Movie Review: "Shazam!" (2019)

Image Source

Movie: "Shazam!"

Director: David F. Sandberg
Year: 2019
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 12 minutes

An ancient wizard chooses a teenage foster kid as his worthy champion, giving him superpowers to keep the seven deadly sins from wreaking havoc on earth.

Movie Review: "Aquaman" (2018)

Image Source

Movie: "Aquaman"

Director: James Wan
Year: 2018
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes

Arthur Curry must go to Atlantis to challenge his half-brother King Orm for the throne to prevent a war between the surface world and the underwater kingdoms.

Movie Review: "Justice League" (2017)

Image Source

Movie: "Justice League"

Director: Zack Snyder
Year: 2017
Rating: NR
Running Time: 2 hours, 0 minutes

Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince must gather a team of people with superpowers in order to stop Steppenwolf from using the three 'mother boxes' to transform Earth into an environment closer to that of his home planet, which will destroy Earth and of its inhabitants in the process.

It's hard to believe we are now on the fifth film in the DC extended universe. Of the previous four entries, it is really only "Wonder Woman" that has given us hope for the future of the franchise. "Man of Steel" was okay, but it was a bit too dull and didn't quite capture the spirit of the character. "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" was too bleak and convoluted. "Suicide Squad" is a movie that is better not discussed, and "Wonder Woman" was, well, wonderful.

The question for "Justice League" is where will director Zack Snyder's latest entry in the DCEU fall? For us, it doesn't quite reach "Wonder Woman" levels, but it is definitely a lot more fun and much more entertaining than "Man of Steel," "BvS," and "Suicide Squad." This film teams up Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Cyborg (Ray Fisher), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Aquaman (Jason Momoa) to take on an invading alien army led by Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), a very powerful God-like entity. He wants to obtain three objects called 'Martha boxes,' oops, we mean 'mother boxes,' which when combined possess the power to transform Earth into a planet similar to that of Steppenwolf's homeworld. Of course, this will destroy the earth and all of its inhabitants, but that sort of thing doesn't seem to bother Steppenwolf very much. It will take the entire Justice League combining their powers and risking their lives to defeat him.

Past problems with other DCEU pictures include overly messy plots and massive lack of focus, which have often caused pacing predicaments. This film, however, may actually be a bit too simple, and as a result, the villain is left underdeveloped. Underdeveloped and mostly disposable villains are a problem in many comic book movies in general. That being said, "Justice League" is more about the heroes and finding a reason for them to come together. Steppenwolf and the 'Martha boxes' simply facilitate this happening. This movie is definitely flawed. The CGI is too busy and too chaotic at times, the dialogue is sometimes overly cheesy, it's a bit tonally inconsistent, and some of the jokes don't land. However, "Justice League" is still a ridiculously fun movie despite all of its problems. It is an exciting ride and we never found ourselves bored or annoyed at what we were watching. We really like the way the cast works together as a group. The highlight of the film for us is Ezra Miller's The Flash, who had us laughing time and time again and really got us invested in him as an integral part of the team. Jason Momoa is also an excellent new addition and he fits the part of Aquaman very well. His beefcake stature and rugged, tattooed appearance help make an often mocked character really badass. We can't wait for his solo movie. As for Ray Fisher, he is good as Cyborg, but his character is mostly relegated to delivering exposition. Luckily, he is a key element to the overall story, and we enjoyed his performance and hope to see more of his character in the future. Gal Gadot is still as charming as ever as Wonder Woman/Diana Prince and continues to be an awesome beacon of hope and righteousness. Ben Affleck is an entirely different story. Though he played the part of an aging Batman very well in "BvS," it is apparent that he doesn't want to be involved in this role any longer, and this painfully comes through on screen. We don't think we'll be seeing much more of Batfleck in the DCEU.

In the end, despite its flaws, we enjoyed "Justice League." We will admit, we had all but given up on this incarnation of our beloved DC heroes and villains, so we're glad we enjoyed this film. We think it is definitely worth watching on the big screen and is a major step in the right direction for the DCEU. We left the theater excited for the future of this universe and look forward to seeing what's to come (although we won't necessarily be angry if Zack Snyder decided to step down).

**CLICK HERE for a FREE 30 DAY TRIAL of AMAZON PRIME!!**

**CLICK HERE to ORDER the ALL NEW Amazon Fire HD 10 Tablet!!**

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~40%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Wonder Woman" (2017)

Image Source

Movie: "Wonder Woman"

Director: Patty Jenkins
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 21 minutes

Diana is an Amazonian princess who comes from a race of powerful warrior women. When an American pilot crashes in the ocean near their hidden island of Themyscira, she rescues him and learns of a massive world war going on outside of her sheltered home. She then decides to head out into the world where she believes she can stop "the war to end all wars" by defeating the God of war, Ares, who she thinks is orchestrating the conflict.

"Wonder Woman" is the fourth film in the DC extended universe. It is directed by Patty Jenkins, who has only directed one other theatrically released film, the true crime indie flick "Monster," which won an Oscar for best actress. The film has a screenplay by Allan Heinberg, who wrote the story with Zack Snyder and Jason Fuchs. It stars Gal Gadot as the titular Wonder Woman, aka Diana Prince, and Chris Pine as U.S. military spy Steve Trevor. Joining them are Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, Elena Anaya, David Thewlis, Saïd Taghmaoui, Ewen Bremner, Eugene Brave Rock, and Lucy Davis. The film tells the origin of Diana, who is a princess of a tribe of warrior women known as Amazons. When Steve Trevor crashes in the ocean outside their hidden island of Themyscira, he inadvertently brings the German navy to their shores. After a battle ensues with multiple casualties, Diana learns there is a massive world war going on, and she believes it is her duty to stop it. She believes the way to accomplish this is by finding and killing the god of war Ares, and she thinks the place to find him is in the throes of conflict. 

We have to admit, we were a little apprehensive about "Wonder Woman." We were looking forward to it, but were never really pulled in by any of its trailers. Because of this, we entered this flick with a certain cautious optimism. Luckily for us, we very much enjoyed "Wonder Woman," and in fact, we just about loved! This is a fun and exciting film with some fantastic visuals and interesting, stunningly made stylized action sequences. There is a lot of engaging character development, and we really enjoyed learning the origin story of Wonder Woman since we were rather ignorant of all the details going into the film.

Gal Gadot was a superb choice for the role of Diana Prince. She is fierce, she is brave, she is charismatic, and she is able to sell almost all of her scenes convincingly, especially the action sequences. Sure, her acting can be a little stiff from time to time, but as Diana enters an entirely new, strange world of guns, war, men, and strife, we expect her character to be awestruck and taken aback by the horrors she witnesses. Overall, she does a fantastic job as this kick-ass character. She is really able to convey a beautiful sense of wonder and unfamiliarity with the modern world she has yet to experience. Not to be ignored, Chris Pine also is extremely charming in his own right as spy Steve Trevor, who tries to do the right thing by taking Diana to find Ares on "the front." He also serves as a love interest for her, but their romance never feels eye-rollingly bad or misplaced in its execution. Gadot and Pine have electric chemistry.

The best thing about "Wonder Woman" is its deviation from the DCEU as we have come to know it. Though the last act contains some of the DCEU's CGI-infested vibes and dreary color patterns in its boss-level showdown, this movie is actually colorful! Themyscira is a lush, gorgeous paradise full of gorgeous blue waters, rocks and cobbled hills, fields of bright green grass and lively yellow flowers, which you'd be hard-pressed to find elsewhere in this universe thus far. Surprisingly, there is also a bit of levity to a story that is mostly dark and grim and filled with war. The humor mostly feels like it is supposed to be there and fits well into the story, apart from one of two scenes that felt out of place. When all of this is aided by an emotional score by Rupert Gregson-Williams, it comes together to make one hell of a movie.

Patty Jenkins has brought to life a really compelling film with a cohesive narrative and interesting characters in "Wonder Woman." When headlined by the tremendous and powerful Gal Gadot as a superhero who fights for truth, strength, justice, and love, it has the ability to run you through a gamut of emotions. It certainly kept us engaged throughout its rather sizable but well-paced runtime. It is not without its flaws (some overuse of CGI, a little bit of bad dialogue here and there, mostly disposable villains), but we watched this movie wide-eyed and glued to the screen, happy to watch what was unfolding before our eyes. Representation matters. "Wonder Woman" is absolutely deserving of its praise.

Sign up for Amazon Prime Student and get FREE 2-Day Shipping!

**CLICK HERE to buy "Wonder Woman" on Blu-ray!**
**CLICK HERE to buy "Wonder Woman" in the 3D format!**

My Rating: 8.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~8.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~93%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

**To review this movie for yourself on one of the best websites on the internet, visit filmfed.com!*

Movie Review #400: "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016)

Movie: "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice"
Ticket Price: $7.00
Director: Zack Snyder
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 31 minutes

Image Source

While Superman (Henry Cavill) was battling General Zod (Michael Shannon), Bruce Wayne, also known as Batman (Ben Affleck), witnessed Metropolis crumble around him, killing many innocent people in the process. This planted a seed of mistrust for the all powerful Kryptonian in Wayne's mind. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) has done his best to fan these flames of mistrust by creating more and more controversy around the Man of Steel. Now, Batman decides Superman's power cannot go unchecked and is ready to test his limits. He discovers Luthor may have unearthed just the thing to accomplish his goal. 

"Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a film that has been many years in the making. It was originally set to be released in summer 2015, but was pushed back nearly an entire year to allow for script rewrites. Needless to say, the hype has been building for quite some time. Small plot morsels and other details have been making their way onto the internet for the better part of two years, slowly but surely setting the expectation bar ever so high. After watching all of the Superman and Batman movies in preparation, we too had high hopes for what some have been calling "the greatest gladiator match in history." Seriously, what could go wrong in a movie featuring both Batman and Superman?

Apparently a lot could go wrong.

We sat in our car after watching "Dawn of Justice" unsure of how to feel. Underwhelmed is the first word that came to mind. Overall, this movie is an absolute mess. In an attempt to tell two stories simultaneously, director Zack Snyder, along with writers Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, have created a jumbled, non-flowing story with too many moving parts. The story itself is inane. The stage is initially set for strife between Batman and Superman, which is an undertaking of its own, but in addition, Snyder et al. also used this platform to set up the impending "Justice League" movie, which comes out in late 2017. The narrative, if you can call it that at all, is completely disjointed because of it. Scenes jump from one place to the next in no clear sequential order as we are left to follow the muddled pieces of this puzzle. Also, the pacing is atrocious. This is a two and a half hour movie, and given the lack of a clear, cohesive story, it really shouldn't be over two hours. To compensate, there is a lot of filler, mostly in the form of dream sequences and visions, which do double duty as Justice League character introductions. If these were in a different, better movie, they might have been pulled off more seamlessly, but in a film already so overstuffed with content, these dreams/visions stick out like sore thumbs.

Jesse Eisenberg is easily one of the worst parts of the film. The decision to cast Eisenberg as Lex Luthor baffled us, and he confirmed our fears the first minute he came on screen. He was not a great choice for this character. We have liked Eisenberg elsewhere, and it's not like his performance is dreadfully bad, he's simply not suitable for this part. His performance fluctuates from enigmatic and pointed, like the part he played in "The Social Network," to nervous, fast-talking, spastic, and quirky, like the parts he played in "Zombieland" and "Adventureland." The point is we have seen Eisenberg be this character before, and frankly, we're tired of it. He could have been a menacing, calculated, ominous antagonist, but instead, it drained us to watch his character. Unlike past Batman films, the villains here do not dazzle.

There are a lot of mighty action sequences and beautiful visuals that run throughout "Batman v. Superman," as well there should with an initial budget of $250 million. Of course, this is Zack Snyder's specialty, but what he has actually given audiences is a film full of style and flash with little to no substance. It has a dark and grim tone, which is fine with us, but we know Snyder is attempting to recreate what his mentor Christopher Nolan did very successfully with his own Batman series. "The Dark Knight" is one of our all-time favorite comic book flicks, so "BvS" should be right up our alley. Unfortunately, what Zack Snyder winds up putting on screen comes off more Michael Bay than Christopher Nolan. Explosions come in abundance, but the entire thing lacks the gravitas and emotional oomph we received from a more capable director like Christopher Nolan. Snyder took everything wrong with "Man of Steel" and doubled down on it, from his overuse of CGI effects to placing characters in scenes where they become unnecessary distractions. So many elements could have been removed entirely and it wouldn't have hurt the story or its directional flow one bit.

Not everything about "Dawn of Justice" is bad. In fact, there are a lot of excellent elements sprinkled within its 151 minute run time. Despite the internet's collective freak-out upon hearing the casting news in 2013, Ben Affleck does a really great job as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Batman is a great character. He is very relatable, but is also extremely conflicted. Affleck, with graying hair and a much more buff and gruff exterior, fits into this role perfectly. We gave the casting department the benefit of the doubt about this choice and we're sure glad we did. Maybe the DC Cinematic Universe can find a place for a standalone Bat-fleck movie after all. You'd expect Batman to be the best thing about a movie with his moniker attached to the title. Unfortunately for Affleck, Gal Gadot stole the show for us as Wonder Woman/Diana Prince. Gadot's on-screen presence is mesmerizing, and when she shows up as Wonder Woman in the thick of battle, it was one of the two times in 151 minutes where we actually felt invested in what was happening on screen. We cannot wait to see her standalone film next year. We have warmed to the idea of Henry Cavill playing Superman. Cavill certainly has a look that fits the character, but we find the Man of Steel uninteresting because he's unstoppable, has too many powers, and is essentially invincible.

There has been a stark contrast brewing ever since this movie was screened for the press. The majority of critics have disliked "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice," many for the same reasons listed above. Hardcore comic book fans have been quick to come to the movie's defense with some even calling it a "flaw-free film." Is this the benchmark we want DC use when it has a host of other movies coming out over the next decade? We certainly hope not. Critics don't always get it right, ourselves included, but the bottom line for us is, for a movie called "Batman v. Superman," there's not a whole lot of "v." about it. It's too chaotic, messy, and uneven, too CGI-heavy, and too stuffed with extraneous, unnecessary details that frankly hindered our enjoyment of the movie as a whole. The parts we liked are not enough to make this a timelessly classic comic book film we will revisit multiple times in the future.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~30%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "The Town That Dreaded Sundown"

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012)

Image Source

Movie: "The Dark Knight Rises"
Director: Christopher Nolan
Year: 2012
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 44 minutes

After the death of Harvey Dent, the new Dent Act has empowered the police to clean up Gotham. However, after being blamed for Dent's death, Batman (Christian Bale) has retired and his alter ego Bruce Wayne has become a recluse. Now, a new scourge has come to Gotham in the form of a mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy), who throws the city into chaos and draws the Dark Knight out of retirement.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is the final installment of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, the one we wish would have never ended. This film had a very lofty and high benchmark set by its predecessor "The Dark Knight" to try and live up to, and though this does fall a bit short of that kind of greatness, that doesn't make it unsuccessful. This is actually a very excellent movie in its own right, and even though many people would fight us on this issue, we love the film. Christian Bale returns as Batman, who is now retired with a broken down body due to years of fighting crime. Bruce Wayne has become reclusive and hasn't made a public appearance in years. Wayne straddles the line between retirement and wanting to get back into action very well, and we watch him strengthen himself in many creative ways to get back to fighting crime in Gotham. Bale, as always, is great. New to the cast is Anne Hathaway, who plays Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, a master thief trying to find a way to scrub her record. Catwoman operates within a gray area. She is a criminal, but often wishes to do right in the world. Even though she can and does float between good and evil, the new primary villain is Bane, played miraculously by Tom Hardy. Bane is one of Batman's toughest adversaries. He is a stronger, more agile version of Batman with the same training through the League of Shadows. This is the second time Bane has been seen in a Batman film. The first time was in Joel Schumacher's "Batman & Robin," who made Bane a mindless thug who only grunted and smashed things. Nolan, however, treats the character with far more respect, making him just as clever as he is strong, and though not a 100% faithful adaptation to his comic book roots, he is light years better than the atrocity given to us by Schumacher. Batman might need to find an ally in his new thief friend to defeat this strikingly powerful enemy.

There is some great action in "The Dark Knight Rises," along with some compelling storytelling. The movie is also very well paced and keeps us engaged despite being one the longest if not the longest comic book movie ever made. There are some who will find flaws in its story, but when it comes down to it, we never felt bored, and we never disliked its grim storytelling. Instead, we thrive on Nolan's expert vision of the series and its conclusion. The acting is pretty strong for the most part. We love Tom Hardy, and his performance as Bane is dominating. As good as Hardy is, no one could ever eclipse Heath Ledger as The Joker from "The Dark Knight." Filling the villain slot after such a memorable cinematic performance was a tremendous undertaking, but we think he is excellent as Bane. Marion Cotillard is also in this film and does a good enough job with what she's given, even though we do get a chuckle out of one scene in particular involving the Oscar winning actress for being a little too artificial. Some of the voices, including Bale's Batman grumble, does come off as extremely annoying by now. Though many have exclaimed they don't like Bane's compacted, gravelly voice, it never really bothered us, though the sound mixing on it could have been better as his voice and speech seems much louder than that of everyone else.

Despite these minor flaws, we still find this film to be massively enjoyable and a worthwhile end to Nolan's Batman trilogy. His more grim tone, his attention to detail, and his use of practical effects over heavy CGI have made this one of our favorite film series. Bale was a fantastic choice for the Dark Knight, and we were almost always impressed with what was put on screen.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 9/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 87%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Glengarry Glen Ross"

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight" (2008)

Image Source

Movie: "The Dark Knight"
Director: Christopher Nolan
Year: 2008
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 32 minutes

As Batman (Christian Bale) and the new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) start cracking down on organized crime in Gotham, a new scourge rises. A psychotic criminal known as The Joker (Heath Ledger) makes a deal with all of the organized crime families in Gotham to kill Batman and create chaos and fear across the city in the process. 

Christopher Nolan returns to the director's chair to continue his gritty take on Batman with "The Dark Knight." Since Batman, once again played by Christian Bale, showed up in Gotham, it has given more and more people the courage to stand up against the criminal elements of the city. Newly elected district attorney Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart in a criminally underrated performance, has railed hard against crime by trying to bring down any straggling elements left in Gotham. Those left in the organized crime business are trying to figure a way to stop them. Their solution is presented from the new guy in town, a psychotic mastermind named The Joker, played brilliantly by Heath Ledger in his Oscar winning performance. The Joker's idea is to "Kill The Batman," which is of course easier said than done, but he plans to create so much fear and chaos in Gotham that Batman will have to give himself up because the public will demand Batman's head on a spike. These crime elements intermingle insanely well with superhero action and the real-world drama that plagues us all: what do we do when crime run rampant and people become unstoppable?

We'd be remiss if we didn't mention the acting first and foremost. Everyone involved in this film got a lot of flack when it was revealed that Heath Ledger was the casting choice for The Joker. How could the same guy from "10 Things I Hate About You" and many other romantic comedies become one of Gotham's most intense, feared villains? This is perhaps the most prime example of "don't judge a book by its cover" and the source we cite whenever people question odd casting choices today. Ledger's Joker is one of the greatest portrayals ever to be put on film. Yes, we know that's dramatic, but deservedly so. Ledger raises the bar to an incomparable level, crushing even Jack Nicholson's high bar set back in 1989 as the laughing, menacing villain extraordinaire. In this one performance, he silenced the haters, making it all the more heart-wrenching when his life was tragically cut short by an accidental overdose before "The Dark Knight" even came out in 2008. It still makes us sad to talk about Ledger being gone because we are certain he was not done gracing us with his presence on the silver screen. Moving on. Aaron Eckhart, as we mentioned, gives a very underrated performance here, and it's not hard to understand why. Ledger was so, so good, so dominating in his role that Eckhart is often overshadowed in favor of the Aussie. Eckhart does a great, palate-cleansing job as Harvey Dent/Two -Face, making us forget the laughable portrayal given by Tommy Lee Jones in "Batman Forever" over a decade earlier. Eckhart does the character justice as we watch him slowly descend into madness after tragedy strikes. Menacing and creepy in his own right, Eckhart dominates, too, but in a different way than Ledger. Christian Bale is also excellent as the returning Bruce Wayne/Batman and does just as good if not better than he did in "Batman Begins." This time around, Katie Holmes is replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. In one of the worst career choices we've ever seen, Holmes opted for "Mad Money" instead of a second Batman film. We can only assume this was forced upon her by her church at the time (see? No names mentioned).

"The Dark Knight" is, simply put, the best Batman film ever made, and it is one of our all-time favorite movies. It's one of if not the best superhero/comic book film we've ever seen. It is a tremendous, excellent, amazing film even outside of its comic book elements. Each piece of the puzzle fits to make a genuine classic film, one that should be taught in classes and books regardless of the fact that it is a superhero comic book movie. The human drama adds with a crime thriller background that pits villains against heroes as heroes become villains in an exhilarating, fast-paced way that never feels dragging or unnecessary. The acting is sublime, the dialogue is memorable and perfect, and the darker, grittier tone is one we won't soon forget. Each time we watch this film, even almost a decade later, we still get chills at its intensity. The effects used on Eckhart's character are some of the best facial integration effects we have ever seen, but then again, we never doubted Nolan's genius direction here for a second. Favoring practical effects over CGI in most instances and trusting his writing and abilities, Nolan is worthy of the praise he rightfully deserves for bringing us this cinematic masterpiece (which is a word that doesn't get thrown around lightly). The story is engaging and keeps us completely, totally enthralled the entire time. It is loaded with many great action sequences that are fun and exciting, but also fit within the context of the plot and never feel overused or randomly placed. We might love 95% of Marvel's movies better, but "The Dark Knight" is still our favorite comic book film. We have no allegiance to one institution or the other, but we think that's saying something. This movie will not be easily topped.

My Rating: 10/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
IMDB's Rating: 9.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 94%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "What We Do in the Shadows"

Movie Review: "Batman Begins" (2005)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman Begins"
Director: Christopher Nolan
Year: 2005
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 20 minutes

After the death of his parents, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) becomes obsessed with revenge. However, when his parents' killer is gunned down by a local organized crime family, Bruce switches his focuses to showing criminals that not everyone in Gotham is afraid of them. Bruce then goes into to hiding, traveling the world to understand the minds of criminals and trains with the League of Shadows and Ra's al Ghul. Bruce then returns to Gotham to instill fear in the criminals of the city by creating a alter ego that will be symbol of justice: Batman. 

Nearly a decade after the horrendous spectacle that was "Batman & Robin," Christopher Nolan was given the unthinkably difficult task of cleansing America's pallets of the disgusting taste left behind by Joel Schumacher. What Nolan offered up was a return to the darker tone best suited for a character like Batman, as well as the first full origin story of the character. Sure, Tim Burton touched on Batman's origin by showing his parents murder and subsequent motivation for becoming the Dark Knight, but Burton never went into what training Batman had and how he obtained all of his equipment. Nolan took the expert care needed to get the writing, directing, and storytelling down pat, and we couldn't be more thrilled about his final product.

This time around, Christian Bale dawns the cape and cowl as Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne. Bale does an excellent job capturing the rich guy swagger and arrogance of Bruce Wayne, and the brooding, dark, moody vigilante stylings of Batman. Bale underwent a massive physical transition from his previous role in the "The Machinist," stacking on tons of muscle mass in a effort to deliver a believable superhero, and boy, does he make the role his own. From the beginning, we learn how Bruce Wayne got involved with many criminal elements, mostly stealing from himself and his own companies in order to keep himself in a moral gray area while helping himself understand their mentality. Bale is believable every step of the way in the most intense way possible. We also find out that he trained ninjutsu with the League of Shadows under Ra's al Ghul, played by ***10 year old spoiler alert*** Liam Neeson. Nesson is simply brilliant here. Bale's physical shape helped him a lot during these scenes as we watch him become a master of fighting.

There are a couple of villains in this film, including the organized crime boss named Carmine Falcone, played by the impressive Tom Wilkinson, The Scarecrow/Dr. Jonathan Crane, played by the cynical and frightening Cillian Murphy, as well as the League of Shadows and Ra's Al Ghul himself, who actually has the same end goal as Batman, but with a vastly different approach to reaching that goal. As Batman prefers to root out the bad elements and retain the good, the League of Shadows prefers the 'destroy it all and start from scratch' method. This is where "Batman Begins" shines. In this dichotomy, we are allowed to see how both sides of the spectrum get things done and accomplish their goals, for better and for worse, and how crime sometimes pays in the city of Gotham. Also starring here are the incredible Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Katie Holmes, who all add a wonderful presence to a tightly written, well directed film. In the end, this film serves as the engaging, gritty, and exciting first approach to the Christopher Nolan's Batman universe and the characters we love so much. Without him, this franchise might still not be resurrected today, so we really have to thank him for not only washing the stink off of Batman and his nipple-clad Batsuit a la Joel Schumacher, but for his excellent attention to detail. We enjoy "Batman Begins" a little more each time we watch it. 

My Rating: 8.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 85%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Darby O'Gill and the Little People"

Movie Review: "Man of Steel" (2013)

Movie: "Man of Steel"
Ticket Price: $9.75
Showtime: 4:55 pm
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 23 minutes

Image Source

On Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) is the military leader of the planet and Jor-El (Russell Crowe) is its chief scientist. Kal-El's (Henry Cavill) parents have the first natural birth in centuries. In order to protect the bloodline as the planet is collapsing, Jor-El and Lara (Ayelet Zurer) send their son Kal-El to Earth as a baby. Clark Kent/Superman, now 33 years old, has been told his entire life to hide his true self for fear of rejection by the citizens of Earth. His Earth father and mother Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) have also told him he has an important role to play at some point in life, he just has to wait for the right moment to shine. Superman must attempt to bridge the two planets and their subsequent societies (Earth & Krypton).

"Man of Steel" is the first film in what is set to be the DC Cinematic Universe. Rivaling Marvel, DC has set up a series of films to be put forth for fans of its iconic characters. Many people have wondered how someone like Zack Snyder would do as the director of this film. He stays close to the comic book/graphic novel world, turning these projects into movies one at a time over the years. Did he do enough to verify his choice as master of the DC universe?

The entire first portion of the movie features Clark Kent jumping from job to job on Earth as an adult. All of this happens fairly quickly. Any time he shows his "abnormality"/the beast within, he runs away, trying to cover up his past while moving on to the next town, the next job, the next path, trying to find himself along the way. This backstory of Superman is good enough, but its disjointed approach is a little distracting. One minute, he will be present on Earth, and the next, a flashback will happen with little or no warning. While Henry Cavill is ridiculously attractive, Superman he is not. Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to us as he completely became the role. Even though Cavill definitely has the smoldering, brooding look, butt-chin and all, he lacks a bit of the charisma, swagger, and charm Reeve had. It's like trying to pull off the impossible, emulating such an iconic, cemented Hollywood portrayal. Since he has only been given one chance to prove to the world that he is Superman, we really feel like we need to see how he acts in "Batman v. Superman" to get the full effect of Cavill overall.

There are a lot of great special effects in "Man of Steel." Most, if not all of it, feels believable, especially Superman flying, which lost a ton of steam by the end of the Christopher Reeve Superman films in the 70's and 80's. Unfortunately, there are also lots of scenes where people are shown crashing into buildings and buildings are crashing into people. It has to happen well over 50 times. It gets to a point where it's just too much. Excessive CGI use bugs us when it doesn't feel flawlessly integrated into the plot of a movie, and here, it's a 50-50 ratio. This movie is also REALLY loud volume wise. It is one of the loudest movie we've ever experienced in the theater. The entire thing also feels as if it drags on and on and on. It feels like a lot of the lines were rehashed using just different words and verbiage (IE: "you're destined for something greater than this world" and "whoever that man is, he's going to change the world."). The script is rather basic, and we think this is what caused a lot of problems for "Man of Steel" in the eyes of fans and critics alike.

While this movie has a lot going for it, it still lacks something. We're not sure if it's Superman himself, who isn't particularly compelling as a superhero due to his inability to be destroyed by anything except Kryptonite/too many super powers/general annoyingness with the whole "I'm putting on glasses and pretending to be A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON" thing. Most superheroes are underdogs trying to defeat a much more dangerous opponent against all odds. Superman is just that, a really strong, indestructible "super" man, which makes it hard for him to ever be an underdog against anyone, even someone like Zod. And speaking of Zod, Michael Shannon is just fine as Zod, even though we disliked him and the way he played his character the first time we saw this movie. He didn't bother us upon revisiting it.

We were really excited about this film based on the trailers. Christopher Nolan was the producer here, so we had high hopes for his protege, director Zack Snyder...unfortunately, it just didn't live up to the expectation and hype. Something about the entire thing is off. It's not a bad movie, but it's definitely not the best superhero movie we've seen, not by a long shot. With the entire DC Universe on Snyder's shoulders, we hope he can muster enough strength to tone down the boom-boom action sequences and help to direct more cohesive stories in his upcoming films.

My Rating: 7/10 (our original review had this at a 6.5/10)
Josh's Rating: 7/10 (our original review had this at a 8/10)
MDB's Rating: 8.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 56%
Do we recommend the movie: Ehh. Fans of superhero movies/Superman/actions movies will dig it.

Movie Review: "Superman Returns" (2006)

Image Source

Movie: "Superman Returns"
Director: Bryan Singer
Year: 2006
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 34 minutes

After five years away, exploring the location of his destroyed planet, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth to resume his role as the protector of Metropolis. However, many things have changed, including Lois Lane, who now has a fiance named Richard (James Marsden) and a child, as well as Lex Luthor's (Kevin Spacey) release from prison. Lex Luthor has spent the last few years rebuilding his wealth and plotting Superman's ultimate demise.  

Bryan Singer jumps into the director's chair to create his homage to Superman with "Superman Returns." This incarnation is part reboot, part sequel, as it exists in a world where the events of "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" have taken place, but ignores the events of "Superman III" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." Of course, with technological advances like cell phones, the blend isn't exactly seamless. Brandon Routh takes over the role of Superman/Clark Kent, and though he doesn't quite live up to what Christopher Reeve did with the character, he isn't as bad as people say he is. He certainly has the bumbling Clark Kent mannerisms down pat. This time around, Kevin Spacey assumes the role of Lex Luthor and actually does a great job in the part. He is one of the best characters in the film and perhaps the best part of the movie. Spacey's commanding presence is perfect for the villain role, and with a glistening bald head, a sharp, angry eye, precision point diction, and a sarcastic form of speech, he really becomes Luthor here. Although we like Spacey as Lex Luthor, the sheer amount of times this character has been portrayed within this universe has hit its maximum by this point. This character is tired by now, especially considering Luthor's plan is, once again, to kill Superman with Kryptonite while destroying a coast of the United States and replacing it with land he now owns. Huh, didn't see that coming. *eye-roll*

"Superman Returns" was actually fairly well received by critics when it was first released, though the same cannot be said about the public's perception of it. With an over-inflated budget, this movie wound up being a box office disappointment, and upon re-watching it several years later, we can see why this disappointment rings true even today. There are many good elements here that work in its favor, but there are also some glaringly bad choices in the story and with the direction the filmmakers went in its construction. Most of the bad has to do with Lois Lane, now played by Kate Bosworth, who is serviceable in the part, but the fact that she has a son and a fiance really mars the entire story. This domestic storyline turns Superman into a jealous stalker creep as he floats around outside her house using his x-ray vision to spy on her, her son, and her fiance Richard, played by James Marsden. We really don't enjoy this part of the plot. It feels like these portions drag the film down much more than it needs to. We'd rather see Superman using his powers for good than for his own selfish purposes of spying on his long lost love. Because of this and a few other sequences, the film is also quite long. It feels longer and longer as it starts to lose steam towards the final act.

The final note we want to touch on is the amount and method of effects in "Superman Returns." Heavily reliant on CGI with some scenes purposefully made for IMAX 3D, many of the moments meant to be epic actually turn Superman into a cartoon looking character. On the flip side, the scene where Superman is attempting to save a plane that has started to crash looks really great even by today's standards. It's definitely not the worst use of CGI we've seen, but the mix of bad and good effects is such a drastic swing that it's glaringly obvious more funds were allocated to certain sections of the film over others, making an uneven final product.

Overall, "Superman Returns" is not a terrible offering in the man of steel universe, but it's also not the best. Most of it holds up relatively well and is certainly better than parts III and IV.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 76%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan"

Movie Review: "Batman & Robin" (1997)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman & Robin"
Director: Joel Schumacher
Year: 1997
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 5 minutes

Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell) face new villains Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurmam), who are planning to turn Gotham into a giant ice cube so it can be reborn again as a world for plants. (LOLOLOLOLOL)

BAT-NIPPLES!!!!!!!!!

Joel Schumacher returns to his directorial duties for "Batman & Robin," the film that put the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Batman series as it was. For some reason, Joel Schumacher took everything bad about "Batman Forever" and amplified tenfold, winding up with this ridiculously laughable joke of a film. In fact, we don't know if we can call it a film at all. The campiness has been revved up so high, it exceeds that of even the 1966 "Batman: The Movie" with Adam West. The neon color scheme from "Batman Forever" has been amped up, too, and it has been slapped all over just about everything, including sets, suits, and backgrounds. George Clooney replaces Val Kilmer in the lead role of Batman and doesn't fit the part whatsoever. Clooney may be have been a playboy billionaire in reality at one point in his life, but that doesn't make him Bruce Wayne. In addition, we are (mis)treated to the full Clooney, so to speak...well, the full everyone, really, as the suits this time around leave little to the imagination as far as nips and tips go. Really, who needed to see close up shots of every character's butt cheeks and crotches zoomed in as they are prepping for a fight? Chris O'Donnell returns as Batman's sidekick Robin to stink up the movie just a little bit more. We reiterate: name one movie Chris O'Donnell made better. We dare you. Want to talk about things that have been enhanced since "Batman Forever"? Look no further than Robin's incessant combative nature and whining. Good lord above. O'Donnell is the worst.

New to cast as one of the main villains is Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, who seems to only speak in one liners and puns. Much of the dialogue in the entire movie either contains a pun, or a quip, or a joke, or some form of wordplay intended to be witty but fails on every level. Look, if you want to know an intimate detail about me, I love puns, can't get enough of 'em. BigJ hates that I love puns, but he loves me anyway. Regardless, "Batman & Robin" besmirches the good word "pun" and was the source of its burial as a whole for nearly a decade. Back to Schwarzenegger for a second, we have to admit, we like the guy. We might not agree with his politics, but he's charming enough. We even devoted a large portion of our summer last year to watching most of his movies to make a list of our top 10 favorite films starring the Governator. The second villain is played by Uma Thurman. She plays Poison Ivy, who loves plants more than animals and humans. Underwhelming is the best way to describe this character, but in a sea of goofy, over-the-top performances and goings on, Thurman is a welcome addition to the film, we guess. She also has a sidekick of sorts, Bane, played by Jeep Swenson. In the comic books, Bane is quite the rival of Batman, but here, the character has been reduced to a bumbling, idiotic, completely mindless musclebound henchman. This is perhaps one of the worst handlings of a character ever to be put on film. He's essentially useless. Batgirl is also inexplicably thrown into the mix for no reason other than adding an extra pointless character. Alicia Silverstone, who was in one of our favorite 90's movies ever, simply didn't need to be in this movie and is utterly pointless. Her character is shoe-horned in and given an almost identical backstory to O'Donnell's Dick Grayson. Speaking of pointless characters, what was Elle McPherson doing in this movie? Talk about a superfluous character! We understand that she has scenes with Bruce Wayne and we see them eating dinner together as boyfriend and girlfriend, but unlike past Batman films where the women cast turned out to play a major role, she adds literally nothing to the plot.

This whole film is a disaster in some way or another. It truly is one of the worst movies ever made. In the end, there is some fun to be had watching "Batman & Robin," but not in the way the filmmakers intended. It takes more than a few alcoholic beverages and a Mystery Science Theater 3000 approach to make watching this a slightly enjoyable experience. This movie is downright awful and is clearly the worst Batman film ever made.

My Rating: 3/10
BigJ's Rating: 3/10
IMDB's Rating: 3.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 11%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Exodus: Gods and Kings"

Movie Review: "Batman Forever" (1995)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman Forever"
Director: Joel Schumacher
Year: 1995
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 1 minute

Batman (Val Kilmer) faces off against two new villains: The Riddler (Jim Carrey), who has built a machine that can extract information from people's brains and put directly into his own, and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), formerly known as Harvey Dent, Gotham's district attorney. Bruce Wayne also takes in a new house guest named Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell) whose family was murdered by Two-Face.

Is there one good movie with Chris O'Donnell in it? Seriously. Name one movie he has made better with his presence. We defy you.

Joel Schumacher takes over the directing duties from Tim Burton for "Batman Forever," the third installment in the Batman series. Right off the bat and from the very first frame of the film, we can see a drastic tonal shift from what Tim Burton had done in the past. "Batman Returns" received some criticism when it came out for being too dark in a time when critics didn't fully understand that comic book movies weren't always for children. Schumacher, as well as Warner Brothers, took this criticism to heart, shifting from a serious, more gothic Batman to a more silly and campy style. There are still a few darker elements to this particular installment, but overall, everything has lightened up a lot in this movie. In addition to the goofier looking villains, Gotham itself has been given a makeover in the form of neon colored lights and paint that rival the Las Vegas strip. We are treated to a visual spectacle of a lot of hot pinks and bright greens instead of the darker black and gray shades of the past films, which we like under the right circumstances...and Batman ain't the right circumstance for this. It's much too loud for this universe.

Val Kilmer replaces Michael Keaton as Batman, but instead of a better performance, he gives a serviceable one. Kilmer sold the role on his looks alone, lending to a better performance in the part of Bruce Wayne as opposed to when he donned the cap and cowl. Also new to this cast and characters is Jim Carrey, who plays the Riddler/Dr. Edward Nygma (don't even get us started). Carrey offers his usual over-the-top performance that somewhat works for a character of this nature. Crazy-haired and wide-eyed, Carrey's Riddler is the best part of the movie, but really, he's simply playing the role he almost always plays. Do you want to talk about a miscast? Tommy Lee Jones plays Two-Face, aka Harvey Dent, and is the worst part of the film. Not only is Jones completely the wrong casting choice for the character with his stern face and his often staccatic tone of voice, but the character is presented in an idiotic manner with terrible, unmovable magenta makeup. Seriously, the makeup work on Jones' Two-Face is laughable. He plays the role in an over-the-top fashion as well, but it comes off as more of a mockery than Carrey's portrayal does. We love Tommy Lee Jones, but this was the absolute wrong casting choice. Finally, we've come to Chris O'Donnell. Poor, poor Chris O'Donnell. He is also an awful addition to the series as Robin/Dick Grayson. O'Donnell plays a moody teenager who constantly complains and whines in a grating manner. His performance is terrible and his character isn't much better. Instead of being a worthy sidekick to the dark knight, Robin is just a joke. Nicole Kidman serves as this film's throwaway love interest, Dr. Chase Meridian, a horny doctor who tries to help psychoanalyze Batman.

"Batman Returns" is a giant mess of a film. Some might call it a guilty pleasure, but we certainly don't. All the hard work Tim Burton invested in this series is basically laid to waste by Joel Schumacher. What we think happened in cinematic history is its sequel, "Batman and Robin," was so, so, so, so unbelievably bad that people started giving this film a pass in comparison. They shouldn't. It has its entertaining moments and Jim Carrey barely saves it from being a complete and utter trainwreck, but it is really, really, really not really good, and it hasn't aged well at all. It's watchable, sure, but only if you're watching the entire series to review for a new, upcoming Batman or Superman movie. This is the film, much like "Superman III," that marked the sharp downturn for the series and serves as a warning for what was to come. No one could have imagined it might possibly get worse than this.

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 41%
Do we recommend this movie: No.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "1941"

Movie Review: "Batman Returns" (1992)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman Returns"
Director: Tim Burton
Year: 1992
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 6 minutes

Batman is back and still fighting crime in Gotham, now with the blessing of the police force. However, two new villains have popped up. The first villain is The Penguin (Danny DeVito), a deformed man who terrorizes Gotham with the help of his circus gang, and the second is Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), who is hellbent on exacting revenge on her boss Max Shreck (Christopher Walken), who pushed her out of a high-rise window.  

Michael Keaton. Danny DeVito. Michelle Pfeiffer. Christopher Walken. What a cast for a superhero movie!

Michael Keaton returns as the dark knight in "Batman Returns." Tim Burton was once again in the director's chair, keeping the signature dark tone he started with the original 3 years prior. Upon being first released, many criticized this offering for actually being too dark, and it is. This is a very grim film because it is all about murder, and the Penguin, played by Danny DeVito, is a lustful lech that makes his desires quite known. Technically, Batman has always killed murderers, but this film was the first to really accentuate that darkness. Unlike the first of Burton's Batmans, we find this one to be a lot more Burton-esque in more ways than one. The sets, the score, the characters, and even the language are all much more "classic" Burton this time around. With "Edward Scissorhands" in between the two franchise films, we wonder how much making that movie had an impact on "Batman Returns" because they look like they could be cousin films in presentation and style.

Penguin's gang are all circus freaks, performers, and clowns, and he also has an army of literal penguins with missiles strapped to their backs. Aw! Danny DeVito was the perfect choice for this villain because he looks like a penguin. Just kidding! DeVito is both grotesque to look at, terrifying in manner, and psychotic as a villain, but in a different way than Jack Nicholson's Joker from the original. He gives a wonderful performance. Besides the Penguin being added to the story, Catwoman is also a new, welcome addition to the film. Catwoman/Selina Kyle is played by Michelle Pfeiffer in what some believe is a role yet to be paralleled in greatness. Pfeiffer gives a really excellent performance, ranging from lonely cat lady to thief extraordinaire. Their origins are both covered, and Burton tried to develop his villains as much as he did his heroes. These aren't the only two villains in this film as corrupt businessman Max Shreck, played by Christopher Walken, also plays a vital role that connects Penguin, Catwoman, and Bruce Wayne. All three characters have connections to Shreck, either directly or via their alter ego, and Walken's subtle brilliance is perfect for a part like this.

Unlike in the first "Batman" where Batman was viewed as a vigilante, here, he operates with the blessing of the Gotham Police department. There are many exciting scenes filled with good action, but much like its predecessor, it is a very character-driven story, and this will turn a lot of people off from it. "Batman Returns" is an overall enjoyable offering and a worthy sequel, though it is a small step down from the original "Batman." Tim Burton went a little crazy with his signature movie markers in tone, look, and sound, but this doesn't hinder our enjoyment of it.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 80%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Where the Buffalo Roam"

Movie Review: "Batman" (1989)

Image Source

Movie: "Batman"
Director: Tim Burton
Year: 1989
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 6 minutes

Batman (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham city as a vigilante. After attempting to foil a break-in at Axis chemicals, Batman accidentally drops mob enforcer Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) into a vat of toxic chemicals, inadvertently turning him into The Joker. Now completely insane, The Joker takes over his businesses of his old bosses and wreaks havoc on Gotham. 

Tim Burton's "Batman" offered an entirely different, much darker look of the caped crusader. Up until the release of this film in 1989, the only theatrical incarnation of Batman was the campy 1966 version starring Adam West. Don't get us wrong, that Batman is fine for what it is, but it gives a much more lighthearted, silly look at Batman, his friends, and his enemies. What Richard Donner did with "Superman" in 1978, Tim Burton managed to do with "Batman" in 1989. They were both able to show that just because they were making movies based off of comic books didn't mean they had to make movies intended for children. Burton successfully created a version of Batman that had mass appeal across the board and the film became a huge box office success, grossing $411 million worldwide on a mere $35 million dollar budget. Impressive for any time, really, but more impressive for 1989.

Michael Keaton fills the role of Batman/Bruce Wayne and does a damn fine job in the part. He may even rival Christian Bale for the best portrayal of the character. Keaton has this charismatic swagger about him as Wayne and a commanding authority about him as Batman. At the time of its release, there was a section of the population that was perplexed by Burton's choice to cast Keaton, aka Mr. Mom in this part, but it was a gamble that paid off handsomely, in our opinion. Some may disagree with us, and that's just fine, but we really enjoyed his performance here. As good as Keaton was as Batman, he couldn't hold a candle to the tremendously wonderful Jack Nicholson, who offered a psychotic and simultaneously over the top and nuanced performance as the deranged villain The Joker. Long before Heath Ledger won an Oscar for his performance as the same character, Nicholson held the title as the best Joker with his maniacal laugh, his simple but freaky makeup, and his hysterical and demented demeanor. This is not a complaint whatsoever, but Nicholson really overshadowed the entire film. Kim Basinger also stars as Vicky Vale, a photojournalist who has taken and interest in Batman. She also acts as the love interest of Bruce Wayne and an object of desire for the Joker. She puts on a solid performance, but is clearly not the best part of the movie.

Tim Burton's Gotham is made to look dark and dingy with both a retro and more modern feel at the same time. Burton tells a great story, touching briefly on the origin of Batman, as well as showing the origin of The Joker. Like most great comic book movies, this is a very character-focused film, and though it is a superhero movie, it has the more intimate feeling of a crime-noir blended with comic book elements. We like the darker side of the characters and the setting this movie offers from Burton's wild imagination. This allowed Batman to truly be a hero and The Joker to truly be a villain. They both excel at it, unlike the television show and subsequent movie with Adam West where the characters were all treated as bumbling jokes of themselves.

In 2016, it's terribly difficult to go back and re-watch the older Batman movies without knowing there is a trilogy of more recent better Batmans from Christopher Nolan. As a one-offed film, "Batman" could have stood alone in all its glory, but knowing what was to come, both the bad (Joel Schumacher's terrible installments) and the good (Nolan's award winning films) could potentially tarnish the reputation of the franchise for some people. In the end, it doesn't matter to us because this was and still is an excellent take on Batman. It is still a relatively entertaining viewing experience we enjoy to this day, though it does feel a bit dated in some aspects. 

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 72%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Bunraku"

Movie Review: "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" (1987)

Image Source

Movie: "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace"
Director: Sidney J. Furie
Year: 1987
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 30 minutes

After escaping prison, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) steals and uses a strand of Superman's (Christopher Reeve) hair to create genetic material capable of growing his own super being. Lucky for him, Superman is helping the world's nations in disposing of their nuclear weapons by throwing them into the sun. Luthor straps the genetic material to a nuclear weapon, and when it is thrown into the sun, it grows the genetic material into Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow), a being just as powerful as Superman. 

Oooooooooooooooooooooooh boy.

Superman tries to take on political issues such as the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and sensationalist news reporting in "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." Yeah, that sounds like a good idea! After the bit of a stumble in "Superman III," the series straight up crashes and burns in a horrendous, fiery death in this installment. With Gene Hackman returning to play Lex Luthor, you would think this was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, Lex Luthor gets a new added sidekick in the form of Jon Cryer's Lenny, the nephew of Lex. Lenny is an unbelievably annoying character with a horrible, dude-tacular, 'righteous, man!' 80's style voice and manner. Returning are also Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve as Lois Lane and Superman/Clark Kent, which, again, you'd think would bring this movie one step closer to the greatness it held in the 70's. All of the old faithfuls are still serviceable in their parts, but what they are working with this time around is a steaming pile of....well, you know.

In addition to gigantic budget cuts, there are a few main plot lines going on here, one being that the Daily Planet has been bought out by a tabloid who only cares about money and profits and returns. They don't care about hard hitting news anymore, they only care about what sells. This leads to a series of events, including a bit of a smear campaign against Superman and his unwillingness to do something about the nuclear arms race. This, in turn, leads to Superman's campaigning against nuclear weapons as he shifts his focus from helping people and fighting villains to helping countries disarm themselves by collecting all of the world's nukes and throwing them into the sun. THE SUN, people!! Let's set science aside on this one since Superman is an all-powerful being from space in the first place. We can suspend our disbelief about a lot of things, but this plot line simply screams desperate. When Superman does this, it allows Lex Luthor to fulfill his plan of making Nuclear Man, played by Mark Pillow, the solar powered super villain with radioactive, long, silver finger nails, which are, coincidentally, the same ones I have purchased at party stores for Halloween several years in a row. I guess it's comforting to know we shop at the same place as big budget movie studios!

Also added to the cast is Mariel Hemingway, who plays Lacy Warfield, the daughter of the man who bought the Daily Planet. Lacy takes an huge interest in Clark Kent, while Lois still has an interest in Superman. Clearly this creates the opportunity for a silly dinner scene at which Lois and Superman are supposed to double date with Lacy and Clark. Of course, the makers of this film don't even try to tone down the zaniness, reducing Superman to a terribly constructed love triangle no one asked for. And if you're wondering what happened to Lana Lang from "Superman III," stop wondering. She's completely out of the picture and there is no explanation given whatsoever for her absence. It's little missteps like this, the subtraction or addition of details without explanation, plus the huge missteps like adding the goofy Jon Cryer and omitting key elements about Superman and his abilities (who knew he could transfer his powers of flight to Lois Lane without a word?!) that makes this movie a complete and utter trainwreck. The success of first two films is long gone by now, and Superman has been reduced to a cartoonish shell of himself, bumbling his way out doors and windows to try and impress two different ladies. UGH.

The biggest downfall of "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" besides its ridiculously disjointed story and lots of behind the scenes troubles is the villain. Nuclear Man is just so, so stupid. His outfit (nails notwithstanding, of course) is a little more than outrageous. The Superman movies of yore could pride themselves on having somewhat decent antagonists for Superman to throw down with, but the finale of this movie is horrendous, laughable, and embarrassing all at once. On top of this, since the budget of the film was slashed significantly, the special effects are the same laughably, shockingly bad mess throughout the entire thing. Despite coming out nearly a decade after the original "Superman" movie, the special effects somehow manage to look worse than they did in the original film, which is saying something for a movie that came out in the same era that produced movies like "Star Wars."

Unless you want to punish yourself, there's really no reason to watch "Superman IV." Stick to the good memories the first two movies produced and avoid the last two.

My Rating: 3/10
BigJ's Rating: 3/10
IMDB's Rating: 3.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 12%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

Movie Review: "Superman III" (1983)

Image Source

Movie: "Superman III"
Director: Richard Lester
Year: 1983
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 5 minutes

Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) returns to his hometown of Smallville for his high school reunion. While there, he reconnects with his childhood crush, Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole), and starts to build a relationship with her. Meanwhile, a maniacal business man named Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) enlists the help of a computer programmer named Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) to hack into government computers to create chaos and corner different commodities markets.

This is where it all started to go downhill for the man of steel.

Richard Lester returns to the director's seat for "Superman III." This is the first movie in the "Superman" series to have zero involvement from Richard Donner, and it certainly shows in more ways than one. From the minute the opening credits roll, you can tell their has been a drastic tonal shift from epic superhero adventure to something much more lighthearted and campy, even borderline ridiculous. The entire opening credit roll is a series of slapstick gags rapidly fired at the audience one after the other as Clark Kent walks to work. People slip, fall, get hit with pies and paint, fall down manholes, you name it. If you weren't exactly sure by the time the blurry credits ended, it was more comedic than serious, and it's also completely unnecessary. We also find out relatively soon that comedian Richard Prior has been added to the cast as an unemployed Gus Gorman on the government dole to a would-be computer programmer. Apparently Gorman is capable of hacking government satellites after just one computer class. Who knew it was so easy! Though Richard Prior is funny, as he always was, his whole involvement in "Superman III" is almost wholly out of place as this reluctant villain. We're not exactly sure how or why he got involved, but we believe the paycheck had something to do with it. Of course, Christopher Reeve returns as the titular Superman, and he still owns the role even in a mediocre film. Though Margot Kidder returns as Lois Lane, her part has been cut down to about 12 lines because he has a new woman in his life, apparently. The new woman, well, the woman from the past in Superman's life is his childhood crush and single mother Lana Lang, played by Annette O'Toole. She and Reeve do manage to have good chemistry on screen. In the villain area, Lex Luthor is gone and has been replaced by Ross Webster, played by Robert Vaughn. Webster is a rich businessman who is only interested in getting richer, and he will stop at nothing to make it happen.

This third installment is the movie that marked the beginning of the end for the Superman series as it was. It was a clear sign they didn't know where filmmakers were going with the character and the beginning of the descent into treating the man of steel as a cartoon rather than a serious hero. This movie is not the worst film ever made, but it really needed some dazzling. It's cool to see Superman go back to his childhood home and rekindle his connection with Lana Lang, but it's not enough to carry the entire film on its own. The villain isn't exactly perfect here, either. In the end it isn't the worst superhero film, but it isn't exactly good either. It's sort of a letdown all things considered.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 4.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 26%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life"

Movie Review: "Superman II" (1980)

Image Source

Movie: "Superman II"
Director: Richard Lester
Year: 1980
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes

Three criminals from Krypton, General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran) are released from their prison in the phantom zone when a nuclear bomb, thrown into space by Superman (Christopher Reeve), explodes. They head to Earth and learn they have powers identical to Superman. They start to take over the planet and only Superman can stop them. However, he has just relinquished his powers so he can be with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), leaving him powerless to stop them.

Ever since "Superman: The Movie" was initially green-lit, a sequel had been in the works. Much of the sequel was actually shot in 1977 simultaneously with "Superman: The Movie" by Richard Donner, the director of the first film. In fact, the original was supposed to end on a cliffhanger. However, the set of "Superman" was wrought with conflict behind the scenes. Richard Donner was either removed from his duties as director or quit the project entirely depending on which story you believe. Donner was replaced by Richard Lester, who resumed shooting the movie in 1980. Donner and Lester had very different styles and tone in their approach to the film, but the final product managed to blend the two together quite well, and if you didn't know there was a controversy, you'd probably never be able to tell two people were involved in making "Superman II." 

Christopher Reeve returns as the titular Superman, picking up right where he left off in a wonderful fashion. Like we said in our review for the original film, he is and has always been perfect for the role. Reeve plays the part so well, it's hard to distinguish what's Reeve and what's Clark Kent/Superman. Also returning in this film are Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, the intrepid reporter and Superman's love interest. Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran play Zod, Ursa, and Non, the villains of this film. These are the characters who had a brief cameo at the beginning of the original before being exhiled to the phantom zone. Gene Hackman plays Lex Luthor again as well...well, sort of. Hackman actually shot all of his scenes for this sequel back in 1977 with Richard Donner. Anything shot by Lester used a body double and a voice impersonator. All of the cast does a great job in their respective parts and are believable in their roles. It's fun to see the villains getting a bigger role this time around, too.

We really enjoy the story in this sequel, which is something we can't usually say about sequels. Superman faces conflicts he hasn't in the past. He gives up his powers at one point so he can finally be with the love of his life, Lois Lane. Unfortunately, he learns very quickly what it's like to be human. It is a good attempt to humanize what has essentially been portrayed as a god-like being and we enjoy the vulnerability Reeve portrays as a human. In the end, this film becomes a battle of the gods: one benevolent hero versus the other malevolent villains. When it's all said and done, despite all the conflict behind the scenes and a little bit of a sillier approach due to the splitting of directors, what wound up on screen is still a solid, worthy sequel for the man of steel.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.8/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 89%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Two Days, One Night"

Movie Review: "Superman" (1978)

Image Source

Movie: "Superman"
Director: Richard Donner
Year: 1978
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 23 minutes

Knowing their planet Krypton is about to die, Jor-El (Marlon Brando) sends his infant son Kal-El (Christopher Reeve) to Earth. Upon crashing down on the planet, Kal-El is found by Jonathan and Martha Kent, who name him Clark and raise him as their own son. They also know he is not a normal child as he has superhuman powers beyond measure. Upon learning his roots, Clark takes it upon himself to use his powers to protect the city of Metropolis and the world from danger. 

"Superman: The Movie" is, in many ways, is the first real superhero film that took its source material seriously. Before this came out, the closest any other thing got was the campy "Batman: The Movie" starring Adam West, which is good, but let's face it, it doesn't do much to further the legacy of Batman (or does it????). Director Richard Donner shows here that you could take something thought to be for children, like a comic book, and bring it to the big screen with relatively wide appeal. Even in an era saturated with comic book movies, the original "Superman" film stands out to us as being one of the best attempts at bringing this source material to life and treating it with respect and care.

Christopher Reeve takes on the role as the man of steel himself and did it so well, Reeve himself became synonymous with the part. Even though he hadn't played Superman for nearly a decade when he was paralyzed in a horse riding accident, those who have been cast as the character since Reeve have been chasing his epic performance ever since, hoping to get one iota close to his wonderful portrayal. Reeve is quite possibly one of the best casting decisions for a character in cinematic history as he was perfect for both Superman and Clark Kent. He is convincing in his characteristics either way, even if it wasn't the most convincing disguise...parting the hair and adding glasses? Lois Lane was no slouch, but good lord, hello, captain obvious! This film also brought in big stars like Marlon Brando, who plays Superman's father Jor-El, though he didn't even bother to learn the lines for the film ahead of time and often resorted to reading them off of cards the day of shooting. Another big star at the time in this movie was Gene Hackman, who filled the role of the villainous Lex Luthor. Hackman was already an Oscar winner by this time and was unsure of taking the role, but we're sure glad he did. It all worked out well considering this went on to be the second highest grossing film of 1978, and Hackman does well in this villainous role. Playing Lois Lane, the Daily Planet reporter and apple of Clark Kent and Superman's eye, is Margot Kidder, who wholly embodies the spirit and affection of Lane. She's excellent here. This movie also stars veteran actors Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, and Jack O'Halloran.

We really enjoy this film quite a lot. Even though it is older than either of us, it still remains our favorite incarnation of Superman. Though we appreciate what filmmakers can do with the technical advances in the more modern Superman movies, the original "Superman" is just so much more endearing. It manages to have good enough special effects for 1978 in addition to being about a captivating character. It is a fun movie with a simple yet intriguing story that developed the characters so well and truly captured the spirit of Superman. It's really no wonder some hold Christopher Reeve in such high regard.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 93%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Chappie"