Batman Returns

Starring: Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer

Director: Tim Burton

Writer: Sam Hamm, Daniel Waters

Studio: Warner Bros.

In case you were in some kind of isolation experiment, I would like to inform you that there is a new Batman movie headed our way. In honor of that, I will be reviewing all of the Batman films, and I might even be done before The Dark Knight leaves theaters.

I decided to begin with the red headed step-child of Batman films; Batman Returns was the film that executives feared had killed the franchise by being too weird and dark. Making this sequel gave Tim Burton a nervous breakdown, and it lost money on the most important aspect of a blockbuster: toys. Apparently, little tykes that weren't myself didn't want toys of a child-murdering, foul-mouthed, man-monster played byDanny DeVito, but that's their loss and my gain.

The main problem with the film is also it's greatest strength. Burton and company aren't interested in making a superhero film; Batman Returns is a gothic monster movie
full of Byronic protagonists and dark humor. The four leads are all monsters of different types. Batman is a functional but lonely one; in this film, Batman has become a completely natural but isolating role for Bruce Wayne. He wants Catwoman to be his kindred spirit, but she can't help but be devoured by the demons that made her into a leather clad somersaulting sex kitten. The Penguin is on a similar arc to Catwoman, but he's not a person with a destroyed humanity. He's sewer dwelling monstrosity who flirts with being human for all the wrong reasons like power, sex, and politics. The only character that is a complete monster is Walken's character of Max Schreck, and of course, he's the most celebrated person in the view of Gotham City. Max wants to build an empire to leave to his son Chip, who bears a creepy likeness to his dad, and he doesn't care who he hurts along the way.

This film was created as the improvement of Batman, Burton and company saw the flaws and decided to build a completely new creature instead of a cookie cutter sequel. The most striking choice is making this an ensemble film rather than making it all about Batman; he's definitely a smaller part of this film. He doesn't even show up until about fifteen minutes into the film. He's treated as a reliable known quantity, and the new characters and scenarios for this film are given the most attention. I don't mind the reduced Batman because he was always pretty stiff in the nineties movies; that damn stifling suit makes it impossible to bend, stretch, or emote. Luckily, the rest of the film is a twisted fun house of activity.

Writing: There are a few bad action movie exchanges here and there, but for the most part, the writing works perfectly. The dialog between characters really shines, and the plot is remarkably tight for a film that has three villains. Everything ties together closely, and no scenes are wasted.

Direction: It's a gorgeous film; the look of the first film is perfected by Burton and company's additions to the city. The sewers, frozen zoos, evil carnivals, and subterranean layers are all fantastic locals, but this isn't a mindless jump from set piece to set piece. Burton creates excellent mood, builds themes and character dynamics that all move towards a climatic subterranean showdown.

Acting: Keaton doesn't have as much to do as the first Batman, but he still pulls his weight. Pfeiffer pulls off a very complicated Catwoman; she's damaged, sexy, psychotic, and tragic which is so much more than many actresses could handle. Danny DeVito plays the Penguin as Nicholson played the Joker; it's a caricature of himself. Just like Jack's take; it works. His dirty fowl is a great foil to the other characters, and he manages to hit some strong pathos and fucking hilarious comic relief. It's pretty impressive considering all the goddamn make up he's in. Walken is solid gold, and some of his lines in this film are the best sentences he has ever uttered. Walken also looks amazing in this film; I dare you to just dig that hair for just a few minutes. If you go see shitty movies just for a taste of Walken's manic magic, try this one; for once, the film is as good as Walken.

Editing: Nice clean cuts throughout, and some of the best sequences are dependent on excellent editing. A personal favorite is the remote control bat-mobile scene. It cuts back and forth between Batman and the Penguin, but it's tense rather than disorienting.

Sound: Great sound all around, and nice little sound effects are added here and there to accentuate some of the weirder props like trick umbrellas, rubber ducks, penguin soldiers, and severed hands.

Soundtrack/Score: Danny Elfman's Batman and Batman Returns soundtrack work is so good that he's copied it for several other movies. Despite the retreads, I still love the original. Also, this movie has no commercial soundtrack inserts awkwardly cluttering up scenes.

Self-awareness: The film knows the bizarre world that Batman stories occur in, and it also knows when that world becomes too bizarre to be played straight. Certain scenes revel in their dark absurdity because Danny Devitto riding in a giant yellow duck is comedy gold, even if he's kidnapping children while he does it.

Overall Rating: In the small, inbred sub-genre of super-hero movies; this film is fucking perfection. I give it five fucking stars. Deal with it. (Now say it like Walken.)

Yay or Nay!: I give this a screaming porn star g-spot orgasm of a yay.

-Pete

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Neil Patrick Harris is there too for like 7 minutes.
Directed by: Jon Hurwitz
Written by: Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg
Studio: Kingsgate

I remember the first H&K movie fondly. It had its shortcomings (dahh, they wanna go to White Castle because they're blazed) but poked fun at racism and grass-chiefin' stereotypes in a youthful and witty fashion. And there was references galore to those delicious, bowel-obliterating hamburgers that I love/hate.

This sequel, now afforded the luxury of a plot and larger budget, manages to blow it and blow it hard. And there's not a slider in sight.

Before settling into Mean_Critic_Mode, let me take a moment to be straight (forward?) with you, kind viewer: I was blazed when I saw this flick. Like flying. I walked into the Burbank AMC theater faded on top of the line tree: "3rd eye". (Mad props to Wattz for the hook up by the way) And off of a two-foot glass bong no less. So, you could have misspelled 'there' as t-h-e-i-r on an ex parte notice and I would have laughed my ass off. Also, I think there was still some OxyContin (R) still floating about in my brain - with that shit, I'd pop a smile even while watching the last act of Pay it Forward with a bunch of lugubrious sixteen year old girls.

Yet, I left this movie having smiled a handful of times and laughed once. And that laugh came in the first act. And the set up for it wasn't exactly Aristocrats-calibre: Kumar produces a bong in the cramped bathroom from miscellaneous parts he somehow got on the plane, ends up coming out with it in hand, and uninformed old people mistaken it for a bomb. The end, of laughter.

The vast majority of the movie consists of a series mish-mosh of goofy yet unfunny and rehashed bits. Let's see: Incest humor? Check. Run in with Ku Klux Klan? Check. General stereotyping of southerners? Check. Over-the-top federal agent hot on the case? Check [also, who the fuck finds Rob Corddry funny anyway?]. SHIT MAN BOOMERS = COMPLETE DISTORTION OF ONE'S PERCEPTION OF REALITY WHOOOOOOAAAA? Check.

Even NPH's scenes disappoint: the hilarious asshole side of Doogie Howser previously displayed some how spoiled in the interim and we're now left with some slurring guy tooling around. Then again, how long can one milk the joke anyway? I hope NPH doesn't do the third one. And finally treated, like finding via your tongue the razor embedded in a candy apple, to a HURR PRESIDENT BUSH HURRRrr scene, I felt like I was back watching the shitty 2005 season of SNL. Not to mention they're in Amsterdam for only 8 minutes of screen time, and in Guantanamo Bay even less. The escape itself was about 2 minutes. What I would have named the movie? Harold and Kumar: Dicking Around in the "South" But Who Cares.

So here's your rundown:

Writing: Jokes are half baked or completely rehashed.

Direction: It's a "comedy" about two minorities that happen to be stoners and stalkers, who'd expect any shots to blow their mind? The Amsterdam parts were shot on location though - made me nostalgic.

Acting: NPH totally phoned it in. Shame. Penn consistently plays the same character he plays in everything, from Superman Returns to House.

Editing: Should have been shorter. Like, a hour shorter.

Sound: Boy, I sure did hear the water splash when Kumar took that shit at the beginning of the film, mmhmm.

Soundtrack/Score: ?

Self-Awareness: One joke (in the scene after the credits no less) where NPH's godlike status is further cemented, but nothing else. Another manner it which it paled to the original.

Overall rating: * 1/2

Also, don't do drugs kids...until your brain fully develops. Hit me up when you're eighteen.

Zardoz

Starring: Sean Connery; Charlotte Rampling

Writer; Director; Producer: John Boorman

Studio: John Boorman Productions

The UK's Channel 4 recently described Zardoz as John Boorman's, "finest film," and a, "wonderfully eccentric and visually exciting sci-fi quest," that, "deserves reappraizal." This might generate enough curiosity in this obscurity to actually generate a viewing. The curious amateur film buff might think that the director of Deliverance and Point Blank coupled with the star power of Connery must be able to pull something at least interesting together.

This hypothetical viewer would be correct, but let's be more specific than just interesting. There is one word that describes Zardoz: phallocentric, and it is a word that I rarely even utter for fear of seeming the overbearing feminist intellectual. Zardoz is a film that doesn't just have macho men with guns, subordinate women, and violent solutions; calling a film with only those qualifications phallocentric is the kind of overreaction on par with calling a single murder a genocide or two martinis a bender. Zardoz is a phallocentric film because it literally worships cock. Sean Connery is the messiah of the dong, and he enlightens everyone as only a huge prick can.

If you think I am taking this metaphor too far, you will hate this film. Once you get the past the prologue delivered by a floating head with a goatee draw on his chin in pen; it's a nonstop sausage fest. The first line of dialog is Zardoz declaring to his followers that, "The gun is good. The penis is evil," and Sean Connery's character Zed spends the rest of the film crusading against this. He sneaks into a sexless society run by an oppressive female intellectual named Consuela, and he immediately begins tearing the place and the people apart.

He is a sexual Prometheus that brings the fire of misogyny to a sterile and emotionless society; he actually awakens catatonics by fondling, kissing, and throwing them around (without consent of course). He struggles to show that erections, fondling, fucking, and good old man seed are instrumental to keeping the human condition vital and genuine; all of these things are not exaggerations. They are direct examples from the film; there is even a lecture about erections with Sean Connery as the subject. His character starts as a savage and ends as the sum total of human knowledge; this is his reward for murder, rape, a Burt Reynolds mustache, and too little shirt. It's almost a pulp sci-fi version of the Wife of Bath's Tale (30 Canary points if you got the reference without google).

Writing: It's fairly dated sci-fi writing throughout. Character constantly exchange dialogue that explains who, where, and why with little subtlety or panache; the sheer absurdity and spectacle of the film carry more weight than the verbal attempts to be deep.

Direction: The direction succeed in several very memorable scenes such as the introduction of Zed (that would be the whole, "The gun is good," scene), and when the film fails visually, it's never for a lack of trying. It sometimes just looks so damn outlandish when it's trying to be provocative.

Acting: Connery is sheer gold in this; he plays the most bizarre material of his career without a hint of irony. Some of the cast are definitely having fun with the material which makes Sir Sean the best straight man in the whole damn film. Some of the cast also seems to have been selected more for their willingness to undress on film rather than their acting ability, but Connery handily carries every scene he's in. He even carries the scenes he plays opposite a giant talking stone head. That is what I would call presence.

Sound: Good old fashioned, high quality big budget sound. Don't forget; this was a major financial undertaking. Good money was spent on Sean Connery running around in a red plastic diaper and pony tail.

Soundtrack/Score: It's fairly standard artsy sci-fi music and sound. They took some classical, orchestral, and the occasional buzzing future science sound in a failed attempt to be artsy rather than trashy sci-fi. Some of these sounds honestly seemed like direct samples form 2001: A Space Odyssesy.

Self-Awareness: Zardoz is genuine camp; it has no idea how ridiculous it is. John Boorman has gone on record saying that people who mock the film simply do not get it. There is an honest belief behind this work that it is an artistic undertaking exploring adult themes. The creators are completely unaware that they have made Burt Reynold's version of 2001. It wants to be thought provoking, but it keeps making its points with a swaggering machismo that makes all its rebuttals via the revolver, the sword, and the fist.

Rating: This film is a disaster; so I rate it a Class 4 Hurricane.

Yay or Nay?: Zardoz is a fascinating but hideous train wreck; it gets a very strong nay for the faint of heart. Only the most dedicated of rubber-neckers can gaze upon it without at least one stiff drink in their hand. This is your last warning.

-Pete

Captivity (UNCUT DVD ACTION)

Starring: Elisha Cuthbert, Daniel Gillies
Directed by: Roland Joffé
Written by: Larry Cohen, Joseph Tura
Studio: After Dark Films

Elisha Cuthbert is a little hot. Not especially bangin', but not one of the stranger looking actresses out there. Also, she's not the youngest and brightest of stars out (t)here in Hollywood Land.


Despite these considerations, would I still bed her?


That's what I thought about the entire time as Captivity ran it's ugly course on my tiny HD tv. Not, "Oh my Lord, will she get out alive?!" or "SHIIIIT HE WAS IN ON IT ALL ALONG!" or even "What a biting commentary on modern sexuality!". Nope, none of that.

Ok, to be fair, my mind wandered on occasion and I thought about getting some tacos, what I should do during my downtime at work this week, and where in fact all the cowboys have gone. But never once was I engaged at all by what transpired in Joffe's tortureporn anti-thriller, Captivity.

Eliza portrays some cold-hearted model icequeen that two incestuous brothers (not kidding here) kidnap. They subject to her to a number of grotesque and crude tortures that never achieve the horrifying apogee of the original Saw movie but instead bored the fuck out of the viewer. Buried in a box of sand, shotgunning her annoying rat of a dog, ingesting blended body organs - no lies, I yawned more than once through these scenes. Not that concepts themselves aren't repulsive and cringe-worthy, but the execution is sheer crap.

I still don't have an answer re: the issue of Cuthbert: yay, or nay? - so, let's give me some time by go through the cinematic motions.

Writing: Get out of here.

Direction: No intense shots whatsoever despite (potentially) jarring content. We get some shots from the perpetrators' POV but they contribute precisely squat to the narrative/experience.

Acting: It's friggin' the annoying ass daughter from 24 and John Jameson from Spiderman 2. What the hell do you expect?

Editing: I could collect a sizable hill out of the extraneous footage, especially the beginning scenes.

Sound: Added nothing. I guess Cuthbert's screams were pronounced?

Soundtrack/Score: I think I heard two songs the entire time and they were snoozers.

Self-Awareness: The ending for the DVD version is different from the theatrical release and it's a BIG SHOCKER OH LORD. Given there were two twists in this version (the incestous brothers being the other, kinda one) I feel the story has some, but very limited, sense of what it is. And that sense amounted to, "Wait...instead of one twist...WHY NOT TWO!?"

Overall rating: * 1/2

Yay?! or Nay?: ehh, yay sure why not it's been so long. :(