinematic history. The film begins when Superman gathers up all of the world’s nuclear weapons, puts them in a giant net and throws them into the sun, without any protest from the U.N. That kind of sets the tone really. Later on he moves the moon to block out the sun….you know, people complain a lot about Cavil’s Superman being too destructive but clearly that is nothing compared to the massive tidal waves, power shortages, gravitational disturbances and general hysteria that would arise from such an action. You also have the laughably terrible fight scenes, logic that….there isn’t any, awful acting, and Gene Hackman’s inability to pronounce the word nuclear (which is an inconvenience if one of your main characters is called Nuclear Man) The special effects are also horrific with terrible blue screen and the same flying shot used at least 16 times throughout the film (or at least that’s how many I counted) and it even ends on reusing the final shot of the first movie. The failure of this and ‘Masters of the Universe’ spelled the end for Canon Films, which is actually the least surprising occurrence in cinema history as this film is utter garbage.

So with that, onto ‘The Death of Superman Lives’. See, I’d say this technically counts as a live action version of Superman so I’ll review it. For those of you who don’t know this documentary by John Schnepp is about the failed Tim Burton film ‘Superman Lives’ which was cast with Nick Cage in the lead role, written by Kevin Smith and Dan Gilroy, designed, storyboarded and was just weeks away from shooting when the studio pulled the plug. Years later when the concept leaked online the project became somewhat of a joke, as people ridiculed the idea. Above all else this documentary captures just how passionate and enthusiastic everyone was going into the project, they were eager to create something genuinely unique and innovative. It also has a lot to say about the filmmaking process and how judgemental today’s internet culture can be. Just as a side note, Cage may be a joke today but remember Burton’s movie was taking place in 1996, where the actor was fresh from his Oscar win for ‘Leaving Las Vegas’, we would have had an Oscar winning Superman under the direction of someone who had already helmed two Batman movies. I also have to give praise to the way in which Schnepp edited the film, with several separate interviews being cut together seamlessly, giving it the feel of an actual conversation between each participant. The key question is of course, are we sad that the plug was pulled? Well the film ultimately leaves that up to you. Personally I feel as if, for better or worse, ‘Superman Lives’ would have been one of the most unique, outlandish and interesting superhero movies ever. It would also have been a damn side better than the superman movie that did come to fruition.

‘Superman Retruns’ tried so hard to recapture what audiences loved about the first two that it was simply too afraid to do anything new. It didn’t break new ground, establish new characters or bring forth any new ideas or concepts. There was literally nothing to it. Even its lead actor Brandon Routh is not really playing Superman, he’s playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman. When you look at what ‘Batman Begins’ (which was released the same year) did to reboot its series, ‘Superman Returns’ just looks outright melancholic. There are a few brushes with greatness but far too many regions of dullness. It’s also very oddly structured, with a tiresome 154 minute running time with a third act that doesn’t come close to satisfying or justifying that (it’s just Superman lifting a rock). It’s even more annoying that as well as being favoured over the Burton version, potential Superman projects from George Miller and J.J Abrams were rejected in favour of this.

It should be considered hardly surprising that they took such a step away from the norm when it came to ‘Man of Steel’. The film that continues to break the internet, some love it, some hate it. Personally I think there is a lot to like, but there is also a lot to hate. Overall it did leave me underwhelmed and while there are some great concepts within it they are not executed in the best manner. For starters I enjoyed the new presentation of the Superman mythology and the concepts behind that, I like placing the emphasis on Superman acting as the bridge between two species as well as the notion that there may be an inner conflict between his human and Kryptonian side and I thought the performances were all good.

However, I have problems with it. Presenting the story non-linearly seems ideal, but after a while it throws the pacing off, when we should be ramping tension up towards the finale we’re still getting flashbacks to Clark’s childhood. They set up various character arcs and subplots that never go anywhere, such as establishing a conflict between Superman’s Earth upbringing and his Krypton heritage but then just leaving it. Also, for the love of Zod, would someone give Zac Snyder a colour pallet, everything just looks so drab and grey. I understand that you want to make a more goruned version of Superman but it can be fun and vibrant at the same time, throw in a good one liner, put colour on his costume, anything to uplift the tone even slightly. It’s so serious and miserable half of the time that when giant spaceships and flying men appear there isn’t really a sense of wonder or excitement to it. The fight scenes are just so bombastic and nonsensical that they have no tension or weight to them, it’s just overwhelming and incomprehensible.

Speaking of which the final scene in question, I take issue not with the destruction but just the recklessness of it. Let me explain, for starters I feel that if Zod really was a tactical military genius he would exploit Superman’s weakness from the start and try to endanger to lives of innocent people (not just try to kill a few people at the end as he’s already pinned down anyway), this would create a great scenario to really showcase Superman saving people. I know he saves people throughout the film (technically he saves everyone on earth) but by directly pulling people out of the destruction and rescuing them from Zod’s wrath it would perfectly showcase his role as a saviour of the human race in a more direct way and point out the fact that this is where he begins his journey as Superman as opposed to potentially killing the thousands of people he just saved.

So those are my thoughts on the Superman movies, what did you think? Leave a comment below to let me know.