Batman 25 Years Later

It was 25 years ago today that the film that would prove to be the most successful super-hero/comic book film ever (at least up until that point) was released.  I'm talking, of course, about Tim Burton's Batman. In the summer of 1989, it was an inescapable phenomenon; George Lucas may have started the traditional merchandising onslaught with Star Wars but Batman perfected it:  There were toys, comic book adaptations, t-shirts, baseball caps, leather jackets, haircuts, and a soundtrack from Prince (while "Batdance" is undeniably horrible, the other songs-the ones featured in the film- are worth a second listen). In fact, This Forbes article speculates that it might be the birth of the modern summer blockbuster marketing machine as we know it today.

It proved that a super-hero film could be for more than just a kiddie audience (which Donner's Superman: The Movie had done as well--- but, at the end of the day, that was very much a kid's movie).  They could be dark, edgy and modern. It ushered in an era of adaptions of superheroes that, unfortunately, ended up being a pretty mixed bag:  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Crow were both pretty good; Dick Tracy, Captain America, and The Punisher were not (the latter two being Marvel's first attempts at the big-screen, both of which ended up being, pretty much, straight-to-video releases).   In fact, it would be another 10 years with the release of Singer's X-men until Superheroes would become a permanent and reliable fixture of the summer blockbuster season (although, the results are often still mixed).

Unfortunately, the film's sequels proved far less satisfying.  Due to the success of Batman, Burton was given much greater artistic freedom on Batman Returns which resulted in a really weird movie that alienated most of the fans of the first installment.  And, of course, the less said about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin the better (although the former did give us a pretty kick-ass soundtrack).

For modern comic book fans, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy has supplanted Burton's film as the definitive cinematic vision of the Caped Crusader; however, I feel that Burton's '89 film remains the best Batman movie.  That's right; I said that the 1989 Batman is better than even the exalted Dark Knight.  I can hear comics purist the world over ripping their hair out right now. But, honestly, what sins Batman commits in terms of not adhering to the comic traditions (Joker killed Bruce's parents ?!?!?) it makes up for by being a more consistent film over all. True, Nolan's film is more consistent with currently accepted versions of continuity and the depictions of characters in the current comics (Gordon and Dent in particular) BUT, as an entity unto itself, Batman works.  It's kind of like this: Nolan's films are the faithful cover version of Batman; Batman is less faithful but more interesting interpretation. Sure, Michael Keaton doesn't look like the Bruce Wayne of the comics but he still works as the version of Bruce Wayne we are given in this movie.

Burton's Batman, while limited in terms of technology, works a many levels that Nolan's simply does not.   However, Nolan's greatest failing is making Batman movies where Batman himself seems out of place.  For all of his technical prowess as a director, Nolan takes himself way too seriously. He was determined to create a more realistic and "believable" Batman than the previous films. And this was his greatest mistake; Nolan's Gotham is so naturalistic that, when Batman shows up, he looks out of place.  Batman is a weirdo; Burton understands this, Nolan does not.

Take a look at the following scene from The Dark Knight in which Batman makes his first appearance:

When I first saw the movie, I didn't so much feel as though Batman had shown up as 'a-guy-in-a-Batman-suit' had shown up; there was very little difference to me between Batman and the imposter Batmen that he chastises for dressing up like him and using guns.

This is where Burton succeeds; rather than going for a realistic film, he goes for a surrealistic film.

 His Gotham is dark, smoky, and full of shadows.  It resembles a real city but, at the same time, it is an exaggerated, nightmare version of the city. Also, notice the two crooks:  they are sweaty, pale skinned, and pock-marked.  They're grotesques of what we think a street hood should look like.  Burton creates a world straight out of the 1930's pulps that inspired the character in the first place. It is also notable that, while the film is intended to be set in 1989 much of the set and costume design has a distinctly 1930s/40s vibe to it.  As a result, when Batman shows up in Burton's film, he makes sense; he is a natural extension of the world that Burton has created.  I prefer this strange, operatic version of the character to Nolan's more straight-faced depiction of the character and his world. After all, Batman should be a little bit weird.

The Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer

What can I say about this trailer?  I love it.  After seeing this, it may, now, be the movie that I am most looking forward to this summer.

First of all, let me state that, before seeing this trailer, I was not at all familiar with the latest incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy that has been appearing in Marvel's comics for the last few  years (after seeing this, I did read a couple of issues from the 1st series and the 1st trade from the current series). But, this just looks like it's going to be so much damned fun!

As a sci-fi aficionado, my preferences has always been for the space opera over the hard sci-fi that more "serious" fans of the genre tend to prefer; I am a Star Wars kid and, as such, I'm more concerned with cool-looking spaceships and strange alien creatures than I am with how the hyperdrive works.  That spirit of adventure and excitement (which a Jedi does not crave) seem to be present in spades in Guardians.

Like most Star Wars fans, I was not as enamored with the prequels as I was of the original trilogy. It felt like there was something sorely missing.  That something, as far as I am concerned, was there Han Solo.  Not the literal character, mind you, they were missing someone that could be that voice that would remind us, "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."  Han Solo grounded the original trilogy; Yoda may have told us not to crave adventure and excitement, but Han still showed us much fun it could be.

This film's Han takes the form of Chris Pratt's Star-Lord (who, from the trailer, it appears is only a legend in his own mind).  Pratt is the perfect choice for this role; not only is his comic timing-impeccable (something Parks & Rec fans are more than aware of) but there's something about him that makes him immediately lovable.  He exudes niceness, even when he's playing a guy who is obviously supposed to be kind of a rogue.

While we are introduced to all the Guardians in this trailer, Star-Lord is clearly the focus; we are even given some hints of his back-story when we see his rather territorial reaction to anyone fiddling with his 1980's-era cassette Walkman. I'm sure the reason for his sentimental attachment to such an archaic device while being an intergalactic outlaw will, ultimately, be explained in the film (most likely a bittersweet relic of sorts from his childhood) but, even without that information, it can't help but make that character that much more endearing.

Also, while The Avengers gave us earth's mightiest heroes, the Guardians are a group of outcast and misfits and, at the end of the day, that's what I think will allow it to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. After all, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away it was a farm boy, a fugitive princess, a smuggler, a wookie, and a couple of bickering droids who managed to take down the empire. JJ Abrams, this is your competition.

James Bond Credit Sequences may be Better Than Bond Movies....

I've never been a big Bond guy but, every year around Thanksgiving, I end up watching part of the Bond marathon on the SyFy channel and find my interest in the series piqued.  I haven't seen many Bond films at all all the way through; honestly, I think I can count the ones that I have seen on one hand.  This year, as I watched Thunderball, a thought occurred to me: my favorite part of most Bond movies is the title sequence.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy the films that follow.  I thought Skyfall was fantastic; its credit sequence, however, was breathtaking and may, in fact, be the finest of the bunch.

My friend thinks that I like the stylized summary; it's like an abstract short of the film that follows.

This sort of sequence was actually quite common in the late 50's and early 60's, when the Bond films debuted, however, it has become more of a novelty in recent years.  One of the more notable examples was Catch Me If You Can which, of course, was set in the early 1960's and was intentionally meant to be evocative of the era.

Not to mention the fact that it is always scored to a song that is often equal parts awesome and awful. Usually, it is performed by a current hit-maker.  The current hit-maker chosen for the earliest Bond film I can remember? Duran Duran with View to a Kill, widely considered to be one of the worst of the franchise.  Maybe that's why I could never really get into the series.  Still, the credit sequence is pretty awesome (I'm particularly fond of the part where the woman's cleavage unfolds to reveal the '007' logo). It may not be true of all of them but, for this one, it truly was the greater work of art than the film that followed.