Month: February 2022

The setting can sometimes be the most important element to your movie. While the story and characters should always be a top priority, the setting can be equally as meaningful in terms of both script and direction. It’s the location where your movie takes place that make the best impression. From a writing perspective, it helps showcases the place where the main characters will spent the majority of the time in along with giving opportunities for unique and proper world building. From a directing perspective, it gives a chance for the person behind the camera to show off their creativity and skillfulness as a filmmaker. Even in a movie that’s so bad or so mediocre can at least be overlook when watching it if you are able to make the place the movie is set in pleasant to the eyes and interesting to the world/universe the movie is set in. While there are many, many flaws to be had with Batman Forever (and there definitely are quite a bit), the one thing it does get right is that it makes Gotham City more appealing than any other Batman movie that has come before or after it.

In terms of the live-action Batman movies, the portrayals of Gotham City have been quite a mixed bag. Tim Burton capture the atmosphere well but never could quite get the scope of it down making the actual city feel smaller than it actual was. Zack Snyder got the scope and scale of it down (then again when does he NOT?) in the brief time that we’ve seen his version of Gotham but didn’t really have much to differentiate it from his own Metropolis. Christopher Nolan came close to capturing the perfect version of it in Batman Begins but then came Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises that abandoned that in favor of a more generic looking city set in Chicago or New York. If there is one thing that all three directors did right though, it’s that it made Gotham City just as important to the story as Batman himself. Heck at times, you could make the argument that certain Batman movies sure have the word Gotham in in instead of Batman. (Kinda like how Black Panther could be referred to as Wakanda: The Movie) In the majority of Batman movies, Gotham City is practically it’s own character. It’s the tone feel, and direction that is set in that distinct location that matches the tone, feel, and direction that the movie is going for. This makes it all the more interesting in that Joel Schumacher, despite how infamous and incredibly flawed his Batman movies are, was able to nail down the best version of Gotham City we have seen on the big screen thus far.

The one thing that Schumacher got constantly criticized with his movies, and especially his two Batman movies, is that he tends to always oversexualized his characters, whether it’s male or female. He definitely showcases that in this movie. Val Kilmer looks as if he walked straight off the cover of a Playgirl magazine. Chris O’Donnell at times when he’s not in the Robin costume, has a black lather jacket on, nailing the “bad boy” look that certain women love so much, particularly chicks that dig the car. Nicole Kidman delivers nearly every single line as if she’s having an orgasm and about to get it on with dialogue that sounds like it was ripped straight out of a porno. Even Jim Carrey rocks certain outfits that I’m sure at least one certain group regardless of what sex that are most attracted to would be lusted by. That definitely becomes a big distraction throughout the film (and ESPECIALLY in Batman and Robin) that it makes it hard to care about the characters since most of them either feel like sex objects or cartoons. At the very least, Schumacher was able to make Gotham City looks as good as his cast.

In Batman Forever, Gotham City just has it’s own fresh, unique feel to it. Throughout the movie, you get a more bright, proper, and special look of this corrupted town than you do in any other Batman movie that feels completely leaped off the comics and animated shows. Schumacher’s overall vision and direction offers an incredibly glowing and neon look at Gotham City itself. It’s bright colors, lighter visuals, and stunning aesthetics perfectly matches the light-hearted tone it’s going for and becomes incredibly effective the moments you are able to gaze your eyes upon it. While that can’t certainly help the cheesy one-liners and the over-the-top action (even if those can be highly enjoyable AT TIMES), it does help the setting of the movie mix well with it’s feel and goofy characters.

What also helps Gotham City in this movie stand out is how the bad guys are just as bright, colorful, and cheesy as the city they are trying to conquer. Forever has two main villains, Two-Face played by Tommy Lee Jones and the Riddler played by the always insane Jim Carrey. And my oh my are these two guys not as gloriously silly and over-the-top in this movie along with their outfits. Two-Face has half of his body covered in multiple different colors. The burned half of this face is all purple while that of his suit mixes with red, white, black, and yellow. The Riddler mostly consist of pink hair and always wearing what looks like green pajamas. These bright colored baddies mixes well with it’s light tone and distinct feel which this movie takes place.

There also the scenes where we have the heroes of Batman and Robin themselves when they are fighting bad guys. The best examples of these are 1.) when Dick Grayson himself is cruising through the neon-painted streets facing off against a group of criminals and 2.) when Batman has his final showdown with the Riddler and Two-Face. While this doesn’t make for the most bleak and intense fight scenes ever, it does help create the same sense of vigilantism and crime gang lords, which probably makes it all the more appropriate for something like this rather than one that is aiming for a more bleak, grim look at an infamous, manipulate territory. You will never get the sense of realism with Schumacher’s Gotham City like with Burton, Nolan, Snyder, and (from the looks of it) Matt Reeves, but man has Gotham never felt so energized and alive in a live-action Batman feature film.

Lastly, this was also the first ever Batman movie to feature Arkham Asylum itself.

Okay so the scene itself is only a minute long but, come on. Just that one shot of the gate that says Arkham Asylum alone along with the actual asylum itself in the background just screams ARKHAM ASYLUM! I’ll certainly buy that as Arkham Asylum than say, the one in Batman Begins that makes it look like the most generic giant prison imaginable. How can you see that one perfect shot and NOT want to fire up your video game system to play the Arkham Asylum video game?

And there was also this scene that was cut from the movie where it shows Two-Face escape from the Asylum at the very beginning.

Batman Forever falls flat in a lot of ways! Corny dialogue, over-the-top characters, arcs that feels unearned and don’t make sense, and performances that are completely hammered up that you wonder if some of the actors are just being as awful as possible just because they can. However, I have never seen a better representation of Gotham City on-screen with any live-action Batman movie than with this movie. For a famous setting that has been often portrayed as mean, gray, and bleak, it’s refreshing to see someone step it up and breath some actual life into it, even if it doesn’t quite match with how the character of Batman is usually interpreted as. Every once in a while in a movie, it’s perfectly okay to make a bad place look good.

A couple of side notes:

• Apparently, Joel Schumacher was actually wanting to make a Batman movie strictly about Arkham Asylum but the studio wouldn’t allow it. What a shame!
• That deleted scene with Two-Face should have been in the movie.
• This does give me an idea of what I want to write for my piece on Batman Begins.
• About that last line, I’m talking more of FICTIONAL settings and not ones in real life. Please NEVER try to make a real, legit terrible place look good!

Next up: Batman and Robin

I enjoyed Murder on the Orient Express more than most folks but there’s no denying it did have one big flaw, one that more recent murder mysteries have also suffered from, the murder reveal being too obvious and predictable. Murder mysteries tend to be a tricky subgenre to pull off. It’s not just about trying to make the actual twists and turns be shocking yet also makes sense within the context of the movie but also make it to where the audience actually gives a damn about what happens between the murder itself and the eventual reveal. There’s also have to be enough going on to make the viewers want to watch it over and over again despite knowing who was behind all of what transpires. That’s something that Rian Johnson’s Knives Out did so incredibly well. Even if you were to guess who the killer was before the reveal, there was still enough to chew on during and after the picture. The characters throughout the movie were not only played by wonderful actors and actresses but their characters felt flesh out and three-dimensional with intriguing backstories and depth that make the story turns feel real and organic but also engaging and surprising. There was a lot to digest with that picture and made it very rewatchable even after watching it the first time and knowing where it will all lead too. That’s something that Kenneth Branagh’s first murder mystery was lacking and it’s even more lacking in Death on the Nile.

Like with Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile lies heavily on it’s well-known cast of actors/actresses and stellar production design to be able to pull it through to the finish line and make it worthwhile. But not only does Nile lack the charms of the cast from Express (and I’m not just saying that because at least two or three of the cast members are in some hot water right now) and the polish of it’s productions but it lacks the one thing that Express did very right, creating an actual claustrophobic atmosphere. In Murder on the Orient Express, the actual setting taking place on the train help give the feeling of no one being safe because how 90% of the movie took place in a small train surrounded by a big cast. Death on the Nile on the other hand spends way too much time off the Nile itself that it’s hard to get a sense of intensity and dread for anyone on board. Even when there’s a certain sequence of events that happens when some of the characters go to Egypt, it’s hard to get a grasp to the actual stakes of the characters and also eliminates potential suspects from the picture that you’ll already be crossing out names of who can or can not be a suspect or the killer.

And it doesn’t help with how slow the pacing is for the first half. Despite the movie just being over two hours, it feels longer than that. The movie takes way too long to get things going on the Nile and the actual murder itself doesn’t happen until nearly an hour into the picture. Things do pick up in the second half but there’s just not enough intrigue going on in the middle to make seeing all the clues coming together seem interesting. It’s ironic how I’m more fascinated about seeing the origin story to Kenneth Branagh’s mustache (Yes, that actually happens!) than I am of seeing a murder mystery unfold before my very eyes.

If anything, the majority of the cast are giving more things to work with than the first film, especially the returning Tom Bateman’s Bouc who is a bit more effective here than before. You also have Emma Mackey’s Jackie who is able to stand out and hold her own with the rest of the cast, Russell Brand who is unrecognizable as Linus, and Kenneth Branagh who he and his mustache once again steal the show and is the best part of the movie. The rest of the cast is serviceable although the less said about Armie Hammer and Letitia Wright off-screen issues along with Gal Gadot’s “on the Nile” moment the better.

Despite the actual aesthetics being more inconsistent this time around (some of the green screen is painfully obvious), the old-fashioned style is felt gracefully throughout the movie. The costumes and lightening all blend well with the time period that this movie is set in (even though the prologue is shot in Noir for some reason). Branagh once again shows that he can shine off the camera just as much as he does on it. If only the same thing could be said about Michael Green’s screenplay.

Death on the Nile isn’t the worst time waster in the world but there are definitely plenty others ones that are more worthy of your time. While the cast is giving more to do than before and the old style feel to it might suck in older audience members who are hungry for more of these kind of movies, it lacks with presenting an engaging mystery to be invested in and and not enough time on the Nile to feel any uncertainty. Hopefully, Daniel Craig and his Southern accent is up to the task in his own second murder mystery!

Throughout the past half century of cinematic releases with the Dark Knight himself, there has been many different iterations on the well-known comic book character of Batman. Some have worked better than the others but this mostly has to do with the filmmakers of these movies not so much as looking to adapt the characters straight from the source material but make their own movies around Batman while still finding a place within the established lore. However, there have been a handful of exceptions to this matter. Some instances where the filmmakers don’t so much care about putting their own “spin” on the character but translate that character onto the big screen exactly the way he was from the source material it came from. Nothing with a grand version or bold take on the caped crusader but just makes the character exactly the way he was intended to be from the material that comic book fans have always loved. One of these cases is with Eric Radomski and Bruce Timm’s Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

Mask of the Phantasm is based around the 90s hit Batman: The Animated Series and was the first ever feature film with Batman to be fully animated. However, unlike with a numerous amount of movies based off of tv shows (think the last two Spongebob movies), this does feels like a legit movie made for theatres and not so much as three to four episodes of the show smashed into one. You don’t need to have seen the show itself to fully understand the context of the story that plays out here (You should definitely check the show though). This movie stands perfectly well on it’s own terms and works all the more better because of it.

Which honestly makes it all the more strange is despite the fact there have been numerous amount of Batman movies over the years, Mask of the Phantasm seems to be the one that actually puts major focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman themselves. There’s more time and focus spent on the actual titled character than any other movie that has come before or after. The film explores the psyche of Bruce of how he’s defined by the guilt over the death of his parents and the needs to commit vigilante act of justice so that no one else will have to suffer the same fate he has.

These themes plays greatly in the relationship between Andrea Beaumont and Bruce Wayne, which is easily the most compelling yet sad romance in any of the Batman movies thus far. Even more so than with Selina Kyle in Batman Returns, their love can be seen as an absolute Greek tragedy. These are two people who despite doing what’s right for others, always need to have the sacrifice the rights they have for themselves, even their own happiness. Because of that, they have always been left cold and empty on the inside. That is until they meet each other once again.

It’s with the love that Bruce has for Andrea that he sees as the one last chance he has with living a normal life. Despite always being Batman because of the constant belief need to act when he can, Bruce deep downs knows that his parents would still want him to settle down and have a life with the one person that he loves most. Andrea is a woman that represents everything Bruce could want with a wife, she’s strong, interesting, attractive, secretive, compassionate, and will do anything that is best for him. More than anything, Andrea is basically Bruce’s one way ticket towards actual happiness. That is until we look at the real villain of the picture.

While the Joker has a presence within the film itself, the real center antagonist is the Phantasm. Just like with Batman, the Phantasm is a multi-skilled fighter with clearly material arts training who wears a masks and pursues vigilante justice. However, the Phantasm takes a step beyond what Batman is known for and straight up murders the criminal bosses that have plagued Gotham City. So much so that people in Gotham actually believe the Phantasm to be Batman. This is where it starts to get personal for Bruce. Not just with how the public sees as Batman but how Bruce himself sees Batman. Batman, at least in this movie anyway, is not someone who vows for death and destruction from bad guys. It’s his limitations and own personal, unwritten rules. It would make him no better than the the criminals that he always chases down and the bad man who shot his parents in cold blood. The Phantasm represents everything that Batman fears he would become. And this gets all the more personal with it’s revealed that the Phantasm is Andrea herself.

That’s right! The woman that Bruce has fallen in love with and was willing to give up on being the Batman for is in fact, the Phantasm. The figure that represents the dark and broken angle of Batman is no other than the one he wanted to be with for the rest of his life. What makes this antagonist work brilliantly is how the tragic past that Andrea has gone through perfectly mirrors the one that Bruce himself have dealt with. Just like with Bruce, she had to deal with the death of her father and the baggage that he carried with him even after he had died. The killer of her father, Carl Beaumont, is revealed to be the Joker. In a way, that makes the Joker in this movie feel more of a villain to the Phantasm rather than Batman. And like how its perfectly align with the Phantasm to want to kill the Joker, it’s align with Batman that he demands he spares his life as death is what will welcome him. It also goes into depths to show just how Joker murdering her father has consumed the goodwill inside Andrea herself. Despite wanting to represent vengeance, she has acted with no limits or restrictions of her own. Unlike with Bruce as Batman, Andrea as Phantasm takes a step too far and makes herself no better than every single criminal that she has murdered. Andrea as the Phantasm is not just what Bruce fears to be as Batman but is practically the exact monster that the Joker is. The evil in Gotham that Joker and others have created is so cruel that it ruined the lives of both Bruce and Andrea. It robbed Bruce of a chance to spend his life moving on from Batman with a woman that he cherishes and it made someone as good-hearted as Andrea bring out the worst version of herself that she can never move beyond.

More or less, Mask of the Phantasm perfectly illustrates how Batman is not just a symbol for Gotham City but also represents a tragedy for Bruce Wayne. With losing his parents, seeing good people become evil, watching as criminals strike fear into the heart and soul of Gotham, that showcases how being Batman is difficult just like that. But it’s his tragic relationship with Andrea that shows that no matter how hard he tries, Bruce Wayne can just never escape being Batman. It’s something that will haunt him for as long as he lives. Whether it’s a personal connection or not, there will always be something that traces back to Bruce as Batman. He can never move past it, because Batman is and always will be Bruce Wayne’s destiny. He can dread it, run from it, but destiny will arrive all the same!

When ranking it with the other Batman movies, Mask of the Phantasm is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman movie thus far. That being said, it’s not my favorite movie WITH Batman but it’s the best movie ABOUT Batman. That’s the key difference right there. To me, it’s like comparing Spider-Man 2 and Into the Spider-Verse. Spider-Man 2 is my favorite movie WITH Spider-Man in it because that represents more than just Peter Parker and Spider-Man themselves, it represents us all and the struggles we go through in our daily lives. However, Into the Spider-Verse is far in a way the best movie ABOUT Spider-Man, since more than any other Spidey movie, it represents perfectly how Spider-Man is as a character, figure, and an inspiration along with how anyone can be their own version of Spider-Man. That’s similarly how I am with Mask of the Phantasm compare to a few others Batman movies I prefer just a tad bit more than this one.

Like I said in the beginning, there are plenty of Batman movies that are more centered around the stories they tell themselves that just so happens to have Batman in it. Many have succeed, some even more so than this movie, while others have failed. But, there really hasn’t been a motion picture that show the inner turmoil of Bruce Wayne as a character and the tragic figure that Batman himself represents than with Mask ofthe Phantasm.

And for what I’ve been seeing and hearing about the upcoming The Batman, this might be the one Batman movie to take a look upon if you haven’t already. If the trailers and inspiration for the movie are anything to go by, this could potential be a perfect compliment to what Matt Reeves’s adaptation of the character will be .

A couple of side notes:

• It’s incredibly how despite this coming out in 1993, the animation still holds up pretty well albeit a bit stiff at times.
• Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill are the definite versions of Batman and Joker as far as I’m concerned.
• It’s nice to see for once in a movie that Batman, A.K.A. the World’s Greatest Detective, gets to actually be the World’s Great Detective. Just something I thought was nice.
• The soundtrack is great as well!
• What in the world was Warner Bros thinking releasing this movie on Christmas day?!

Next Up: Batman Forever

Update- This post was published just a couple of hours before the Super Bowl!

Everyone loves an underdog! We have seen a number of them over the years in professional sports but no matter how many times we do, it never gets old!

And I should know considering I live around St. Louis, Missouri and have lived to see my professional sports teams win four championships in my lifetime as underdogs. There was the 1999 Rams where they were forced to bet the farm on a quarterback who before was spending his life living at his girlfriend’s parents, working at a grocery store, and playing indoor football. There was the 2006 Cardinals who despite dealing with a bucket load of injuries throughout the entire season and only won a mere 83 games, was able to win their first title in nearly 25 years. There was the Cardinals once again in 2011 going on one of the most improbable World Series runs imaginable and became the textbook example of “team of destiny”. Lastly, there was the Blues in 2019, who looked lost and lifeless after the first three months of the season in dead last place and was a franchise that have become accustom to playoff failure and disappoint, but then Gloria and Jordan Binnington happened and the rest is history. Not a single one of those teams were juggernauts, powerhouse groups, or favorites to win. They were all just a bunch of guys who refused to quit.

That has to be the kind of mindset that the Cincinnati Bengals minds have to be in. The Bengals were probably the last team anyone expected to make the Super Bowl this year but yet they have done it. This is a franchise that hasn’t been known for winning the big game. They finished the season with a record of 10-7, more victories than the previous two seasons combined. Prior to this season, they have not one a single playoff game since 1990, the longest drought in the NFL. They have also never won a Super Bowl in their history despite this now being their third appearance in it. In spite of the absolute deadweight baggage that has been carrying this team’s troubled past, the Bengals don’t care about any of that right now and have just played three really damn, good games in the past month.

The big thing about underdogs is that they never actually play like they are ones, they play as they are the absolute favorites. Regardless of how many games they won in the regular season, all of that is irrelevant once you have reached the playoffs. If that sounds similar, that is something we saw just around three to four months ago with the Atlanta Braves. A team which had no expectations to do anything come playoff time, had a recent history of postseason heartbreak and letdown, secured only 88 wins in the regular season, but yet were able to overcome all of that and rise to become World Series champions.

Another thing about underdogs is that every time they are able to succeed in the playoffs, there’s always the question of how in the world did they do it. They ask that question as if it takes some sort of Shakespeare sorcery to be able to comprehend how this team emerging victorious and what kind of black magic they were able to contain. While there is undoubtedly plenty of luck that goes into any team’s championship, the answer is just what you are seeing on the screen. The Bengals have played three big playoff games thus far and so far, they have outplayed and executed better than all three teams they have faced. Regardless who was the betting favorites, who seemed like the more loaded rosters, and ESPECIALLY of who “analytics” claimed stood a better chance of winning, none of that matters to the Bengals and they just played their game.

On paper, the 88-win Atlanta Braves should never have been able to get pass the 96-win Milwaukee Brewers, the 107-win Los Angeles Dodgers, and the 95-win Houston Astros but they did anyway regardless of what expectations and analytics had to say. On paper, the 10-7 Bengals should never have been able to get pass the 12-5 (and top-seeded) Titans and Chiefs but they did anyway regardless of what expectations and analytics had to say. They didn’t care about all of that, they just cared about the game in hand and because of that, they were able to see past their opponents.

The special case with teams like this is that instead of worrying about not being as talented or loaded as their opponents, they just look at what they have right now and get the best in everything they have. They realize the talent that they have right now and fully utilized them in anyway they can. They showed up to the field everyday excited and eager, come with a game plan, figure out every role they shall play, and executed. That is what the Bengals have done with ease so far this postseason. Young quarterback Joe Burrow and the offensive lines have done their job with making quality passes and running out yards. Defensive linesman B.J. Hill and the defensive lines have done their job preventing as much points on the board from their opponents as possible. Kicker Evan McPherson has done his job kicking all of those extra points and field goals. The Bengals, like the Braves before them, are just a team that showed up when it matter and showed more heart, grit, and desire for a championship then the teams they have faced.

The Bengals now have one finally challenge against the LA Rams, a team that hasn’t seen championship success since moving over to California and is looking to fulfill what they couldn’t just three years ago in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. Just like with the Bengals, the Rams had to go through it’s fair share of obstacles to get here and is more than certain to put up a good fight to get that Super Bowl if not for Stan Kroenke (Screw him to high hell btw!) but for themselves and their fans.

What is fascinating though that despite the Bengals not exactly being favored to win, I don’t think it would shock anyone to see if they did win it all. This seems like a moment akin to the 2011 Giants and Cardinals, where they just feel like the team of destiny. All of the pieces are moving into place, all of the stars are being perfectly aligned, the ending to this beautiful, heartwarming story is about ready to be written. But, again, just as much as the Bengals can change the narrative on a dime, so can the Rams. All it takes is one incomplete pass or interception to turn the tide and momentum towards your opponents (just ask the 49ers).

Whether or not the Bengals are able to win their first ever Super Bowl tonight, let this be a lesson to be learned like we did with the Braves last year along with many others in recent memory, the games still need to be played. Anything can happen in a game but especially anything can happen in a playoff game. Chokes can be made, miracles can be performed, and any single person on the playing field can set into the spotlight doing something heroic. That’s what make sports, and in particular football, great! Anything can happen! And if this last month of crazy, insane playoff games is anything to go by, there is no reason to believe that the same case won’t be followed in this year’s Super Bowl.

Earlier today, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred that the owners and players have agreed to make the Designated Hitter permeant for both leagues. No longer used strictly for American League baseball, the National League will settle for DH as well with pitchers no longer being required to have an at-bat in a game. With very few exceptions (mostly just Angels star/MLB the Show 22 Cover Boy, Shohei Otani), it’s unlikely that we will ever see starting pitchers or any pitchers hitting in a decisive game again or at least anytime soon!

There are undoubtedly plenty of baseball purists and old school folks that are not happy about this. Heck, there are even MLB pitchers that are not happy about it, including the St. Louis Cardinals legend Adam Wainwright!

pic.twitter.com/HoDeHGiEOy

— Adam Wainwright (@UncleCharlie50) February 10, 2022

Look, guys! This is a change that was inevitable and had to happen sometime soon! In recent years, it has become more and more embarrassing to see pitchers try to “hit”! They either swing the bat around like Paul Bunyan swinging an axe (see Bartolo Colon in the pic that’s right underneath the title) or they find a way to hurt yourself, including the previously mention Adam Wainwright who missed nearly the entire 2015 season due to tearing his Achilles while batting. Sure, every once in a while you’ll see a pitcher hit an unexpected dinger and/or clutch hit, but nine out of ten times, a pitcher hitting ALWAYS results in two outcomes, a.) a sacrifice bunt or b.) a guaranteed K or out. And especially since we are now currently in the time where pitching is at it’s most dominant, it’s best to have an extra spot for a capable hitter and not let a pitcher who barley practices hitting in the first place to risk harming themselves for the benefit of their respective team.

Pitchers just aren’t athletic enough nor do they have the time or patience to make hitting as much of a priority as they do pitching. Again, there have always been exceptions, but for the most part, it’s just not worth giving away a free out and it’s better to have another batter who’s at least capable of putting up some sort of battle in the batters box.

Some might claim this as breaking tradition in baseball and ruins the “integrity” of the game. If that’s the case, the maybe it’s time to start questioning that tradition and “integrity” since we live in an entirely different age of baseball. As I mention in my MLB steroids piece, it’s time that the sports realizes how being blinded to way they’ve done things for a long time is what’s holding the sports back and isn’t fully realizing it to its fullest potential in the current age that we are all living in.

Sometimes, change is necessary. Sometimes, change is mutal. And most importantly, sometimes, change is just inevitable and needs to be done.

Once again, as stated by Manfred himself, Major League Baseball will now implement the universal DH along with eliminating draft compensation for draft picks*.

*I didn’t mention much of that because I don’t have much to say on it but I’ll just say that has potential to change free agency and contract extensions WAY more than people realize.

At this one point, reviewing the new Jackass movie is like reviewing the new Marvel movie or new Fast & Furious movie. You basically know exactly what you’re gonna get out of it and it’s foolish to expect anything else otherwise. Johnny Knoxville and crew know exactly what they want to do to entertain their audience and the exact kind of demographic they are aiming for. A target demographic that ranges from pre-teens, which constantly have their mind blown over seeing shit they might still be too young to realize they shouldn’t try it at home, to the young adults, who have matured and are now clever enough to know not to try any of this shit at home. You’re either on board the Jackass train or not! As for me, when watching Jackass Forever, it didn’t so much want to make me jump aboard the train but want to play the part as the bystander waving at the train once it goes by with the realization that train can possibly crash at any giving moment.

When it comes to the Jackass series, I believe this is a franchise that tends to work best in small doses. While the idea of having a group of bozos having the time of their live pulling pranks and trying out dangerously stupid stunts might make for a solid web series or 11-15 minute long episodes, I don’t think they can translate well to films. There’s only so much time you can engage your audience by basically committing acts of torture porn over and over again until it’s no longer funny, cringe, shocking, or even simply Jackass. That was what I thought until I watched Bad Grandpa.

Bad Grandpa not only was that rare installment in a stunt heavy franchise that manages to be engaging and fresh with all of it’s stunts and pranks all the way through but also told an entertaining story in the process. We basically see a fun but mean-spirited Grandpa take his grandson for the most care-free time of his life, showing how even adults can have the brain and heart of a child. The drama (if you even called it that) was nothing special and probably would fail if the movie was meant to to be taken seriously but it’s not suppose to. It’s for those reasons why that movie was able to succeed on its own merits and make it worthwhile as a feature film. (And good lord, is Johnny Knoxville completely fabulous and unrecognizable as Grandpa Irving Zisman.)

Jackass Forever doesn’t try to be the kind of thing that Bad Grandpa was. There’s no actual storyline or characters that come into play, it’s basically just Johnny Knoxville and his buddies performing the most insane, bat shit crazy stunts that they could possibly imagine, with a good majority of it having to do with a guy having his dick and/or balls tortured repeatedly. There are some clever ones scattered throughout with the standouts being the lights out scene, the spider bit, and the one with the bear that had me chuckling when it happens. But for the most part, it’s just guys playing around and hurting their own John Henrys and nut sacks constantly. It’s gloriously excessive sure but it didn’t so much make me feel bad for the stunt people but rather made me think that they took too much soccer balls to the head to keep doing this stuff. (Btw, that annoying “Concussions are cool as long as you get them before you’re 50!” line from the trailer is no where to be found in the movie. Thanks goodness!)

For a franchise like this, having a big collection of stunts/pranks/games as a movie isn’t necessarily a bad thing and to it’s credit, it’s paced rather well and is only 96 minutes. But as I’ve said before, there’s only so much you can do with a bare minimum concept before it loses it’s appeal entirely. To quote a legendary super villain, “When every scene is Jackass, NO scene is Jackass!”

Don’t take this review personally or as a negative one! I had a good enough time with Jackass Forever but I honestly wonder if I would have just as much the same experience with it had I just typed up and marathoned the best stunts of Jackass on YouTube instead of paying (I actually have Regal Unlimited but still) to go see a movie’s worth of it in theaters. I will say the opening and ending sequences are strong along with a handful of bits in between that I already mentioned but by the end, Johnny and his gang are still the same and haven’t changed one bit. Everything is Jackass and I mean that in more ways than one!

Roland Emmerich has been in hot water for the past week for comments he made on about how Star Wars and Superhero movies are “ruining” cinema. While this isn’t the first controversial take he’s had on blockbuster cinema (he once claimed that Man of Steel ripped off the first Independence Day*), I honestly wish he had kept his mouth shut about that or at least waited until the dust settle on his latest film releases before making those claims. Because of that, the most recent discourse surrounding him is about how right or wrong he was on today’s big movies when it SHOULD be on what an absolute piece of dreck that his newest film is. While I don’t want to be a guy to claim if a director has the authority to criticize big budget movies, but if you do, at the very least, back up your points with a better film than Moonfall.

To be honest, if it wasn’t for the fact that it says directed by Roland Emmerich at the end of the credits, you would be hard press to even believe that Emmerich directed this movie at all. Moonfall is not only a parody of disaster movies but it’s a parody of Ronald Emmerich himself, and not even in a meta/self-aware way. It’s not bad because it’s a mindless disaster movie, it’s bad because it’s BAD at being a mindless disaster movie.

Emmerich’s movie in the past, regardless of their quality, at least was aware of it’s own endgame and knew the identity that it had. The original Independence Day was able to carry itself as a classic thanks to providing action spectacle that hadn’t been done before and actors that were fully committed to their roles that you could (somewhat) buy into the drama and chuckle at the jokes throughout. Moonfall is so aimless that it can’t seem to figure what it’s own endgame and identity is. It’s a movie that intends to not be taken seriously but it doesn’t really have a sense of humor about itself. It wants to have one-note cardboard cutout characters with stereotypical personality and traits but still attempts to add unnecessary family drama into the mix as if it was actually trying to had depth to begin it. It wants to show some turn-your-brain off action but will also take time out to have characters deliver painfully overlong scenes of expositions that even the actors themselves can’t make believable when delivering it. No spoilers, but this movie has one of the longest and most tedious scene of exposition in recent memory. So much so that not even Jonathan Majors could make it seem entertaining.

This aimless level of thinking also goes right into the plot of the movie itself which tries to add multiple messages/subtext and can’t even be bothered to decide which one it’s actually interested in exploring. It wants to be a movie about what happens behind the scenes of N.A.S.A. and when the government tries to cover up something big from the world….until it doesn’t. It wants to be a movie about if the moon is fake or not and how it might lead to the destruction of Earth….until it doesn’t. And then it tacks on a very anti-Artificial Intelligence message by the end and claims that was the sole purpose of the movie despite barely being touched upon throughout the course of the movie. Not even Tomorrowland has this tacked on of a message at the end that just comes out of no where.

All of this could be forgiven if at the very least it would provide some breathtaking action scenes and visuals but it can’t even do that right. The action, while occasionally flirting with some cool ideas, is generic and poorly shot. The visuals while nice in their own right, are nothing special and can’t even bother to make the moon falling look as jaw dropping or as high staked as it should be. Even as a mindless action flick, this movie stumbles.

Moonfall can’t seem to grasp what kind of the movie that it wants to be. If it’s not boring you with it’s constant sci-fi exposition (which a lot of it is total bs btw), it’s making you cringe with dialogue that feels more dated than Armageddon and Emmerich expressing his crush on Elon Musk (Here’s a drinking game, take a sip every time there’s a Elon Musk reference throughout the movie. You’ll be remembering as much as you will remember the experience of watching this crap). Negative reviews like this are usually brushed off a movie like this because it’s designed to be “critic proof”. And yes, I agree this movie is not for critics. The problem is it’s not for audience either. It’s a movie that really only exists to pleasure itself.

The cinematography itself is quite top notch and the cast do what they can with the garbage script and awful dialogue that they’ve been getting but there’s not much of a reason to recommend this movie, even for those that just want a dumb popcorn flick. It’s doesn’t work as a popcorn flick nor an intelligent or engaging piece of sci-fi. It’s not on the same offensive level as say, Independence Day: Resurgence (though even that movie had a solid action sequence about midway through), but it does makes for a far more dull and less interesting experience than even that movie was.

Mr. Emmerich, if you want to talk smack about big movies again, at the very least craft something that’s even as half as well-made as say, Thor: The Dark World**.

*I’m not even joking on that. Here’s proof!

https://batman-news.com/2016/06/25/indepedence-dayroland-emmerich-man-of-steel/

**Yes, that is complete sarcasm!

For a long while, I used to look at Tim Burton’s Batman Returns as the akin to Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises. The Batman installment that was the strangest, weirdest, funkiest (Is that even a real word?), and most difficult to comprehend of the ones that both directors have made with their incarnation of the caped crusader. Both films contain some of the biggest, boldest, and most ambitious work but also straight up the most clunky and messy of both directors filmography. And also, both happened to have Catwoman in it. Looking back now, the comparisons to The Dark Knight Rises is actually downright insulting as it’s actually more in line with The Dark Knight itself. Both movies are just as much about the antagonist in terms of story, character, and themes as the protagonist, perhaps even more so. They tell incredibly groundbreaking tails of the pros and cons of the Batman legacy along with showing a Batman that is truly unrestrained and beyond his limits. In the sense, both Batman Returns and The Dark Knight make for a great parallel with one another and terrific back-to-back featurettes. In case you’re wondering why the title of this post includes Part I, this will talk about the depths and importance of all the main characters scattered throughout Batman Returns and Part II will be about the same thing with The Dark Knight.

I’ve always had a very complicated relationship with Batman Returns. It was a movie that despite watching many, many times, my opinions of it constantly kept changing every single time that I’ve watched it. I’ve gone from liking it to not caring for it to loving it to hating it and then later to being incredibly lukewarm/indifferent towards it. The biggest reason for this is because I’ve never been able to grasp what exactly the movie was trying to accomplish here along with the reasoning behind the number of storytelling choices/direction that the film makes. However, at long last, after many different viewings, I finally understand Batman Returns! And now that I understand it, I can’t help but adore it! This movie is absolutely sheer brilliance!

Granted, I was not the only person in the world to dislike this movie at one point. At the time of the film’s release, it was panned across the board, mostly from parents, that the movie was too scary/horrifying for younger audiences and didn’t feel in like with what the world saw as Batman. So much so, that it lead to Warner Bros deciding to move on from Tim Burton and bring in Joel Schumacher to deliver much more light hearted and kid friendly bat adventures with Batman Forever and the absolutely beloved Batman and Robin. It was a movie that people back then didn’t bother to get as they were too busy complaining about the darker material presented throughout the picture that they couldn’t be bother to think of what the movie was actually about. Unlike with the 1966 Batman movie, being “good” actually was a factor with this movie, more so than any other Batman movie up to this point. An entire generation of fandom and millennials was introduced to Batman in the form of 1989’s Batman and started to develop their own standards of what constitutes as a good Batman flick.

Regardless of how you feel about Batman Returns, there’s no denying that this is a COMPLETELY different film than that of Burton’s original Batman flick. This is mostly because Tim Burton himself was giving much more creative freedom in this one as oppose to the first one. And because of that, people weren’t seemingly on board with a sequel that felt tonally different from the original and is what I believe led to audience members feeling completely unsure of what to think about it. However, just like with another certain sequel released back then that was different and practically “broke the rules” of the first one (*cough* Empire Strikes Back *cough*), many people have started to come around on it, so much so that some would even consider it the best Batman film ever made, even more so than The Dark Knight. As I mention before, the biggest reason this movie is completely worthy of being compared to that game-changing masterpiece that came out in 2008 is how it’s perfectly blends the story with multiple different viewpoints and knows that it’s just as much the Penguin’s and Catwoman’s (and to some extend Max Scherck) story as it is Batman’s. And it’s also realize the one hidden trait about Batman: that he is not only defined by who he is but also the villains that he pursues.

Similar to The Dark Knight, the central conflict is told through multiple different perspectives throughout the course of the film. You have the protagonist, Bruce Wayne/Batman, who despite being Batman for quite awhile now, seems to have lost himself and as a result, has become much more violent and crude with pursuing criminals. You have the antagonist, Oswald Cobblepot A.K.A. The Penguin, a sad, psychotic deranged man who was abandoned by his parents, raised by penguins, and plots for revenge against business man, Max Shreck after being cheated by him with his Red Triangle Circus gand. And then you have what could be considered either as another antagonist or as an anti-hero, Selina Kyle, A.K.A. Catwoman, a lonely secretary and the femme fatale, who gets a second lease on life after being nearly killed by Max Shreck thanks to the amazing power of kitty cats and plots revenge against Shreck by destroying him and his reputation. And lastly, there’s of course Max Shreck, the rich business man who everyone else has a complete vendetta against and wants to accomplish his goal of building a power plant in Gotham City.

What makes these four storylines with the villains mixed together so well is how cleverly it ties into the central conflict with Bruce Wayne as Batman. It smartly splits the traits of Batman into three separate characters. The Penguin represents the side of Batman that has seen/believe to be a freak and outcast from the rest of the world along with someone who was raised as an orphan and became accustomed to the animal-like resources he has based his entire identity on. The Catwoman shows the side of Batman as a vigilante and his psychological conflict within himself, which also make the two a perfect pairing for one another. And Max Shreck is the wealthy business man/industrialist that Bruce Wayne so desperately wants to be. These aspects and traits alone make this arguably the most personal conflict that Bruce has ever had to endure as Batman throughout any cinematic incarnation the character. Especially since unlike with most Batman movies, the film actually tries to make you sympathetic and understand them from an emotional standpoint, more so with Penguin and Catwoman, not so much with Max Shreck. This is what makes the stakes of the story all the more personal as Batman, as he is basically at war within himself by essentially fighting three separate versions of himself.

That is also why Batman technically killing people throughout the movie didn’t bother me, unlike some OTHER Batman movie which I will speak on later on this month. Because there is at least a reason behind from a thematic standpoint. It shows how at the beginning, despite Bruce Wayne still standing as the Batman, he’s in the middle of an identity crisis and basically starts to forget why he became the Batman. This is showcase in the first opening action scene with him where he lits a random criminal on fire with his Batmobile and also when he sets off a bomb that’s about to blow up on someone and just lets them die. This was an issue I had for some time with the movie but what makes me forgive it now is because the way it’s addressed in the form of Bruce’s overall central character arc. If you’re going to make Batman kill, give an ACTUAL reason for it! And that’s something that this movie does well. It may not spell it out for you through dialogue but through subtle references and imagery.

This is what also makes the relationship between Batman and Catwoman the most important part of the film and is quite frankly the absolute heart of the story. It’s through their time spent together with one another that both pairing starts to see a bleak shadow of their former selves and just how corrupt they’ve become on the inside. So much so that in their minds that they have lost a big part of themselves that they may never be able to find again. And there is no scene in the movie that perfectly conveys that more than the dance ball scene.

Throughout the years, many people have claimed that Bruce is being a hypocrite here for trying to stop Selina from killing Max because he’s killed people as well. However, the way I see it, this is Bruce basically realizing the monster he has become, the same monster that the Penguin have become along with the one that Selina is about to turn herself into. He realized the mistakes he has made throughout the film along with role as being a hero. What Bruce is doing here is trying to tell Selina to not become what he has turn into and don’t let the vigilante justice consume the good in you. The Penguin and Max Schreck had already been considered unredeemable in the monsters they’ve become but not with Batman and Catwoman yet. This is what makes the conflict so heartbreaking by the end as Batman is really the only one out of the four main characters that was able to stay sane.

By the end, Cobblepot’s own humanity was consumed and became the blood-thirsty wild animal he never truly wanted to be deep down. Despite his best efforts /intentions to be the best version of himself and showcasing that to the world by running for Mayor, the world (or mostly Batman) had other plans and led the Penguin to his inevitable fate. Selina’s journey ends with her realizing the hurt she has caused onto the world and herself and knows there’s no backing down from that. Which is why despite wanting to spend the rest of her life with Bruce, she knows the Catwoman side to her consumed the Selina Kyle side and there’s quite simply no going back from that. Max Scherck, the villain that despite not changing much throughout the course of the film, stands as the one person responsible for all the outcomes of the main characters. However, unlike films nowadays that will use a character like him to make himself responsible for everything bad happening in a contrived, convoluted plot way (see Blofeld in Spectre), this is showcased in a more thematically organic way that doesn’t bring down the rest of the film.

It’s only Bruce himself that was able to escape this whole endeavor keeping the absolute whole soul of himself. Unlike those that came before him, he was able to carry all the traits he had split up with the three antagonists back to him and remember who he is once again. Bruce had let the Batman side of him be the definite version of himself but now that’s only part of the equation. Bruce Wayne is just as much Batman as Batman is Bruce Wayne. It’s two sides of the same coin, two parts of himself without allowing one side overthrow the other. It’s a tragedy but by the end, he was still able to find that light at the end of the tunnel. Something that the Penguin, Max Scherck, and unfortunately Catwoman could not. He was able to feel whole again.

I will share my absolute final thoughts on Batman Returns once I finished Part II of the “Villains as good as the hero” section with The Dark Knight. But, nevertheless, I understand the depth and importance of this movie and it’s now something that I absolutely treasure. While I’m somewhat interested in seeing Michael Keaton reprise his role as Batman in the future with The Flash and the new Batgirl movie coming out later on down the road, I can’t imagine there being a more beautiful and interesting take on his version of Batman then with this movie.

Next time, however, I will take a look at the movie which despite not being my favorite movie with Batman in it, might just be the best actual Batman movie period with Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

When it comes to superhero movies, people always seem to look at it through two different lenses: as a superhero movie and as it’s own movie. Comic book fans seems to always look at it as a superhero movie first and an individual movie second. Casual fans/regular moviegoers mostly tend to look it as an individual movie first and a superhero movie second. Similar to what I said in about Batman (1966), people tend to have two definitions of what constitutes a good movie. However, specifically when it comes to movies based off of superheroes and comic books, the two definitions of a good superhero movie mainly refers to whether you look at it as both a faithful adaption to the source material and as a standalone feature film.

There are many Batman films made throughout the years that helps redefine the terms of a good superhero movie and a plain good movie. And with a few exceptions (and by exceptions, I mostly mean just Mask of the Phantasm), the way filmmakers have gone with adapting the character of Batman on to the big screen is by making a film first and a superhero movie second. The focus isn’t so much on making a faithful Batman movie but a movie that just happens to have Batman in it. Sure, there are definitely inspirations and call-backs to the original comic books, shows, movies, etc.. but for the most part, what makes each different Batman adaption different from the rest is how it stands as it’s own version of the caped crusader rather than trying to recreate what came before.

Along with Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight trilogy, Tim Burton seems to have taken that exact same approach with both of his movies and in the case of Batman (1989), the direction he decided to go with Batman and the Joker. The Batman and Joker is arguably the best hero/villain rivalry in the history of superhero. They are two polarizing figures with so much depth, complexity, and psychological views on crime, terrorism, and class warfare! So different yet so similar with their goals. They always want the same thing but for completely different reason. They are always responsible for one another’s actions and one doesn’t feel completely whole without the other. They are basically two sides of the same coins! They are the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees of the superhero genre!

Where their history gets complicated however is in their origin stories! Despite multiple source material created for multiple decades, there hasn’t been much engaging (or much at all) material surrounding how they became the Batman and the Joker themselves! And whenever writers try to create origin stories for both of them, it lead to iffy results at best. When it comes to film adaption, Batman’s origin story wasn’t properly addressed and explored until Batman Begins and the Joker was given his own feature film in the form of 2019’s massive hit, Joker. However, the latter wasn’t the first time that Joker was given his own proper origin on the big screen, it was with the film that this post is covering, Tim Burton’s Batman (1989).

Admittedly, Joker is a character that really doesn’t need an origin story. He always been more than just a superhero villain, he’s a mysterious force of nature who always contradicts himself when talking about his past (something that Nolan captured brilliantly in The Dark Knight). He’s always been someone that becomes the more interesting the less you know about him. The biggest attempt at adapting an origin story of the clown prince of crime came in Alan Moore’s now infamous The Killing Joke, a story that while still has it’s moments, hasn’t aged well in the slightest and it’s influence on the industry has made it look more a like a mistake with every passing day on Earth.

Nevertheless, in Batman (1989) (this’ll be the last time I’ll refer to the year it came out), Tim Burton’s decided to take his own stab at creating an origin story of the beloved villain icon Joker. In this version, Joker’s real name is Jack Napier, a right-hand man for Gotham City’s crime lord Carl Grissom. However, after a mysterious bat creature accidentally drops him into a pool of chemicals along with discovering Grissom’s intent to kill him, it’s then that Napier decided to take matters into his own hands and become the Joker. Near the tail end of the 2nd act, there comes a bit more information about him with his connection to Bruce Wayne/Batman. After a confrontation with Bruce Wayne on his date with Vicky Vale, Joker says his catchphrase, “Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?” Something which a stranger once told Bruce when he witnessed his parents getting shot in cold blood. As it turns out, that exact estranged lone gunman who murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne was no other than the Joker himself.

Ever since the film’s release, this has been a very divisive topic among hardcore fans. There are many people who absolutely hate it and feel that the Joker and Batman should not have any personal connections whatsoever. The Joker is someone that should not have a straight forward-origin story and be the sole reason that Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. It takes the mysterious and intrigue away and just makes him look like another ordinary villain. In hindsight, these people may be right but yet, I still think that this works not just in spite of itself, but because of it.

Here’s the thing, I’m not gonna sit here and argue that this version of the Joker is in any way, shape, or form faithful to the comic book character. However, I will argue though that it is faithful to the mere idea and point of the Joker and Batman. (Something which I will definitely bring up once I write my piece on why The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 is actual genius!)

First off, the fact that the Batman and Joker unwillingly created one another does help redefine the idea of the two being two sides of the same coin. Both are tragic and mysterious figures who went through life changing events and feel it’s best to move on from those events by taking matters into their own hands. And the results of this has led to chaos, violence, and resurgence throughout the criminal underworld that is Gotham City.

But, what it makes it worth for me and actually worthy of this character being called the Joker is by going back to that infamous line he mentions to Bruce the night he killed his parents and the day he meets him again at Vicky’s place, “Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?”

The reason that line works is because it feels totally in line with the Joker. He doesn’t have any real reason or meaning behind it. It’s just something he likes to taunt his enemies with because it makes him feel like….well a Joker.

There also comes the line that follows soon after, “I’m only laughing on the outside. My smile is just skin deep. If you could see inside, I’m really crying. You might join me for a weep.” Once again, that feels completely in touch with Joker and how he essentially uses his joke-like nature to hide the pure sorrow and awfulness that he has done and has gone through.

Joker in this movie may not be mysterious in terms of who he is but more on what he says throughout the film. Every line of dialogue that is spoken through his lips can be interpreted in many different ways, just like how the Joker is suppose to be. While you can always understand and know what exactly he’s trying to say, the real reason and meaning behind it remains a mystery.

That feels just as line with the character of the Joker stands for and in a way is what also Batman stands for. The movie more than anything else is how villains can bring out the most out of heroes and how the heroes can bring the most out of their villains. The more they collide, the more they will feel motivated. The more they hold onto to their own beliefs and limits, the sooner the time will come where you will want to cut ties. Just because anyone can be a hero doesn’t mean that anyone can not be a villain as well.

It’s those personal connections, lines of dialogue, and actions made by the characters that helps this Batman/Joker relationship feel more complex than it has any right to be. There is an argument or two that can be made with the way it tries to collide with being a quality superhero movie along with being a quality movie, like how the Joker interpretations can be seen as lazy writing or asking the audience to fill in too many blanks. Regardless, it does fit with the core idea of what the two figures always stood for even if that is not quite what they stood for as individual characters.

This also helps make the final conflict much more personal as the two fight for not just for Gotham’s soul but for their own personal vendettas. Batman is willing to do it through physical force where Joker is willing to do it laughing his ass off. And that’s not even going into how utterly great Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson are in this scene, and honestly throughout the movie.

Not to mention, that line that Batman utters during the fight, “I made you, you made me first!” is the real master stroke here and makes this whole conflict come full circle by the end of it.

Batman is not a perfect film by any means. Side characters such as Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent aren’t given much development time, it’s quite inconsistent as to whether or not Batman should kills his enemies or not (something I will definitely bring up with Batman Returns and Dawn of Justice), and there are times where so much focus is put on the Joker that you can argue that it takes away from the actual titled character of the film. But I do think when it comes down to the core conflict and the way both the hero and villain are portrayed here, it makes for a rather unique, interesting, and personal conflict between the two pairs. Tim Burton might not have captured the Batman and Joker from their original roots but he did help create original roots of his own that made the film for the better.

And those are roots that Burton himself will continue to explore in his follow-up, Batman Returns.

There was a time long ago that a movie getting made was enough to consider it a success. Heck, in some instances, that still is the case. But unlike with today’s big franchise blockbusters, there wasn’t million dollars you could throw at big projects to have them to see the light of day and the actual budget came down to practically months worth of saving up from a few dozen people’s allowances. There were times were big franchise movies based on iconic characters were the equivalent of student independent films. The point isn’t whether or not it was any good but that the mere fact it got made at all should be considered an accomplishment by itself. Just like getting a gold star on your chart in Kindergarten, that fact that you tried is more than enough. Batman (1966) is one of those movies that has those exact vibes when watching through this 104 minute long adaptation of both the now iconic DC superhero and the hit tv series of the same name.

Is Batman (1966) (or also referred to as Batman: The Movie) actually good? It really depends on your definition of “good”.

In my experience, I basically have two definitions of what qualify as a good movie.

The first one is a movie that is able to exceed at exactly what it wants and sets out to be regardless of what flaw in either the story, characters, or production you may find. Even if it doesn’t meet the standards of what traditional filmmaking transpires as at the time of the films’ initial release, the fact it’s able to meet it’s goals on it’s own terms is enough to consider it good.

The second is a movie that is able to exceed on nearly every single metric that constitutes good filmmaking. The script is sharp and coherent, the characters are full of depth and engagement, the direction is top notch, the pacing is spot-on, the score is caliber, the sound/production design is off the charts, and there never contains a massive bug that gets in the way of the experience. The ones that are able to achieve most or all of that is what can be called good.

Spider-Man: No Way Home fits the first definition of that to a t.

Spider-Man 2 fits the second definition of that to a t.

I’m not entirely sure that Batman meets either one of those definitions. It’s definitely closer to the former than the latter but doesn’t quite get there either. And I’m not just talking about for today’s standards of a good movie, which most will consider the second definition of “good”, but the standards of a good franchise movie in the mid 1960s, which I’m sure most would consider the first definition of “good”.

Batman can be what constitutes as a comedy of errors. Throughout the whole movie, we see our heroes make mistake after mistake in incredibly hilarious fashion just so there can be actually conflicts and situations for them to get out of. The plot is absolutely ridiculous filled with logical lapses and relies heavily on convivences and dumb decisions made by the main characters to keep the story moving. There’s not an ounce of character development to speak of and not a single adaption of any of these characters that can be seen as faithful to the Batman roots. And that’s not even going into the scene where Batman fights a shark while dangling from a helicopter or the film’s odd tacked-on political subtext near the tail end of the picture.

And who can ever forget this iconic as hell moment?! Christopher Nolan CERTAINLY did not!

But yet, Batman still kinda works as the best version of itself, even if that best version isn’t any good. In 1966, Batman was not a character that was largely popular or had it’s own ego. At the time, there were a couple of other movies that came out that hardly anybody remembers, a hit tv show, and comics for any kids that could afford it due to taking a good amount of summer/weekend jobs. It didn’t have to be good, it just needed to exist. And it completely succeeds at that goal.

It’s a movie that not just plays by it’s own rules but is also not afraid to break those rules if it’s enough to satisfy itself and the people making it. And you can definitely tell the people making this are having the time of their lives.

Adam West, Burt Ward, Lee Meriwether, Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Frank Gorshin, Alan Napier, Neil Hamilton, and many others bring there absolute A game to create performances that perfectly match with this bizarre, silly world that the movie is set in. Leslie H. Martinson and Lorenzo Semple Jr. are able to fully embrace the goofball tone and feel of the picture that they are going for and (I assume) that fits with the tv show it’s based on. And for what is considered to be DC’s first ever fully length DC theatrical adaptation, the fact this is even remotely watchable is the biggest miracle of them all.

Above all, Batman contains something that I really miss nowadays with big franchise movies, it being the exact movie that itself wants to be and not the audience. You couldn’t make a Batman movie like this in 2022. Not just because it doesn’t meet the standards of filmmaking today (whatever that consists of) but it wouldn’t meet the standards of what the fans and audience expect out of Batman. You release this movie today, it would get torn to shred by everybody and many of the cast and crew would be chase off of social media. However, this movie came out in 1966, not 2022. There was no social media to speak off or high standards to reach with this character or series. It was an actual thing and because of that, it could be anything it desired to be.

Regardless of what your definition of a good movie is, Batman doesn’t have any interest in matching any one of them. Instead, it tries to create it’s own definition of a good movie, at least for what can be considered good for 1966. But as I’ve said repeatedly throughout this post, whether or not this movie is good is not important, it’s mere existence is. The fact there was an actually movie called Batman at the time of it’s release makes it as big of an accomplishment as what Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan did for their own respected versions in at the times those films was released.

A Batman movie being a thing that happened might have been enough for 1966 but that would only be the case if any films with the character that comes after were actually good in their own rights. And as we can see nearly 56 years later after countless different Batflicks and a new one coming out this year, I said at least some of those meet one or two definitions of somebody’s version of a good movie. And we shall continue to explore that all month long as I will go over every single other theatrical release Batman movie to come out since then.

Next up, Batman (1989)!