Originally Reviewed – 6/27/2012

It seems like only yesterday when I was sitting back in my cozy apartment, penning a review of Armageddon, thinking back to every time the world went kablooie. When writing that piece, I felt compelled to look back on all the occasions the world bit the big one on the silver screen. Immediately, films like 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and even oldies like the Towering Inferno sprang to mind. Floods, disease, famine and chaos usually rule these harbingers of our ultimate end, often with loud CGI explosions and disposable human characters. So when I first saw the trailer for this quirky dark comedy about the end of days, I took notice. Maybe the writer of the adorable Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist had something new to say regarding the inevitability of our destruction. The truth of the matter is far less interesting than the trailer suggests, but despite all of the pitfalls and issues the movie brings to the table, it still pulls out a victory in the end.

The story revolves around Dodge (Steve Carrell), a fourty-something insurance salesman who putters around his everyday life in the midst of a worldwide tragedy. An asteroid is set to collide with the Earth in three weeks, signaling the end of the world as we know it. Where’s Bruce Willis and R.E.M. when you need them? After dealing emotionally with his impending end, Dodge, along with his neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley), embarks on a journey to reunite with the love of his life. One of the film’s main strengths is in the honesty and accuracy in which it paints the final inhabitants of Earth. Everyone reacts differently. Some people party the weeks away, some commit suicide and others prepare underground bunkers. The breadth of human reaction here is poignant and interesting, painted like small short stories in the midst of the main narrative.

Unfortunately for us, we spend fleeting moments with these people in favor of the film’s downtrodden protagonist. The film takes great pains to paint Dodge as a sympathetic everyman and while he’s earnest enough, he doesn’t do much. Despite this, Carrell does a respectable job in the lead role. Funny in spurts and strangely likable, Carrell carries the film when the script and direction fall flat. Knightley, in the role of the quirky Penny, starts off grating but grows into her character as the film progresses, culminating in a few touching moments in the movie’s third act. The only problem with the pairing is the pairing itself. As a romantic couple, Carrell and Knightley never quite click. They are likable enough and good for a few laughs, but they never fully connect.

In fact, most of the film doesn’t connect until that aforementioned third act. As Dodge and Penny roll towards their destination, they come across a wide variety of heavily scripted situations. These scenes, such as a wild time in a TGI Fridays style restaurant and a humorous run in with a by the book cops, all work on their own but never connect as a cohesive narrative. What makes matters worse is how obviously pointed the script is. Aside from a few surprises, I found myself mouthing lines before they were spoken and seeing the shocking bits minutes in advance. The result is a tightly structured film that still manages to bounce along its straight line plot.

Now you may be saying to yourself, “Wow. He really didn’t like this movie. What’s with the 70%?” Despite the lack of connection with the leads, the obvious nature of the screenplay and humor that works 50% of the time, I got hooked. By the time the final third of the film rolls through, I was inexplicitly invested in the characters and the strange turn of events the Dodge and Penny find themselves in. Sure, I was reciting the lines as they said them and yeah, the film ends in a predictable fashion, but I was touched. Somehow, someway, the film wormed its way into my craggy heart and found a home. That, in itself, is a remarkable feat. Enjoyable and engaging in spite of itself, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World may not be the best film I’ll see all year but thanks to the raw talents of Carrell and Knightley, the movie stands up as a emotionally strong and brutally honest dramadey. CGI and Bruce Willis are fine and all, but I ended up enjoying this quiet interpretation of the end of all things.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 5/4/2012

Ask yourself this question: Are you a member of the Barry Lyndon club?

Along with 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon is considered by many fans as the black sheep in the director’s storied career. When the film was first released in 1975, Kubrick was the toast of artistic Hollywood. With films like the legendary 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange under his belt, Kubrick was known to be an eccentric yet brilliant provocateur. Capable of bringing in the bucks along with rave reviews, Warner Bros gave the director free reign on his next project. With the limitless resources of a major studio, Kubrick took a different approach with his 10th feature film and created a period drama about a rascally Irishman’s rise in social status. Quiet, haunting and beautifully shot, Barry Lyndon may not have the bombast of Kubrick’s other work but it still maintains as an important and stunning work of film art.

Barry Lyndon tracks the life and times of Redmond Barry (Ryan O’Neal), a penniless trickster who lies, swindles and worms his way into the highest circles of 18th century aristocracy. Much ado has been made of the stunning cinematography of this movie, so rather than spend word space lauding it, let me just agree. The film looks visually stunning. Using a wide variety of custom made lenses and one of the best uses of natural light in the history of cinema, Kubrick’s film is a textbook example of visual storytelling. Every shot is beautiful, well framed and perfectly realized.

Good thing, too, as you’re going to be spending a chunk of time wandering Europe with Sir Lyndon. Clocking in at three hours, Barry Lyndon may look imposing but is paced perfectly. Fans often deride this movie for being slow, but I found it flowed better than 2001: A Space Odyssey. The pacing is helped by a meaty screenplay. Barry engages in duels, fights in the Seven Years War and battles the pressures of unexpected fortune. He’s a complicated guy who lives an interesting life, and that dramatic drive propels the film better than floating spaceships and the Blue Danube.

And before you start flaming me for the 2001 dig, allow me to say that Barry Lyndon is less than perfect. This is a period piece and has all the pitfalls and problems of the genre. For every beautiful landscape you get era specific dialogue. With every pristine costume you’re handed a dry performance. Ryan O’Neal and his band of English character actors all do fine work in their respective roles, but nothing ever stands out either. There are a few moments of artistic energy but there’s little connection, something that dulls the dramatic experience.

But when a film looks and feels this good, I can forgive the minor quibbles. Barry Lyndon is not only an achievement in classic cinematography, it’s a triumph of art over expectations. Kubrick was never one to be pigeonholed, and when the world demanded another controversial epic, he responded with quiet beauty. Sometimes the best response to the roar of the crowd is a sigh and in the making of Barry Lyndon, Kubrick not only cemented his reputation as a master filmmaker, he added the wrinkle of versatility. An underrated film by one of the best directors of the modern age.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 6/7/2012

When I think back on the original series of Batman films, they all mark a personal milestone. The original film was the first PG-13 movie I ever saw, Returns was the first of that rating I saw in theaters and Forever marked my first experience with a tone shift in a beloved franchise. Each film, different for better or for worse, added another wrinkle to my cinematic psyche. The fourth film in the series, Batman and Robin, was no exception.

The theater was packed with Batman enthusiasts the day myself, my 12 year old brother and my dad sat down to see Joel Schumacher’s second franchise movie. The film opened as expected, with the requisite Bat Butts, codpieces and cheesy one liners. Problem was, nothing looked like Batman. Everything seemed plastic, overly manufactured. As the movie went on, an eerie silence filled the theater. In my Batman Forever screening, the crowd whooped with the action and laughed at Jim Carrey’s antics. But in Batman and Robin, the crowd was quiet. 120 minutes later, the credits ran and the crowd filed out of the theater in the same stunned silence. No boos or tossed popcorn boxes. Just silence.

As we walked to the car, my dad and I were quiet. I’m not sure what was running through my mind that afternoon, but I imagine it was confusion. It was as if they played the wrong movie, replacing Batman with Circ De Solei on acid. My brother was the only one talking, trying to like the film. What followed was a moment of film education for the two of us, a moment that would be cemented in my brother’s mind for all time. My dad leaned over and said, “Bobby. You may be too young to realize this, but that was a really bad movie.”

After that screening, I never saw it again. Time passed, the franchise died and while the science of that colossal misstep fascinated me, I never dared to pop in that fateful failure. Every time I opened the Batman boxset to watch one of the other three movies, I avoided the fourth, averting my eyes from the sight of it. As time went on and my memories faded, I wondered if it was really as bad as I remember. Sure, I knew it was universally accepted as one of the worst films of all time, but I couldn’t remember why. A few days ago, I finally sat down to watch it for the first time in thirteen years to confirm what the world was telling me. Was Batman and Robin really as bad as its reputation said it is. The answer is a resounding yes. Batman and Robin is a confusing, trivial and shockingly dumb piece of cinema that defies logic and reasoning. How could a Batman movie be so damn boring.

The first answer to this question lies in the film’s threadbare story. In this go-round, Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O’Donnell) not only deal with super villains bent on world domination, they have to contend with working as a team. At first, one would think there might be some tension here. Batman has always worked alone, Robin is an impetuous youth and the potential clash of personalities could have made for an interesting subplot. Unfortunately, due to a horrific script, all we get is the Boy Wonder whining and Batman not caring. Even the side story of Alfred’s sickness runs thin because nobody seems to give a damn. Michael Gough as the perennial butler gives it his all but Clooney simply goes through the motions. Clooney is by far the worst Batman of the bunch, mostly because the script gives him nothing to work with outside of cornball one liners. More attention is paid to the size of Clooney’s codpiece than actual character development.

If one constant remains true in this original series, Batman always takes a back seat to the villians. The bad guys are designed to give the film its energy and here Batman and Robin fails in epic fashion. This time we have three baddies: a lovesick doctor who calls himself Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger), the insane botanist Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) and the ultimate juice head, Bane (Robert Swenson). One could write a thesis on why these antagonists are terrible, but the dust jacket version is that nobody has a motivation beyond, “stuff happened to me, I’m now crazy, time to take over the world.” Uma Thurman plays her role way over the top but at least she’s not the pun slinging eye roller Arine is as Mr. Freeze. Arnold has exactly three lines that do not involve some sort of reference to low temperatures. This obsession over one liners completely destroys a backstory that could have been serviceable in hands of a different screenwriter. And then there’s Bane, one of the biggest crimes in a film full of felonies. Reduced to growling monster used solely for comic relief and yawn inducing action scenes, the once interesting comic character is reduced to the lowest common denominator.

And just when you thought things could get dumber, the action scenes in Batman and Robin make you pine for the days of Adam West going BAM, WHAP and WHAM. Batman Forever wasn’t a masterpiece by any stretch, but it least had competent ass kicking sequences. The action in Batman and Robin flatlines at every possible turn. From the opening ice hockey game with a diamond to a laughably slow paced motorcycle chase, the action sequences are disjointed and hard to follow. And since my mother told me if I have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all, the film features some nice exterior shots of Gotham City, including Arkham Asylum, the Gotham Observatory and one nice bridge shot which is promptly ruined by Mr. Freeze’s rolling pin cushion crashing into it. Oh, and Alicia Silverstone (the girl from the old Aerosmith videos) plays Alfred’s niece from London who eventually becomes Batgirl for no reason. And she doesn’t even try to have an English accent. Sigh. This film stinks.

After sitting and squirming through 120 minutes of Batman and Robin, I’ve come to a conclusion. The movie is indeed terrible to its core but I can’t blame anybody involved in making it. The flick is just a perfect storm of awful. Big budgets, big stars and big dollars all combined to create this cliché ridden monster with not one participant ever expecting it to break loose and start terrorizing the village. Director Joel Schumacher simply wanted to make a fun, over the top Batman film and while the movie fails in historic fashion, I can’t pick any one person to shoulder the blame. They were all there for the ride, a ride that ended in a catastrophic explosion that destroyed an entire franchise.

If I had to point a finger, it would be at Warner Brothers for taking a franchise that took a decade to bring to the screen and turn it into mindless product. The Bat Teat was milked dry by a money hungry studio and a group of people who simply wanted to make a goofy Batman movie got caught up in the midst of it. Weighed down by a horrendous script, actors who have nothing to do and action scenes so poorly staged they feel like Film 1 projects, Batman and Robin is a colossal failure despite the efforts of everybody involved. The best thing one can say about the movie is that it wiped the slate clean, clearing a path for a new vision a decade later. Enter Christopher Nolan. Thank God for that.

Score – 20%

Originally Reviewed – 5/29/2012

As a 15 year old Batman fan in Northern New Jersey, Batman Forever wasn’t just a movie. It was an event. The theater was packed with Batman fans the day my brother and I saw it on the big screen. The crowd was buzzing with advertising generated current. From McDonalds Happy Meals to a barrage of TV commercials, the film looked to be bigger and flashier than the previous installments. As the lights dimmed, the murmur of the mostly teenage audience quieted. All was still until one moviegoer, fueled on popcorn and Coca Cola products, shouted in a loud, bellowing voice, like Batman himself would do “ARE YOU READY FOR THE BATMAN?” The entire theater burst into laughter, myself included. Whenever anybody asks me what the greatest moment of my film going life has been, that’s the one. The outburst was the perfect setup for what lay ahead. Burton-less, Keaton-less and shined up with a new coat of neon paint, Joel Schumacher’s reimagining of the Batman franchise is loaded with flashy action and nifty gadgets but what the film gains in style it loses in substance.

Half a reboot, half a continuation of the previous movies, Batman Forever finds the Caped Crusader (Val Kilmer) defending Gotham from an unlikely team of super criminals: the nefarious gangster Two Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the joke spewing Riddler (Jim Carrey). With Two Face’s muscle and the Riddler’s ingenuity, the pair looks to put a devious product on the television of every family in Gotham, simultaneously streaming the brainwaves of the world into their not so secret lair. Due to Michael Keaton declining the role after Tim Burton stepped down as director, Val Kilmer was chosen to fill out the Bat Suit. When wearing the cowl, Kilmer’s Batman works fine as an action oriented superhero. Thanks to some great fight choreography and Kilmer’s athletic skills, Batman Forever features some of the most exciting action sequences of the series. The problems begin when Kilmer does his impersonation of Bruce Wayne. Trying too hard to be a bumbling bachelor when he clearly isn’t, Kilmer never connects to the core of the character, despite some handy plot contrivances to help him do so. Val Kilmer is too “movie star” for the brooding superhero, creating an uneven experience. Not a terrible Batman, but nowhere near the quality of Keaton’s interpretation.

Luckily for Mr. Kilmer, the movie wasn’t his to drive. The energy of the film squarely comes from the scenery chewing Two Face and Jim Carrey’s manic Riddler. Tommy Lee Jones is fun to watch as he emotionally flip flops from crazy to cool but Carrey steals every scene he’s in. To be fair, this is an early Jim Carrey comic performance, before the world discovered his acting chops, so if you were a fan of his Ace Ventura rubber faced style, you’ll have a great time here. If not, he’s down right overwhelming. Still, I found the Riddler gave the film a much needed shot of life that wasn’t created by the swirling lights and 80’s tinged visuals.

Playing opposite Kilmer in the love interest slot is Nicole Kidman as the lovely psychologist Chase Meridian and Chris O’Donnell as the boy wonder Robin. Despite her being very easy on the eyes, the only connection Kilmer and Kidman share is in the first letter of their last names. Kidman’s character is horribly underwritten and comes off more as a horny fangirl than an actual human being. Rather than develop them as a genuine pair, the script uses her as a device for 30’s style one liners and pointless banter. Robin, a character purposefully avoided by Tim Burton, also comes off flat, forced and a bit annoying. O’Donnell gives the role his absolute all, but Batman has always worked best as a sole vigilante, making Robin unnecessary and underdeveloped, despite a head scratching backstory involving Two Face, a slowing rising bomb and his family of acrobats. Despite the screenwriters attempt to hem in all this mayhem with a halfhearted attempt at Batman’s origin story, everything seems manufactured around potential advertisement taglines.

In fact, this is a nagging problem of Batman Forever, a cancer than would become malignant in the fourth movie. With all of the silliness of the story, the awful relationships and convenient plot points, the film is a lot of fun. The fights are well executed, Batman has a variety of entertaining gadgets and toys and when things are clicking, it’s a great ride. The problem is that it all seems carefully calculated to sell toys and Halloween costumes. Burton’s Batman may have not been perfect, but they were artistically honest, products of a desire to bring the character back to an original vision. The first Schumacher effort, while wildly entertaining, feels like simple product. Batman Forever isn’t the ninety minute toy advertisement it’s predecessor will be, but it lacks much of the credibility of the Tim Burton features. Slick, cool and immediately forgettable, Batman Forever’s biggest sin isn’t in the writing, the characters or even the full frame Bat Butt shots the cheeky director peppers into the final cut. The movie’s biggest fault lies in the $336 million it took in at the box office, prompting the studio to make one more film, a movie that would suck the franchise dry. Get your Bat Buckets ready for some bile. Next up: Batman and Robin.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed – 5/24/2012

When The Avengers project was first announced after the success of 2008’s Iron Man, comic book fans rejoiced. This wasn’t going to be some slapdash tale of a super team fighting baddies. This was going to be something more, something larger than life. Three films followed: Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America. Having seen all these movies, Captain in August of last year, I realized The Avengers could be a smashing success, so long as they two things right. One, give the team a very strong antagonist and two, build the team in a natural way without wasting time on individual character development. That’s what the movies were for. Now, over a billion dollars in box office sales later, I can safely say director Joss Whedon and company did just that and so much more. The Avengers isn’t just the best summer opening film I’ve seen in years, it’s one of the best superhero movies ever made.

Forgive the plot summation as I imagine 90% of you have seen this already, but here goes. Loki, brother of Thor, has snagged control of the mystical Tesseract, an artifact that holds near limitless power. His aim? To become the ruler of all rulers, starting with the pitiful mortals than inhabit planet Earth. In response to this new threat, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) activates the “Avenger Initiative”, bringing together Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the newly thawed Captain America (Chris Evans), Mr. Anger Management Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Together, with the help of some of the lesser known Avengers crew, such as Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), the team works to stop Loki’s extraterrestrial forces from invading planet Earth.

The biggest success of the film is the natural development of the Avengers team. Rather than everybody coming together for the common good, there’s some drama on the squad. Tony Stark and Captain America face off, Thor finds us Earthlings surprisingly petty and Hulk is just trying to keep from getting pissed. There’s natural tension here, expertly woven in Joss Whedon’s fantastic screenplay. This tension helps give us something to care about, making the team cohesion even more exciting in the film’s third act. It’s also worth noting that the previous movies are not required viewing to enjoy this, but if you haven’t seen at least the Iron Man flicks, the characters may come off a little flat. Of course, this is done by design and Whedon does a great job on focusing on the characters developed in the films and leaving the other members of the team to true supporting roles. In fact, you could call this Iron Man 2.5, but that’s a wise choice as Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark is easily the strongest character in the troupe.

The rest of the cast does a fine job in the roles given. Hemsworth is likeable as the Asgardian Thor, Mike Ruffalo is an excellent choice to replace Edward Norton’s Hulk and even Captain America, I character I found one noted in his feature length, develops nicely thanks to his run ins with Tony Stark. Loki is also a very smart choice as the main villain. Given his familial back story with Thor, his conquest has weight, especially given the events of their feature film. Again, those who haven’t seen Thor may find Loki to a bit over the top, but I found the antagonist interesting and gripping. Even Sam Jackson, who only made small appearances in the credit scenes of the original movies, find plenty to work with as the devious but well meaning Nick Fury. The cast is unilaterally well chosen and work great together.

Of course, this is a summer action movie. Most filmgoers aren’t looking for a slice of life drama, they’re looking for heart stopping action. Marvel movies are known for their big bangs and The Avengers is no exception. Literally every fifteen minutes, something awesome is happening, whether it’s the surprising reveal of the Avengers base or Iron Man screaming along the Manhattan skyline. Everything culminates in the third act, which is essentially one long battle sequence and while you might find yourself tiring after the twentieth minute, Whedon brings you right back to the action with more kick-assery. The film also features some classic Joss Whedon humor. Full of quips and jokes, the levity in The Avengers always works and gives the film a very distinct feel.

In short, The Avengers is just that. Fun. Fun characters doing awesome things in defense of our petty little planet, Joss Whedon’s first major studio film is a stylish and exciting homerun. Usually around this time, I start looking at the summer lineup with a hint of dismay. Loud movies made by money hungry studios, all searching for their piece of the hot weather audience. These movies are usually dumb and fitfully entertaining, a perfect opportunity to get in out of the heat and turn your brain off for two hours. Joss Whedon’s Avengers redefines that stereotype, providing an intelligent, honest and fully enjoyable film going experience everybody should see on the big screen. Last year, I had some mental guidelines for the success of this Marvel mashup and thanks to smart writing, good direction and an excellent cast, The Avengers more than lives up to the hype.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 5/19/2012

The world embraced The Bat like no other superhero to date. Smashing box office records and satisfying a legion of fans who wanted a return to creator Bob Kane’s original vision, Tim Burton’s Batman was a commercial and critical success. To a young Bill Tucker, Batman was a beast. From a Party City bought Halloween costume to the exceptional NES game, Batmania was in full swing in the Tucker hosehold. When Batman Returns hit theaters in 1992, there was no way six months was keeping young Bill from seeing the film in theaters. PG-13 be damned.

Back then, I don’t think I appreciated the scope of the sequel. Tim Burton didn’t just rehash the beats and rhythms of the successful original. He unleashed his full vision on the movie going public, creating an even darker interpretation of the Dark Knight. As a youngin’, the film terrified me. The Penguin was grotesque, the architecture unsettling and Batman didn’t triumph at every turn. Not even Michelle Pheiffer in a skin tight cat costume could make this fun. The fan in me loved it but the child inside was a little freaked out. Looked at nearly twenty years later, Batman Returns not only ranks as my favorite film in the original franchise, it ranks as one of my favorite superhero films of all time.

The second adventure finds Batman (Michael Keaton) battling two foes in the defense of the citizens of Gotham City: a squat sewer dweller who calls himself Penguin (Danny DeVito) and the slinky Catwoman (Pheiffer). Despite how good Jack Nicholson was in the original film, the villains of Returns have far more depth and more interesting stories. DeVito’s flamboyant Penguin starts the film on a quest to find the parents who abandoned him and Catwoman opens as the meek Selina Kyle, working as an administrative assistant for the town’s number two business mogul, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). The two antagonists straddle the line between good and evil, perfectly reflecting the duality of the man in black. Both Penguin and Catwoman are attempting to right wrongs in their own psychotic way and this positive motivation is among the most interesting of the series. That and Walken is just fantastic in the role of the slimy industrialist . Why? Because it’s Christopher freaking Walken.

Many fans complained that the character of Batman was diluted by the Pheiffer / DeVito duo but that actually speaks more true to the source material. Batman was written as an avenger from the shadows and just because Keaton lacks some screen time, doesn’t mean his presence isn’t felt. Keaton’s Batman is still nuanced and interesting. We don’t learn much more about why Bruce Wayne dons the cowl, but with such a quality supporting cast, we don’t need to. DeVito is wonderfully over the top and Pheiffer walks the line between hurt kitten and claw bearing wingnut, giving Batman two dangerous foils to battle. This leads to some entertaining set pieces involving a giant Christmas tree, a rooftop fistfight and missile toting penguins. The action isn’t as visceral as the latest installments, but they’re good fun nonetheless.

The rest of the film maintains or exceeds the quality of the original. The most interesting enhancement was the newly realized Gotham City. Emboldened by the success of Edward Scissorhands, Tim Burton unleashed his full artistic vision on the project and created a darkly beautiful world of maniac gang members and towering cityscapes. Danny Elfman again provided a stirring soundtrack, the cinematography is top notch and there’s imagination in every frame.

Despite it being a better film, Batman Returns made about half the money its predecessor made. Critical response was less enthusiastic, audiences didn’t get the darker tone and overall opinion was one of mild disappointment. The film started to alienate younger viewers and their parents. Joker’s bloody face was OK but Penguin burping up black liquid while Michelle Pheiffer modeled fetish wear was a bit too much for family viewing. One of those kids in the audience was me, but despite being a little grossed out, the film was still magnetic. I still loved the shadowy adventures of the Caped Crusader. Looking at the movie with modern eyes, I appreciate it more as a natural evolution in the art of Tim Burton. Deeper, more interesting and just as exciting as the original movie, Batman Returns was an art house action movie that not only elevated the genre, it cemented Burton as a director of vision and visual ingenuity. If only 1992 Bill knew that he wouldn’t get another quality Batman movie until he graduated college. Things in the Batman universe were about to slide downhill. Rapidly.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 5/14/2012

DeNiro and Scorsese. Humphrey Bogart and John Huston. Fonda and Ford. The history of Hollywood is rich with long running actor / director collaborations. Whether it’s mutual respect, artistic synergy or the pure fun of working together, actors have their favorite directors and vice versa. In recent times, the team of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp has yielded seven films. Starting with the brilliant Edward Scissorhands and peaking with the criminally underrated Ed Wood, Depp and Burton have produced their fair share of commercial and critical hits. Their latest effort is Dark Shadows, a campy story about a 200 year old vampire and his 70’s era family of oddballs and misfits. While the duo has genuine fun recreating the sixties soap opera, inconstant storytelling and coffin sized plot holes cause this adventure to crumble in the sunlight of better early summer offerings.

Johnny Depp plays Barnabas Collins, heir to the expansive Collinwood Manor nestled in the fishing town of Collinsport, Maine. Things are good in the 1760’s. Barnabas has a beautiful home, loving parents and a woman he adores. Things, however, go south for young Barney as a jilted lover named Angelique (Eva Green) casts a spell on him, turning him into a vampire. 200 years pass and when Barnabus is resurrected, he returns to find the family business ruined and a host of relatives living in old Collinswood. Residing in the mansion is Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her moping daughter (Chloe Grace Moretz), her strange brother Roger (Johnny Lee Miller) and his son David (Gulliver McGrath). Add to the mix the family doctor (Helena Bonham Carter) and the mansion’s new governess Victoria (Bella Heathcote) and it’s immediately apparent the film has way too many characters. While each actor does a decent enough job, the script does little to properly develop each character and the result is a muddy mess.

Most people will come to this film to see the Burton / Depp magic and for the most part, these moments work just fine. Depp’s over the top dramatics and Shakespearian intonations are campy yet entertaining. Not his finest role, but the actor’s fish out of water antics and repeated references to Victoria’s “birthing hips” are fitfully funny. The rest of the cast is either underused (Moretz) or flat out poor (sorry, Mrs. Heathcote) and have little room to work or create three dimensional characters. Luckily for the movie, Burton’s direction is atmospheric and engaging, creating a world that’s easy to like and easier to connect to. Everybody involved in the making of this film seems to be enjoying themselves and that charm translates well to the audience. You’ll find yourself enjoying yourself, even as your brain starts to hurt.

And why does your mind melt a bit when watching Dark Shadows? Because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. The script is wildly inconsistent and chock full of plot holes. Due to the large cast, the film has to cram a TV series worth of character development into a two hour film and the result is jumbled mess of plot holes, rushed scenes and storytelling leaps of faith. Your mouth may laugh at the one liners but your brain will be confused as to why. Not even Burton’s skill behind the camera can save the confusing nature of the plot, a plot that didn’t have to be so dense to begin with.

Everything else in the feature breaks even. The score is classic Danny Elfman, the cinematography is true to form gothic and the jokes work as often as they fail to raise a giggle. After our opening day screening, my girlfriend said it best. Dark Shadows is just about as good as one could expect from viewing the lackluster trailers. A deliciously campy performance by Johnny Depp can’t save this mixed bag of 70’s references, mangled characters and mind bending plot jumps. The mix of Adams Family ghouls with a Nosferatu-esqe lead may have worked in the late sixties, but modern audiences need more than Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp and Burton directing like it’s 1986. Entertaining in spurts, Dark Shadows is a decent yet instantly forgettable film that does nothing to strengthen the legacy of a Burton / Depp collaboration. The African Queen or Raging Bull this isn’t.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed – 5/9/2012

Tim Burton’s Batman is remembered for many things. Some reference it as the start of the “adult comic” genre, tossing aside square chinned protagonists in favor of darker, more personal superheroes. Others mark it as one of the best combinations of art house vision and Hollywood bombast in recent history. Me? I remember it as my first PG-13 film.

1989 was the year of the Bat. Buoyed by a massive advertising campaign and the expectations of a legion of comic book fans, you couldn’t walk down the street without seeing the iconic bat symbol. Sadly for me, the film was rated PG-13, dashing any hopes of my MPAA strict family allowing me to see it. It took two years before my dad came home with a VHS copy of the movie, waited for my mom to go to bed and invited me to watch it with him. My eleven year old mind was blown away. Everything seemed bigger than life in Tim Burton’s Gotham. The experience was overwhelming. From the maniacal cackle of The Joker, to the looming facades of Gotham to the Caped Crusader himself, Tim Burton’s adult interpretation of the comic book hero was nothing short of spectacular.

Now, nearly 25 years later, the only thing big about Batman ’89 is Vicky Vale’s hairstyle. Viewed with modern eyes and the images of Christopher Nolan’s vision fresh in mind, the original movie is still a fine time but lacks the depth and character development of the new series. The story is a familiar one. After a heist at Axis Chemicals gets thwarted by Batman (Michael Keaton), Gotham’s most ruthless gangster falls into a vat of acid and becomes The Joker (Jack Nicholson). The evil clown then concocts a sinister plan to cause chaos, prompting Batman to run to the defense of the good people of Gotham. Along the way, Bruce Wayne gets involved with photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger), broods in the Batcave and fights the many baddies of the beleaguered city.

On the positive side, Tim Burton’s design of Gotham is my favorite of all the iterations. The visionary director’s take on the city is a mishmash of baroque, art deco and gothic design elements, perfectly reflecting a metropolis in turmoil. Everything in the film, from Keaton’s Batsuit to the classic Batmobile speaks to the director’s love of the dark and picturesque. The choice of Michael Keaton as the lead hero was also a brilliant one. By far my favorite Batman, Keaton excels at playing both sides of the tortured hero. Bumbling as Bruce, terrifying as The Bat, Keaton creates a duality with the role that hasn’t been bested by any who have followed. A tough role to master for someone who, up until then, had been known for light comedy.

The rest of the cast is also well selected, starting with Jack Nicholson’s spot on portrayal of The Joker. While I’m not going to get into the Ledger versus Jack debate, I will say Ledger had a heck of a lot more to work with. Nicholson’s Joker tosses aside decent development for pure fun, creating a manic yet enjoyable performance. The problems aren’t with Jack, as the simply penned story does little to develop the villain. This is a “take the part and run with it” type of performance and for the film they were making, it works just fine.

But not all is rosy in the wet streets of Gotham. The movie languishes under a mediocre script, one that suffered from the Writer’s Strike of 1988. Edits made during filming never gelled with the finished product, creating a movie that works but does so unevenly. Seriously, would Alfred really let Vicki Vale into the Batcave? Really? The relationship between Wayne and Vale never makes sense or generates any tension, there are some head scratching music cues and the film bloats towards the final thirty minutes. It’s a bit of a mess, but an enjoyable mess all the same.

Batman was described by David Handelman of the New York Observer as being “less movie than corporate behemoth.” While I don’t fully agree, there’s a grain of truth in that statement. Up until that point, Bob Kane’s original vision of a tortured avenger had been muddled by decades of campy treatment. A millionaire fighting crime in a bat costume. Hilarious! Fans of the comic had become alienated, fans of the TV show grew up and nobody cared about the adventures of Bruce Wayne. Supported by the biggest marketing campaign in the history of Hollywood, Batman was a necessary beast, a required purging of the artistic damage caused by twenty years of neglect. Batman didn’t just resurrect a comic book character; it revitalized the relevance of an art form. No longer relegated to the bedrooms of geeks and fanboys, comic book characters could now be taken seriously as allegories for our basic humanity. Tim Burton’s vision injected new life into a genre that would dominate filmgoing until the present day. Batman is nowhere near a perfect film, but it’s a game changer, and that, even twenty years later, is more than enough.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 4/26/2012

And then…there was Goldmember.

If you’ve been following these Austin Powers reviews with any regularity, you know how I felt about him way back when. My former obsession is well documented. Instead, let me take you back to the year 2002. Sitting dead center in a packed New Jersey theater, I was all pumped up for Austin Powers in Goldmember. The film started out promising featuring a Mission Impossible style action sequence followed by a number of very funny A-list cameos. Despite the laughter in the audience, I felt a pang. A quick stab to my inner fan. In the opening five minutes of the third Austin Powers film, I realized this wasn’t just a fun comedy, for dorks by dorks. This was a serious franchise, a Hollywood machination of high production values and celebrity panache. The first film was directed by a no name, written by and starring the lead from So I Married An Axe Murderer. Now Mike Myers didn’t just play Austin Powers. He was Austin Powers.

But it was funny, at least for the first five minutes, so I laughed along with the crowd. Minutes rolled by and as the opening dance number revved up, I settled down. This felt right. Flashed up, gaudy and a bit more polished, but this was still the character I loved. After all, the original films weren’t indies. They were studio projects backed by millions of dollars. So what if this had a few cameos and a fresh coat of paint. It could still be funny. It could still make me laugh.

Just as I had settled in, the movie committed a sin, an egregious affront that soiled my image of Austin Powers for all time. This cut me to the core, so much so, I now drink obscene amounts of Powers Irish Whiskey just to keep the memory at bay. From there on, the movie made me chuckle, but never laugh.

Austin, with his dance troupe in tow, walked into a warehouse and a Britney Spears video ensued. Quincy Jones’ iconic theme? Gone. Austin sporting “Baby, One More Time” ear poms? Indeed. As quickly as it started, the theme came back and Austin danced away but the movie was forever tarnished. In that moment, I grew up.

Ten years later, in revisiting this film for this review, memories of my experience flooded back to me. Recollections of my disappointment hit me square the minute I picked up the DVD case and read the words “FULL SCREEN” on the cover. Ugh. This was going to be painful. The initial story didn’t help much. Opening with a standard Dr. Evil doing the standard Dr. Evil shtick, the film has little momentum at the outset. Adding to the mayhem is Fat Bastard, Mini Me and a new antagonist in the titular Goldmember, a Dutchman with gold plated genitalia. The plan this time around is to employ a tractor beam to send a golden meteorite crashing to Earth unless the world pays a hefty ransom.

The first problem with all these baddies is that it waters down the Austin Powers character. This film focuses heavily on the relationship between Austin and his negligent father Nigel (Michael Caine). Unlike the second film, this new development weakens the character’s core and by having all these bad guys taking screen time, you lose the essence of what made Austin fun. Rather than silly gags, Austin is tortured by daddy issues. I’m all for trying new things with your characters but when it tampers with what made fans love him to begin with, it weakens the film. It also doesn’t help that the villains have nothing funny to say. Fat Bastard recycles gags from the first film, Dr. Evil spouts pop culture references and the new character, Goldmember, repeats the same three unfunny jokes over and over again. Seriously. I counted.

To further the pain, things don’t get much better on the sidekick side. Fighting alongside Austin is Foxy Cleopatra (Beyoncé), a 70’s era soul siren. Beyoncé gives it her best but she simply doesn’t have the comic chops and her character has nothing funny to say in the first place. With nobody interesting to bounce off of, Austin is left swinging in the wind. Another major issue is Austin’s trip to the seventies. Used solely to put the lead in platform shoes in a roller rink, the swinging super spy just doesn’t fit in the disco era. The sixties worked because that’s where his home was, the nineties worked because he was a fish out of water, but the seventies didn’t do anything but make him drive a low rider.

Luckily, the film isn’t a total disaster. Some of the jokes, including Ben Savage with a mole and a very clever bit where Austin and Mini Me go in disguise, are quite funny. The scenes featuring Austin and the doctor as young boys are well done and the tone of the movie is consistent with the previous two. Heck, I even enjoyed the nostalgic Dr. Evil version of “It’s A Hard Knock Life”. But that’s not enough to save a film with poor villains, weak jokes and characters trying so hard to be different, they end up saying nothing at all.

After watching this film for the first time in nearly five years, I was reminded of watching the credits back in 2002. As the obligatory post film gag reel ran, I couldn’t place why it didn’t work, why I didn’t laugh. Now, doing the same thing fifteen years later, I see what happened. That was the day I grew up a little. 22 year old Bill shouldn’t have been watching Austin Powers with a theater full of high schoolers. He was in college. His days should’ve been filled with career planning, drinking heavily and getting laid. In the five years since the original was released, he had witnessed something he loved pass him by. A natural progression of time. Now, as a 31 year old Bill, I’ll always look back on the trilogy with fondness but little regrets. The mental picture is a rosy one but a picture just the same, easily put on the shelf and forgotten until the next time nostalgia knocks and asks to spend some time with me. Until then, the Austin Powers trilogy will remain on the shelf, gathering dust. Especially Austin Powers in Goldmember. Full screen version, my ass.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 4/24/2012

If the first flick sparked an interest, the second created an obsession.

Firmly entrenched in late nineties excess, Austin Powers was a young dork’s dream come true. Austin wasn’t just a joke slinging super spy. He was a man about town, a charismatic yet vulnerable swinger who beat the bad guys, made us laugh and always got the girl. And I ate it up. From a copy of the soundtrack, to various memorabilia to a very decent impersonation of the lead characters, I was enamored with the rotten toothed super sleuth. Riddled with pop culture references and absurdist humor, the follow up to the cult classic not only cemented Mike Myers as an A list comedy star, it gave birth to a franchise. In the fifteen years since its release, the shine’s been worn off this film, more so than the first movie. Despite this, the base of the film provides an entertaining romp through sixties era spy clichés with a late nineties touch and still dishes out more than a couple chuckles today.

This second stanza finds Austin on another adventure against a familiar adversary. This time around, a Scottish monstrosity by the name of Fat Bastard has stolen the mojo of a cryogenically frozen Austin in the year 1969. The orders came from the nefarious Dr. Evil in an attempt to cripple his nemesis’ virility, hopefully rendering him powerless to thwart his plans. The plan itself? Something about a moon laser, a million dollars and a time machine. The driving narrative is weaker than the original film, but nobody’s going to this party for the story. They’re here to watch Austin swing and Dr. Evil laugh maniacally.

Mike Myers is again spot on in his portrayal of Austin, Dr. Evil and the new villain, Fat Bastard. With a new film comes further character development, Austin through the weakness of losing his mojo and Evil through a relationship with the screeching Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling). This creates characters with more depth and allows for the jokes to work even more. As a result, bits like Austin’s impotence and Evil seducing Frau hold up the best after a decade and a half. On the female front, American spy Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham) takes Elizabeth Hurley’s place as Austin’s shag partner. While her character isn’t as interesting as Mrs. Kensington, Graham’s fem fatale is easy to like and even easier to look at, creating a satisfying target for Austin’s urges. And then, there’s Mini Me (Verne Troyer), the single best off shoot character in the entire franchise. Mini Me helps bring out Dr. Evils softer side and the moments where him and the good doctor interact are among the best in the movie.

What the film creates in good characters, it loses in narrative and by association, comedic drive. This go round seems much more like a compilation of sketches than a cohesive movie, especially in the bloated “sing along” sections. While momentarily funny, these parodies of “Just The Two Of Us” and the Joan Osborne one hit wonder “One Of Us”, serve only to slow down the story. If you just had to Wikipedia who the heck Joan Osborne is, congrats. You discovered the biggest reason why this movie doesn’t hold up. Moments like Dr. Evil telling the president to “talk to the hand” or using a scene from Independence Day to frighten Congress falls flat to modern viewings. In the first movie, these references could be seen as time and place, but since they are major components of the comedy in the sequel, they’ve become stale. The rest of the comedy works as individual pieces but without a competent story holding them together, the whole picture doesn’t flow.

That doesn’t make Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me any less of a good time. Despite the comedy feeling like a series of bits from a late night variety show, Austin Powers Part Two breaks even thanks to some fine and funny characters. Austin gets a chink in his machismo, Dr. Evil finds love in all the wrong places and even Fat Bastard has a moment of clarity. Couple that with some solid comedy directing by Jay Roach and you get a movie that maintains the base level of quality from the original offering. Just don’t expect to laugh out loud when the evil doctor says to the president, ” You’re not all that and a bag of po-ta-to chips.” Nobody under the age of thirty will get that reference in the first place.

Score – 70%