IHAO on ... Fantastic Mr. Fox

One of the absolutely most difficult things to express to people about my grading system is that there are very good films out there that I hate.  I use my objective grade and subjective grade together thing to be able to talk about just those kinds of things.  But, honestly, my tastes are so diverse that I end up generally liking most really good movies because I just really like well made movies.  Segue, let's talk about Wes Anderson.

I remember watching The Royal Tenenbaums many years back.  It was suggested to me as a great film.  I liked a whole bunch of the actors, I had never heard of this guy, and I was told it was funny.  So I watch it.  And I hated it.  I later was shown Rushmore, which has a bunch of good actors and I was told it was funny.  I watch it.  And I hated it.  Man, do I hate this stuff.  So I say "this guy must not be my cup of tea" and leave it at that.

But so many film people I know love the guy and his films.  And so many non-film people really love his films.  They love the quirk and the weird and the slightly inhumanness of it all.  They love the high class characters dealing with being unable to unload their real emotions and stuck in a rut.  They love the odd music choices and the storybook strange camera placement and the overly meticulated - what? it could be a word - blocking.  And none of that is bad.  Not a single bit.  In fact, a lot of it is great.  And I hate all of it.  A pure, deep down inside me, personal subjective rancor that burns deep in the crucible of my soul in a fire of utter hatred and bile.  I just hate Wes Anderson's films.

Thank you, Vince Vaughn, for being the only gif I could find that showed true, complete, and utter hatred instead of "Haters Gonna Hate."

So I swore them off.  And I lived a happy life.  And then I started getting more into films.  I started forcing myself to be more critical, to see the things that are elements of great filmmaking, of seeking out great films, of learning why the films I love are actually well made, or not well made as the case was going to be in a lot of them.  Poor Chipmunk Adventure, with your beautiful musical, hilarious bad guys, terrible vignette-y plot, and only sometimes good looking animation.

At the same time, my rival Wes Anderson was looking for a new way to destroy me.  So he decided to take a form of filmmaking I love, stop motion, and a Roald Dahl story I LOVED since I was a child, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and turn his social commentary lens to it and tell his own story using Dahl's fantastic story as a fantastic backbone to make a fantastic movie.  A fantastic movie that I still utterly hate, even though I can see how good it is.

Plot: A crook and family man, Mr. Fox (Clooney), swears off stealing.  But the itch gets to him, so he plans on final big heist after years of living a white-color job of boredom for him.  But the farmers he steals from retaliate, and retaliate, and continue to retaliate, swearing to destroy everything because of Mr. Fox's hubris.

Let me do this.  You can already hear the hate in every word I write.  I yell each word at the top of my lungs, filled with ichor and bile, even the positive things.  So let me point out the few things that don't quite work in this film.  The voice cast, while in a few cases excellent, feels a little off, with the worst offender being Clooney, who actually is kind of emotionless, and that hurts the tone and morality of the film a bit.  Also, the mouth movements of the foxes doesn't match the voices, most noticably from profile.  And ... that's it.

Beyond those two legitimate complaints, there really is nothing "bad" about the movie.  In fact, in spite of myself, there were some moments I really loved.  Some characters I really enjoyed.  Those things I enjoyed were few and far between, and the stuff between them was stuff that made me wish I was removing layers of skin from my eyelids instead of watching it, but that is merely because I hate every choice Wes Anderson makes.  Every very good and valid choice.  Every excellent choice.  Every weird song works.  Every overly micromanaged shot makes the most out of the image we are seeing.  Every color correction and overly stylized set dressing all of it enhances the film.  This is a GOOD movie.  A great movie, really, I think.  And I just cannot stand it.

Grade: A--

IHAO on ... a bunch of movies!! - 26 Reviews

Hello everyone! 

Time is an enemy to everyone who is trying to do anything important.  Or at least time-sensitive.   I love being able to write reviews for everyone about everything, current, old, wrestling, television, just on everything, as well as writing all the sillier or more intricate reviews, like the Arbitrary Numbers and the Fantasy Bookings.  But that leaves very little time for me to be able to actually cover everything.  I can’t put out two reviews a day, because that is too much to ask you folks to read.  And I only put out 5 a week, but every week there is probably on average one new film or wrestling event to writing about, and that takes a slot.  Then there are weeks with many films, like I’ve had recently and will be moving into with Oscar season continuing.

So I came up with an idea.  I asked my facebook to give me a list of movies that they did not think I had seen.  I absorb entertainment and media like a sponge, and have watched a LOT of movies.  This way I can give shorter reviews on a bunch of things people might not think I’ve seen, as well as have a fun bank of things to come back to when I need inspiration.  In the nice long list of films, I probably saw a fifth of them, which is a great number.  So I’m going to review all 26 of the movies that were suggested that I have seen.  This will be a rapid fire barrage of reviews.  Let’s get going!

 Dinosaurs! – Nicole Clockel
An edu-tainment Claymation-y fun short about dinosaur life.  I remember specifically sitting with my best friend at the time, Karl, when we were 7 or 8 at his house, and between playing TMNT SNES games or with figures or running around outside, we watched this little video.  I’ve seen it since then as well, but it is a silly thing to talk about.  It is purposefully silly, and all kinds of weird, but really enjoyable.  It is on youtube, and I’ll linky it here.  I definitely think it is worth your time, because of nostalgia for some of you and just for fun in general.  It isn’t great by any means, but it is fun.
Grade: C+



Rat Race – Lenton Lees 
The semi-rebooting, more “another version” of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Rat Race features an incredible cast, and is a big ole chase/race comedy.  It is hilarious, has some heart, and some awesome music.  It is probably one of the best comedies to introduce people to a bunch of great comedians all at once, including Mr. Bean, Seth Green, Whoopi Goldberg, John Cleese, Breckin Mayer, Amy Smart, and Jon Lovitz.  Really enjoyable, though it doesn’t quite shoot that extra mile.  It sits in a nice comfortable zone that most good comedies do, where it is real good, but the actual film never tries to be any greater than that.  Highly recommend.
Grade: B++

The Longest Yard – Lenton Lees
Wrestlers!  Sandler the last time he was funny!  Except there’s sequences of it totally not being funny, too, because Sandler has to always ALWAYS write his characters as having enormous penises or getting the hottest women in the world.  But that’s fine, because that has very little actual impact on the movie.  This is probably one of my favorite sports films I’ve seen.  It actually goes that extra mile in film quality and technique, as well as just having incredible actors in Burt Reynolds, William Fichtner, Terry Crews, and a slew of awesome wrestler … not “cameos” as everyone’s screentime and character weight is larger than that.  It is an incredibly fun sports movie with a moving story, it is really funny, and even though it blatantly steals an entire scene from the British remake of the Longest Yard, Mean Machine, it is still a really fun movie that is also really good.  Probably my favorite Sandler film, and easily the one I think that is his best film.
Grade: A++

Ernest Saves Christmas – Lenton Lees
Here’s the thing about Ernest: you either love Jim Varney’s shenanigans, or you just don’t get it or see a point.  I personally find Ernest endearing.  In fact, this is the first Ernest film I saw, which is good, because it is also easily his highest budgeted, best looking, best acted, best directed, BEST Ernest film.  It tells a great story, has fun comedy, and is a Christmas classic in the Jessel household.  On top of that, I do believe it has my absolute favorite Santa Claus in film, played by the same dude who is the Sultan and Jasmine’s father in Aladdin!  He is perfect as Santa, and adds some amazing gravitas to what could have just been a frivolous and silly kids movie.  It isn’t one of the best movies ever made, and the effects are absolutely dated, but it is a wonderful movie.
Grade: B++

South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut – Lenton Lees
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have made all of two things I like: South Park and Book of Mormon.  I do not like BASEketball, I don’t like Cannibal: the Musical, I don’t like Orgazmo.  But this movie is excellent.  It is an amazingly well made musical parody of just about every single style of musical, from Les Mis to Disney to Sound of Music.  The story itself has a purpose to exist as a film because it is about censorship, parental choices, and really nice satire of the “crusade” against cursing.  I really think this movie does everything right.  And its unique animation style makes it in a sense timeless, which is great!  Great movie.
Grade: A+

Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon version) – Lenton Lees
Not every movie that is a good movie I like.  Wes Anderson movies prove that.  As does this one.  One of the best things about Shakespeare is that every adaptation is 100% the director’s intention.  And some of Joss’ choices are awesome.  And some are not.  I think Whedon was able to really elevate the parts of Claudio and Don Pedro fantastically, making both parts have a lot more weight and interest than most versions of the show.  He also made some very good comedic choices early in the film.  But very quickly, the comedy of this comedy goes away.  And that’s … just … wrong.  Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy, pure and simple.  And Whedon treated it as a drama.  And that is a disservice to a lot of the characters, a lot of the language, and a lot of other choices.  Dogberry wasn’t particularly funny, even though he’s written to be.  Don Jon isn’t very menacing because everything is treated so seriously so he isn’t a foil.  Benedict and Beatrice don’t have a banter-filled romance because the banter is more catty and snide than humorous and joyful.  There are some bits I really enjoyed, generally whenever he had the actors get more physical, because otherwise they just pontificate into the wind at each other.  In the end, Whedon focused on the “Much Ado” while forgetting the point that it is all about “Nothing.”
Grade: B-

Oversexed Rugsuckers From Mars! – Jason Abraham
I’ve been saving this one for a Nanarsday review, but I’m MORE than happy to talk about this HORRIBLE MOVIE now!  It is a gloriously terrible movie about a man who has sex with an alien vacuum cleaner, and it becomes a rapist and rapes a woman, who gives birth to a human-vacuum hybrid baby.  It is gross, and hilarious, and terrible.  One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen and I LOVE IT!  I found it randomly years ago, and it is a pride of my collection of films because of its ridiculous-ness.  Really, if anyone ever wanted to watch it, FIND ME and we’ll watch it that second.
Grade: F+

Chasing Amy – Jason Abraham
I have a love/hate relationship with Kevin Smith.  I either love his films and buy into them completely, or hate them and find them worthless.  Chasing Amy falls in the worthless category.  The script is preachy, the situation is so narrow that no one can relate to it, making the characters unlikable and just complainers.  Smith doesn’t direct Affleck very well here, which is crazy considering how great Affleck is in other Smith films.  It just … I just hate this movie.  Give me Dogma, Mallrats, or Clerks II any day.
Grade: C--


Dawn of the Dead; Day of the Dead; Land of the Dead – Tony Daniel
I love this little bit.  I may have never seen Night of the Living Dead, but I have absolutely seen and own all of the Romero trilogy of Dead films.  Comes with being married to a zombie lover.  Let’s touch on all of these:

Dawn of the Dead – This film is perfect.  Acting, tension, shots, characters, story, everything.  This may just be my favorite zombie movie, period.  I was blown away because what I THOUGHT this movie was and what it actually is are two VERY different things.  The effects are real old and not very good looking, but I like to see them like a time capsule of effects, and completely buy into them.  I say it all the time, but dated-ness is not a real negative, and these may not be the best effects, but they are great effects for what they are.  I cannot recommend this film more highly.  Grade: A++

Day of the Dead – I thought this would be my favorite, and I do really like it.  It is much more of what I thought it would be.  And it easily has one of the best villains a zombie film has ever had in it.  It also explores the zombie mythos more, which is very cool, and Romero continues to push the envelope with his characters.  It has better effects and is really interesting … but just not as good as Dawn.  I don’t know if I can put my finger really on why, but I think it is something to do with our protagonist, who while being interesting just isn’t as good of an actress, and the pacing of the film itself is a little off, leading to some boring stretches.  But the effects, and the other characters, are all well worth price of admission here.  Grade: B+

Land of the Dead – So Dawn of the Dead got a remake, and Romero was all “I can make a ‘modern’ zombie film better than that.”  So he continued the story of his world of zombies.  And man, I love it.  It isn’t as good as the last few, but it has some GREAT characters, some awesome world building, and while the plot is less interesting, the overall effect leaves me very happy.  I love this movie, even if it began the decline in quality of Romero’s writing.  Grade: B++

The Man Who Knew Too Little – Beth Lyons
This comedy was actually suggested to me by Beth probably a year or so ago, so I bought it, and I watched it.  I wish I had been writing reviews then, because then I wouldn’t have to think about this movie again.  Oh, yeah, that should make it obvious, I don’t like the movie.  I don’t think it is bad, I just didn’t find most of its comedy very good.  The entire idea is fine, and some of the scenes are fine, but the whole product just leaves me cold, as our protagonist has to be continually stupider and stupider to allow the very thin premise of “believes all the spy stuff is fake, accidentally gets caught in real spy stuff” to continue.  The climax of the film is just long and tedious with the whole Russian dance sequence and the bomb and … ugh.  I just did not care for the film, and really do not think it is very good, and mostly forgettable.
Grade: C--

The Bank Job – Jason Schmidt
Good ole Jason Statham.  Action star, good actor, British.  Ok, so Bank Job isn’t a GREAT movie.  It’s a real good one, though.  Based on a real heist, with some good actors and some great camera work, the film works.  I’ve seen a lot less memorable Statham films, though this one only barely jumps above that pack.  It isn’t great, but it is fun.  And if you are a history person or a heist person, this one may do even more for you.  For me, it was just a good movie.
Grade: B

Jackie Brown – Jason Schmidt
Jackie Brown is a neat little movie.  That actually sounds more belittling than I mean it to.  It has a slow first act, but not a BAD first act, just a slow one, that builds really well to an amazingly well made finish.  Lots of great actors all throughout the film, including the wonderful Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson playing the character that we all actually attribute to him in the modern zeitgeist, and Robert De Niro who may have … 8 lines in the whole movie?  But it is still one of his best roles.  I really like this movie.  It isn’t the easiest sit because of that long first act that really needed an editor, and Robert Foster is good but doesn’t quite keep me as interested for those long sections as Tarantino has found Christoph Waltz can.  But it is still a very good, very ambitious movie.
Grade: B+

State and Main – Jason Schmidt
David Mamet is a playwright, director, and a screenwriter and director.  He is known for things like Glengarry Glen Ross and American Buffalo, but he’s done a lot of other stuff.  State and Main is one of those other stuffs.  It … isn’t particularly good.  There are bits and pieces I really like in there, but there is also some stunt casting that does nothing for me and some of the comedy beats come across VERY Mamet, in that every character rushes through their dialogue as fast as they can.  The actual movie is about the filming of a movie in a little town because they like a stained glass window, and all the turmoil it causes everyone.  I don’t really think it is worth a watch, but for some people, all that fast-talking is actually a turn-on.  If you are a Aaron Sorkin fan, this may just be up your alley.
Grade: C-

Devil’s Advocate – Jason Schmidt
I love talking about good Keanu Reeves films.  Mostly because I think he is an underrated actor.  As an actor myself, I can see the actual “craft” in what he is doing, and I get why for some he doesn’t come across like he acts.  He is very stoic faced a lot of the time, and his voice is generally calm no matter the emotion.  But what Keanu does really well is expression of emotion through his eyes and his body.  There are very few actors who can pull of supreme confidence just by standing there saying nothing like Keanu can.  And there are very few that can show the deterioration of a soul like Keanu can, that slow wearing down that was necessary for this film.  Devil’s Advocate is a GREAT movie.  It is a morality play in a time period when morality was pretty gauche to begin with.  Al Pacino is fantastic in the movie as well.  It is a great film.  One I used to own, and I need to buy again.  I recommend.
Grade: A+

Man on the Moon – Jason Schmidt
The biopic on Andy Kaufman, made by dear friends of Andy Kaufman, paying homage to the man, played by the only person anyone that knew Kaufman thought could play him.  This is a great biopic.  It has great music.  It has great acting.  It has a compelling, albeit very movie-fied as admitted by the prologue of the film, story of the real life of this enigmatic actor.  I own the soundtrack.  I own the film.  I love both.  It is a shame that Jim Carrey did not get the Oscar for this performance, but of course he should have since 1999 was the year of terrible Oscar decisions and Shakespeare in Love sweeping through almost everything.  Man on the Moon was called by some the best picture of 1999, and others just didn’t get it.  Which is kind of perfect when it comes to talking about Andy Kaufman.  I highly recommend to anyone that loves comedy and the history of comedy.
Grade: A++

Mars Attacks! – Jason Schmidt
My dad took me to see this movie.  My mom didn’t like that he did.  It is a weird, silly, off-putting, crazy kind of film.  Definitely not for everyone.  It is absolutely unique, and everything I want from a Tim Burton film.  It also holds the honor of being the only live-action film based on a trading card series, which is a mindboggling piece of information by itself.  A tongue-in-cheek homage to 50s sci-fi horror films, and filled with just … craziness.  Man, I just … this is a weird movie kids.  Too weird to be good, too weird to be bad, it is its own brand of quality.
Grade: W (for weird … I actually give it a C)

The Departed – Jason Schmidt
Hey, wanna know a great movie?  The Departed.  Done.  Go watch a great movie.  What you need more?  How about its pedigree of actors and directors and cinematographers?  I’ll wait while you imdb it.  I know right?  How about the incredible filmmaking just in general?  Or the tight script?  Or the intriguing characters?  Or the amazing conceit?  Or the original that is ALSO good, but this remakes for western audiences in an old school mafia way that transcends the original?  This movie is great.  Period.  Watch it.
Grade: A+

Black Swan – Jason Schmidt
Darren Aronofsky is so so good.  And Black Swan is amazing.  Tense, thrilling, psychological, amazing acting from Natalie Portman (got an Oscar for it, well deserved), this movie is phenomenal.  The music is of course going to be great because it is Swan Lake.  But really, this movie is amazing.  It should have gotten at least a cinematography and a best director nod.  It got neither.  These kind of psychological thinky thrillers tend to not do well in the Oscars.  Aronofsky deserves awards.  And this film is one of his best, written as if tailored to his style specifically even though it wasn’t.  Watch this very very intense film some time.
Grade: A++

Waterworld – Jason Schmidt
Waterworld is one of the biggest financial flops in history.  Doesn’t make it a bad movie, though.  It makes it a great punchline, but as a fantasy movie, it is actually all kinds of AWESOME.  The setting is all practical and all amazing.  The acting is great from Dennis Hopper and even Kevin Costner.  The script is a great story filled with little nods and secrets to the what happened in the world.  The action is awesome.  I love the movie, and really don’t understand why others don’t.  Maybe because they only know the joke and never actually watched the thing.  Give it a chance.
Grade: A++

12 Monkeys – Jason Schmidt
Time travel movies are difficult, and sometimes their plots just don’t quite add up.  Other times they are too simple.  12 Monkeys is both.  Confusing and simple.  I don’t think it is a bad movie, it has some real interesting parts to it and some good acting.  But I ultimately found it boring.
Grade: B-

Four Rooms – Jason Schmidt
Four very different vignettes from four pretty different directors all based around rooms in a hotel.  Uh … I guess I’ll say this: Tim Roth is great.  Each individual sequence is so incredibly different I’ll just grade each one.
Part 1: D
Part 2: C-
Part 3: A+
Part 4: B+
So when I watch it, I just skip to the middle.  Yup.

Deathproof – Jason Schmidt
Man, I do not know how to talk about this one ... ok, lemme list the things that are good. The direction is fantastic. The movie looks and FEELS good, from a filmmaking and thematic standpoint. Kurt Russel is AMAZING as Stuntman Mike. The action and car sequences are really amazing and frenetic. A lot of the things that I love from Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are here and this is the prototype for him directing like that. This movie is a bridge from his old style (which I generally don't care for) and his new style. There is a lot to like. But this movie SERIOUSLY needed an editor. A stronger edit would have helped this movie incredibly. And another sequence of Stuntman Mike doing what he does would have been perfect. Trim down all the standard Tarantino talky talk that didn't really do very much and give us another Stuntman Mike sequence. Tarantino learned to trim himself for Basterds and Django, making much stronger, engaging films. And that's the problem, I suppose. I really wanted to be engaged the whole time, and was really only engaged when Kurt Russel was onscreen and for the basics of the chicks. The genre subversion at the end was interesting, but for me, abrupt, and right at the end, I actually found myself rooting for Stuntman Mike because I knew more about him and understood him better, and he had less dialog than the chicks that I was supposed to be rooting for. Showing, not telling, made him a stronger, more engaging character. And they just left Mary Elizabeth Winestead with the crazy redneck! What the heck!? This movie is hard to grade. I can see myself wanting to watch it again, and I LOVED everything with Kurt Russel, but I dunno if I wanna slog through the rest.Grade: B-

High Fidelity – Jason Schmidt
One of the first “serious” comedies I’ve ever seen, it made a huge impact on me.  I am a collector and sponge for media much like John Cusack is in the film, though my own life and his represented in the film has nothing in common, and I don’t actually relate to him, but that doesn’t actually matter.  He resonates.  And his relationship struggles opened my eyes.  The film is unique, which is a huge plus.  It is a really well written and well acted film, so that’s real cool.  Honestly, though, it just didn’t stick with me like I thought it would, and I don’t care to see it again.  I don’t hate it.  I just don’t like it.  I remember how good it was, but that’s the extent of it.
Grade: A

Harvey – Cindy Carrin
The only Jimmy Stewart film I’ve seen and loved.  It is a great play, a great old movie, and just awesome all around.  A classic.  You absolutely should watch it.  Everyone.  Do it.
Grade: A+






And there we have it!  A LOT of films reviewed in a handy dandy quick way with beautiful pictures that took me way too long to format.  Thanks everyone, and I am positive I will do an exercise like this again!  Until tomorrow, where we have some newer films, a Wes Anderson film, some wrestling, and probably other stuff!

IHAO on ... Interstellar

I just am not really sure how to tackle this movie review.  Not because I don't have the words, because I do, I absolutely do.  And not because I don't know what I think and feel, because I am positive about those as well.  It is because I have very little faith my words will make a difference.  Some films are just going to be seen, regardless of any critic's review, and most of those critics have a much wider audience than I do.  It seems, I don't know, futile? to talk about just how poorly made this movie is.  And yes, it is incredibly poorly made.  This is a bad movie.  How bad?

*inhales*

Well, that's the problem, see.  I really don't like going into spoilers, but I have to all but spoil this movie to really talk about what makes it so bad.  It is a science fiction film where the science all seems to be mumbo jumbo garbage, almost none of it makes sense, and even if it was accurate, despite a very few visuals, it comes across as completely idiotic.  The theme of the movie is one of the most cliched themes in film history; I'm talking Disney would be ashamed.  The plot is mostly a bore.  The camera work is mediocre at best, and many many shots I've seen Go Pro cameras mounted on the outside of cars driving around do it better.  The acting is fine, in fact there is only one scene I would even call good acting.  There was only about a thirty minute stretch in this 169 minute mess that was really truly enthralling, invigorating, interesting, and tense.  But then we go back to cliche-land.  The plot is at best dull and at worst completely convenient and relentlessly stupid.  The climax of the film is simple just stupid.  The costuming and timeline of the film is atrociously un-thought-out, as we are in a future, and then a further future, and then a FURTHER future, and everyone still wears regular old clothes that we wear now.  The sound mixing ... my god, the sound mixing is absolutely atrocious.  Probably 1/5 of the dialogue is completely drowned out by the score.  And the score itself just does not match with the emotion or action taking place in any given scene.

Nolan has grown bloated in his reach and power.  He reminds me of George Lucas.  I highly doubt anyone is telling him "no" any longer.  He makes visually appealing films that hit all the emotional beats you want in a movie, but as soon as the movie is over every single aspect of the movie is just riddled with terrible terrible problems.  Interstellar is like a beautiful mansion that has termites in all its beams: it looks great, is enormous in scope, but just scratch the surface a little bit and you not only see the holes, but it is impossible to keep the entire thing from falling apart.  Christopher Nolan, for all intents and purposes, made a Michael Bay film minus stupid comedy, adding stupid emotional nonsense.

Blew your mind.

This science fiction film is lacking in science.  This great cast in lacking in scene quality.  This great composer is lacking in tact and finesse.  This great director is lacking in subtlety.

The only two good things I can say about this film, at all, the sole compliments I can give Interstellar are: the editor did an excellent job, as the 169 minutes never felt long or dull - stupid, yes, eye-rollingly stupid, absolutely yes, but it did not feel long; and the visuals look for the most part good ... though in our theater, that was supposed to be showing it in IMAX quality HD, it looked like it was all in 720p or even lower quality, with a very fuzzy film grain.

I implore you, all of you reading this, DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE.  It is a waste of every single cent and minute of your time.  The longer I sit and think about it, the worse and worse it gets.  It is a terrible, terrible movie.

Grade: D--

IHAO on ... Children of Men

Man oh man oh man oh man oh man.

This is the story of a man.  A man who used to be a father, but is now an emotionless (in general) protagonist.  A man who was a political activist, and still believes all those things, but is no longer one, because of reasons.  A man whose father and mother were political activists, as well as his former wife.  A man who is the only one that can save a woman, any woman, because this movie kills women and blames them for everything as easily as you or I spread butter on toast.

I found this movie insulting, boring, and lazy.  It is also a pretty well made movie.  It is not too often that I can say a thing like that.  This film, I can very much see people loving it, because it has some uniqueness to it.  But so many choices are made that are pretentious at best and masturbatory at worst.  Clive Owen is a terrible leading man, and Hollywood figured that out basically right after this movie.  Alfonso Cuaron is a talented director, but really really heavy-handed all movie.  He brings up many many themes, from feet, to immigration stuff, to racial war, to sexist stuff, and all of it is added to the film from its source material.

The actual plot of the movie goes something like this: the youngest person on earth was just killed.  For some reason unexplained, no children have been born in eighteen years.  This lead to everywhere but Britain being the worst place ever and Britain becoming a semi-military state of anti-immigration something something.  Whatever, Clive Owen shows up and has to help this political group smuggle a girl out of the country.  That girl is pregnant.  How, why, none of that matters.  Oh, the political group also double crosses everyone, and is bad guys.  Then they race to get to rendezvous point.

This movie is a very well made.  Cinematography, music, editing, all of that is well done.  But it just has so many terrible themes throughout.  All the religious imagery, all of the racist imagery, and all the sexist stuff!  I mean, the whole movie blames and kills off women, CONSTANTLY.  Here, here's an example: the thing that is making all the world unable to have children, in the movie it is 100% blamed on women.  Think about that.  That might not be immediately a problem, but combine that with the way women characters are treated in the film, it is really kind of harsh.  Whenever a director makes a film, they make choices.  Everything you see on the screen is a choice that was made.  So for there to be so much racial agenda pushing, like the Muslims all being crazy militants but the only immigrants who are, or all the religious stuff, or the weird foot theme that went through the middle section of the movie.

I don't like this movie.  I could continue to list more and more things I hated about the movie.  I can say some good things, like the one-ers (shots done all in one take) are impressive, but basically unnecessary with no purpose narratively beyond the fact that they did them.  See, even then I just said it as a bad thing.  Bah.

Grade: B--

IHAO on ... Saw: the Final Chapter

Good googly moogly is this film atrocious.

Yeah, I'm not even going to be close to pretending it is good.  This, THIS is the torture porn I've had quite a few conversations about since I started watching the Saw films.  I mentioned it in an earlier review, but let me go ahead and lay out my mindset here: films with torture do not equal torture porn.  That is like saying a erotic thriller film is a porn.  The term "torture porn" was created to describe Hostel, which came out the year after Saw and could not have corresponded to Saw II.  And torture films existed way before the Saw films.  The Saw films are not the "father" of torture porn.  Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit on Your Grave, lots of torture films existed for decades before Saw came out.  The Saw films, while having torture in them, are not actually about the torture.  It is about the mindset of a man who would torture, and the twisted morals he is trying to teach.  The films are made with an A-plot about Jigsaw, his past, his accomplishes, and so forth, and a B-plot that is the "test" or series of torture devices.  The fact that the torture isn't even the focus of these films narratively should absolutely help out.  The Saw films ARE NOT TORTURE PORN.

Except for this one, because this one is garbage torture porn.  And not even good torture porn that makes you cringe or feel something as you watch.  Just really really terrible crappy ... everything really.

Plot real quick: 2ish months after the events of the last movie, a survivor of a Saw trap, who has become a Tony Robbins style motivation speaker for three years now, is tested by Jigsaw's apprentice, maybe.  He's tested by someone, don't know who.  Jigsaw's apprentice, meanwhile in B-plot land, is once again dealing with cops and trying to get some personal revenge.  Yeah, that's right, the torture part is the A-plot this time, which is a first.

Ok, so I'm just going to list off all the problems I have with this movie.  List style.  Because I cannot get my mind focused any other way currently.  Here we go:

1. The opening trap is absolutely 100% pointless with no narrative purpose, no setting purpose, and no way to even understand how it fits into the storyline.
2. The timeline of the film, which is a huge aspect of the Saw series as a whole, is all janked up.
3. The second trap is absolutely 100% pointless with no narrative purpose, no setting purpose, and very very little point in fitting it in with a featured extra's story that ultimately is also pointless.
4. The casting is abysmal, straight across the bored, without a single good actor in the whole film.
5. The blood is pink.
6. The BLOOD IN THIS MOVIE ALL LOOKS PINK!
7. A TRAP INVOLVES JIGSAW HAVING ETCHED NUMBERS INTO A MAN'S MOLARS, WITHOUT HIM EVER FEELING IT HAVING HAPPENED TO HIM!!!
8. THERE IS AN AUTOMATED MACHINE GUN THAT IS NOT A TRAP, JUST A MACHINE GUN THAT IS THERE TO KILL PEOPLE!!!!
9. THE TRAPS IN THE FILM ARE ALL COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL, RIDICULOUS, AND UTTLERLY FAKE LOOKING!!
10. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY THAT ANY OF THE THINGS IN THIS MOVIE COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT SAYS THEY DO!!!!

I just ... cannot express to you how terrible this whole movie is.  The more I think about it, the angrier I become.  It is not only a very bad movie, it is an utter failure as a Saw film.  Which is ridiculous, because it is the same people that made the last film, which is my second favorite narratively.  I can make some leaps to plug in the holes in logic, consistency, and what not, but they are completely unfounded.  The two hooded guys, no answer.  When, where, how, and why the first trap of the film happens, no answer.  Who put together the enormous plot test, when it looks like everyone was focused on something else, no answer.  Ugh.

This movie is not worth watching.  There is no reason to watch anything beyond a youtube clip of the final reveal, the final puzzle piece.  I have nothing positive to say about this movie beyond some things were "fine."

Grade: F-, as a Saw film, F---

((0-0))            ((0-0))            ((0-0))

And that's it!  I made it through, and I am very happy I did.  It was ultimately completely worth my time and effort, and I'll absolutely watch a good amount of these films again in the future!  I was asked to make a list of my favorite traps at some point recently, as well as put my final ranking of the films, so let's do that now, shall we!

Jessel's favorite Saw films

Saw III - Grade: A++

Saw VI - Grade: B++-

Saw IV - Grade: B++

Saw V - Grade: B+

Saw II - Grade: B+

Saw - Grade: B

Jessel's top 5 favorite Saw traps

Survivor Roulette - Saw VI

Blood Sacrifice Trap - Saw V

Take My Breath Away Trap - Saw VI

Acid McGee - Saw VI

Arteries Husband-Wife Trap - Saw IV

There we go.  That is enough talk about Saw and torture and porn.  Next week, we get into some neato action stuff, and another really bad horror movie that I just didn't have time to get to, as well as a comedy based Arbitrary Numbers!  See you next week!

IHAO on ... God Bless America

One of the most difficult things about watching as many movies as I do, especially now that I focus on bringing commentary and criticism to it, is that eventually, you find a movie that is pretty good, with some pretty interesting ideas, and it just ... already exists in a better form.  It brings nothing to the table above and beyond another film that touches on the same subjects but in a better way, with stronger script and stronger actors and a stronger director and just overall a better movie.  God Bless America is just ... not quite good enough.

Very few times can I point to two films and actually show the difference between objective ratings.  There is so much to love about film that many people cannot separate their love from what they are watching.  And that is a perfectly fine thing, mind you.  That is what makes film so great.  It touches us, sometimes privately and personally, just like all forms of art.  It speaks to the viewer, and even if a film just isn't as well made, that film can be "better."

Ugh, whomever it is that has the job of picking my gifs needs to be fired.

Now, I'm saying all this because this movie is just not as good as Super.  Both films are about rage and cleansing of our society by a man who wants to kill, and his young just-older-than-teenage girl that has a special relationship with him that is both semi-romantic and semi-familial.  The problem is, God Bless America focuses just on talk and character, and Super actually has things happen.  It has stakes, it has obstacles, and it really GREAT actors.  God Bless America has no stakes, no obstacles, and its actors just aren't up to snuff.

Those aren't the only issues.  It's lighting is odd, the music is filled with montages and very out of place choices.  The way the story unfolds is basically null of any consequences.  The big schtick is that everything goes wrong for our protagonist in his life, including finding out he has a brain tumor.  But OH NO WOWSERS the doctor totally messed it all up and gave him the wrong reading and the tumor isn't there!  Spoilers by the way, but this lazy plotting makes me so incredibly upset.  There just aren't any consequences to the actions these characters take, and ultimately it makes this whole film meaningless.

Ok, now that I've gotten all that out of my system ... this movie is pretty good.  Yeah, I know I just complained and fumed about how it wasn't.  But Tara Lynn Barr is a great little actress, even if the writing isn't all that great.  When the film is violent, it is really great; that said, it is very VERY sparse on the violence, which hurts the film.  And the film's emphasis on these characters relationships is a perfectly nice and enjoyable ride.  I am not against character-films that use their time to delve deep into characters as its form of growth and tension and conflict, despite what it might have sounded like above.  This all just ... I've seen it done better.

Oh, and the finale is bullcrap.  Just absolute and utter garbage.  A little more stupid trope-ic cliche, a whole bunch of preaching, and then the rug is just yanked out from underneath us as an audience.  Honestly, the finale makes me angry.  It took a film I wanted really hard to recommend to folks and just killed it for me.  I really just ... I'm almost speechless for how upsettingly bad it is.  It is shot crappily, has terrible music over it, is written just awfully and even worse, is convenient in every single way.  I hated every single ounce of Act 3 of this film.  I hated it.  I cannot recommend this film.  A better film exists.

Go watch Super.  That move is phenomenal, A+++.  This film just gets worse and worse until it ends in a sputtering garbled joke of what it could have been.  Ugh.

Grade: C--

IHAO on ... Magicians

Judd Apatow is really good at what he does.  Now I'm not talking all the knock-off Apatow-STYLED films, I mean the comedy-dramas that he has become known for.  They are able to have all the heart, all the skill, all the deft handling of a drama about serious topics, and all the fun, all the mirth, and all the heightened reality of a comedy.  Not every Apatow-styled comedy works.  I talked about the Five-Year Engagement not too long ago.  It has this exact problem.  Best Man Down last week did as well, though it was much more indy-drama feeling than Magicians or Five-blah-blah-blah.

Magicians has a bunch of flaws.  But let me share the plot first, because it sounds like a comedy straight-up.  Check it: A magician duo get an assistant, who marries one of them but wants the other.  The husband catches his best friend and his wife having sex in the cut-the-girl-in-half box, but the show must go on.  But, oops, the cheating wife accidentally gets her head cut off.  Fast forward four years and the widower now is down on his luck and need money, and finds a magician competition.  The other magician, who has a gay manager who is into him, has been trying to brand himself like Blaine or Angel, and ends up doing the competition as well.  Hilarity ensues.

Except it doesn't.  There is not an ounce of mirth or funny in the whole film.  There are lines that could be humorous, circumstances that could be funny, and characters that could be interesting.  But instead, the film has decided to play everything straight.  EVERYTHING.  Every shot, every color, every scene, every music cue, every line, every expression, all of it.  The filmmaker must think that it is EXTRA hilarious to not be funny.  And not even in a Tim and Eric way, where they are at least inane.  No, this is just played completely straight, like a drama.

Every character is reprehensible because of that fact.  Every scene is just a slow grating.  It reminded me of Bad Words without any of the heightened reality that made it so funny.  If I cannot enjoy myself, these douchebag characters are just douchebags.

Except for David Mitchell's Carl.  He is enjoyable and likable.  Ish.  I say "ish" because he isn't supposed to be.  We are supposed to root for the other one.  *sigh*  Oh, and in looking up the actor's name, I have come to learn these two are a duo.  They have done a long standing British comedy show, the Peep Show, together.  With this director.  And these writers.  Oh man.  I can't ... I really want to know if that is any good.  Somebody lemme know.  Because I cannot imagine it being any good.

This movie is bad.  But it just isn't bad enough.  And that makes me angry.  I want this to be graded way worse than it is.  But it is fine.  It isn't funny, but it is fine.  The acting isn't great, but it is fine.  The plots (there is a B plot I didn't even feel like mentioning because it is 100% removable) aren't great, but they are ... fine.  Every time I saw the word it grates on me worse and worse.  Yet it is absolutely true.  But I would tell no one to see this movie.

Grade: C--

IHAO on ... Tim Burton's Batman

/\// tOrtUrE-jEssEl-A-thOn \\/\

I knew this day would come.  I knew that at some point, doing this site, I was going to have to finally start talking about a film that I hold a polar opposite view point of than the entire world, it seems.  Or almost.  I don't mean to be defensive or use hyperbole here, but ... you know what, there's not point in postponing the torture any longer.  It's time for me to destroy one of the absolute worst, most awful, poorly acted, poorly directed, terribly adapted superhero movies of all time ... 

Tim Burton's Batman.  Oh yeah, you heard me.

Rotten Tomatoes - Critics 71% ; Audience 84%

Flickchart - 222 of 28311 i.e. in the top ... just look at it, you figure it out

IMDB - 7.6 rating

Metacritic - 66

Amazon.com - 4.4 stars

I have made no attempts to hide this in my life, but let me state it out and be perfectly clear: I love comic books; I love superheroes; and I love movies.  Man comic fans get up in arms about adaptation.  Adaptation is a tricky subject.  You want to stay true to your source, but create something new.  As long as the film is made well, I'm not looking for an exact copy of the comic.  I'm looking for the characters to be true to themselves, even if the plots and details differ some.  The Marvel films have proven that there is a lot of room to make a good film in all sorts of different genres based around comic book superheroes.

And yes, I'm perfectly willing to admit that part of the reason I have such a deep abiding hate for this movie is because I don't hear people talking about this movie badly at all.  I don't hear anyone point out any of the things I will below, not a single thing.  They just laugh it all off and say it is fine and even better, GREAT, and even worse, BETTER THAN BATMAN RETURNS WHICH IS A BOLD-FACED LIE IF I'VE EVER SEEN ONE!  The only thing that keeps Batman fresh in the minds of those who defend it are nostalgia goggles, in my opinion.  It makes me feel like I'm ... well, here, I'm just play the gif.

Says it all.

Now, this is a rewritten script, so the format will be a little different, as it is much more linear as it goes through its points.  But the points are solid, and no matter the bombast or vehement disagreement I have with the popular opinion, I hope you enjoy the rundown regardless.  Ok, no more disclaimers, let's get on with it.

The movie opens, and we are introduced to some unknown family and their poor luck with taxis.  Their luck continues to spiral downwards as they enter an alley for some reason, it doesn't make a lot of sense but whatever.  Luckily, Batman was hanging out, watching this specific alley for plot-convenience purposes.  We get some dumb criminals, some really obvious product placement, and finally Batman.  But enough of that, we need to focus on other stuff in this Batman movie.  Over the next handful of scenes we are introduced to our time wasting non-Batman side-characters that don't actually factor into the plot in any way but are given screentime anyway.  These "characters" - more one dimensional story fillers, like packing peanuts or fondant - populate the entire film.  Let's run down the list.  We got Newsreporter Guy, Fat Cop, Commissioner Gordon, the Mayor, a severely unfortunate misuse of potential in Harvey Dent, Joker's henchman Bob.  And the worst offender, Vicki Vale, for much different reasons.

Vicki Vale is not only a poor excuse for a shoehorned love interest slash sex appeal slash damsel in distress, but she serves as an audience proxy.  What is an audience proxy you ask?  Lemme lay some fat learning on you.  An audience proxy is a poorly written excuse of a "character" that lazy writers add to films and television shows so that the audience watching it learns information about characters and setting "organically." The audience proxy learns something at the pace the audience is supposed to learn it.  A lot of tv shows have them, you know the new kid who is the lead character now.  Torchwood has one with Gwen Cooper, who ALSO ends up being a Mary Sue until later seasons.  Oh, here's a good one.  John Myers from Hellboy, who was such a waste of space that he was written out entirely in the sequel thank goodness.  Sometimes an audience proxy can be useful, such as making a relate-able character, think Big Bird who stands for all the children watching Sesame Street.  Vicki Vale is NOT a relate-able character that we can gravitate to, though.  Ugh.

All right, I cannot put it off any longer, let's talk about Nicholson.  He's playing Jack Napier, who becomes the Joker and BAH ALREADY this is off to a stupid start.  In the comics, the Joker is a force of nature, a never to be understood mystery, an element that exists because Batman exists, a shadow created by his mere presence.  He is the total lack of control to Batman's "10 steps ahead."  That is why they are so compelling as arch-nemeses.  Joker's origin has never been revealed in the comics, and never will be, only false leads and lies left about.  For good reason: knowing who the Joker is ruins the Joker!

Not only that, Burton handles the creation of the Joker as deftly as a log rolling down a hill.  We see Napier playing with playing cards.  All the other bad guys make stupid loaded jokes and lines like "You look funny."  Ugh, why do we see Joker's origin?  This movie is upside-down and backwards.  Batman, our protagonist (supposedly) just appears and we have to learn all our information about him through stupid awful Vicki Vale in a passive way, where as they dynamic story and character development is given to Jack Napier.  And that doesn't even begin to talk about how Nicholson actually sucks at playing the role!

There's no way around it, this isn't the Joker.  This is Nicholson in makeup.  He is never really "the Joker," he's always just Jack Nicholson AS the Joker.  Look how successfully Heath Ledger inhabited the role in The Dark Knight.  The Joker was everything I was saying he should be above: a force of nature.  Or look to Mark Hamill, reinventing the character and getting lost in the role for the animated series and games.  It takes some huge, enormous overacting and ego to top the already outrageous character that is the Joker, and Nicholson does everything he can to chew up all the scenery and completely drown the character in his presence.  People who defend this movie want you to only remember the Joker that electrified random gangster guy with the super hand-buzzer, but completely ignore all the overacting that is in no way shape or form believable or even EARNED.

Speaking of terrible casting, I sure am glad [note: read this as "am very unhappy "] that instead of casting someone with gravitas, they just went with Keaton and then added a whole bunch of terrible comedy schtick for him to do as Bruce Wayne.  Comedy is NECESSARY for establishing the characteristics of Bruce Wayne [note: read this as "waste of time, out of place, and tonally dissonant to the film."]  Terrible comedy seems to be a necessity of this script, with non-jokes and fumbling and bumbling, not to mention all the garbage Nicholson does.  Michael Keaton is a mindboggling casting.  Did you know he was cast for his quote "edgy, tormented quality."  Nah, he was cast because Tim Burton + Keaton = Beetlejuice = big money, repeat the process.  Hmm, sound family to Burton's modus operundi now, except with Depp and Helena Garbage Carter.  Now, looking back and including Batman Returns, it really is true, Keaton is an excellent Batman, but I would dare say that beyond looking fine in the suit, he doesn't prove he's capable of pulling off the character until Batman Returns.

So let's get back to talking about the plot.  The plot is swiss cheese.  Absolutely riddled with plot holes so big you could drive your I don't care about finishing this analogy.  How does a bullet defy all rules of physics and ricochet around like it does in the chemical plant?  What chemicals ARE those, anyway?  How does Jack get into the river after falling into a closed off vat?  Is the film expecting me to believe that there is a drain large enough to have a man fit through it at the bottom of a vat of chemicals?  The chemical tank doesn't get refilled or anything, it is sitting stagnant, so if there was a drain that big that lead to the river, the entirety of the vat would be in the river, and we'd have a Gotham FILLED with Jokers.

And after all that, we are back with the stupid reporters, where Vicki Vale tells them she has a date with Bruce ... which doesn't make any sense in the timeline since not 12 hours have passed since the last scene, which was Batman in the chemical plant.  When the HELL did they set up the date?  It wasn't when they were talking even earlier at the party.  Looks like we get to just see important things FEATURING OUR PROTAGONIST happen off screen I guess.  This movie needs a name change to "Plucky Reporters That Do Stuff That Is Ultimately Inconsequential To The Plot!"  And then the electrocution scene happens.

This scene is a reference to the above, and just like everything else, doesn't tonally match the movie at all.  This film was created in an era with the Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns having just hit comics stands.  Those were the inspirations, supposedly, for the movie.  So let's take some of the old hokey tv stuff and lampoon it and make it dark and edgy!  That's how you make a compelling Joker, not by USING THE COMICS BOOKS YOU ARE SUPPOSEDLY INSPIRED BY TO INFORM THE CHARACTER!  And how in the ever-burning hell did he even get the hand buzzer?  Let alone the fact that it just doesn't make sense as a thing that could exist, we can put that aside because we are in a world with chemical treatments from hell and a dude wearing bulletproof rubber that is designed to look like a bat.  No, I can put aside the science.  But when did he even have the TIME to get it!?  It has been MAYBE 2 days since the chemical accident, at least 1 full day of which he spent crawling his way to get emergency surgery!  ALSO, if you have a handheld electrocuting buzzer, USE IT ON BATMAN YOU IDIOT!  WHY DO YOU NEVER USE IT AGAIN!?

This movie constantly does this garbage.  He has a boxing glove set up to smash his TV in his hideout just in case the news says something that mildly upsets him.  WHAT THE HELL!?  How in the hell did he set that up in 2 days?!  Was that his normal hideout?  Was it already decked out with Joker stuff before hand?!  IT HAS BEEN 2 DAYS!!! Two days to get a superpowered electrocution ring the he NEVER USES AGAIN, as well as set up his henchmen in matching outfits, buy new suits, and set up a boxing glove to punch the tv JUST IN CASE!!!  IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!

Let me go bitch about a different character, to shake things up.  Now in the movie, Vicki Vale is stalking Bruce Wayne, but that is totally ok because she's the love interest so this doesn't raise any concern or suspicion or anything.  And Bruce Wayne, you know, BATMAN, doesn't notice this extremely obvious high heeled stalker at all.  PLUS, how can she not know about the Wayne's tragedy?  Even if she is new in town, THIS IS A BIG DEAL?!  The Waynes owned a HUGE organization and were TRAGICALLY MURDERED orphaning their son.  This is NATIONAL NEWS kind of stuff, and SHE WORKS AT A NEWSPAPER IN THE SAME TOWN IT HAPPENED IN!!!!  ARGH!!

Let's just keep going ... to the museum scene.  You know, Joker and his henchmen come in and spray paint things, "hilariously" to music.  See normally, people crap on this kind of shameless and out of place music video section in a film.  Kids films would do it all the time in the last 80s, early 90s.  It is utter garbage and has no place but to stop the narrative flow to a HALT just to establish ... nothing.  Nothing is established, we already know that Jack is crazy and that his henchmen, who are 0% crazy, are all willing to just do whatever.  But oh no, in Batman this scene is great and fun!  Screw you, people who say that, it is just as out of place and disruptive as it is in EVERY movie that does it.

Oh, hey, who remembers the completely inconsequential, incredibly convoluted sub-plot poisoning scheme that wasted some time in the middle of the movie?  Yah, I see a few hands, but I would wager that a LOT of people completely forgot those scenes even happened.  I certainly didn't until I tortured myself into watching this again.  And hey, guess how this little waste of time ends?  With Joker blowing up his TV.  What, you didn't want to reset the punching glove machine you have BUILT FOR THIS SINGULAR PURPOSE, DESTROYING YOUR OWN TELEVISIONS?!  ARGF@IFJ@vRIjvrv30v8h3n!!!!

I am getting genre whiplash from every single scene being so out of place tonally with the rest of the film, especially scenes with Vicki Vale.  Like the scene where Bruce is going to tell Vicki his secret identity.  Wait, what?!  REALLY?!  This is the most out of character garbage yet for Bruce!  He's known Vicki for how long ... 2 weeks?  A month?  You know what, maybe a year has passed, I don't know!  There is absolutely no sense of time passing in this film, it is just all crammed together.  Luckily, Jack stops Bruce from sharing his identity.  Think about that.  The villain of the film stops the hero from ruining his identity.  Something here is TERRIBLY wrong.  Oh, and we get ...

What a terrible stupid addition to this already terrible and stupid movie.  You do not need to make things PERSONAL between Batman and Joker to make us care.  It is absolutely unnecessary and just lazy screenwriting.  You know what would make us care at all?  If we actually were watching this movie from BATMAN'S PERSPECTIVE NOT DAMNED VICKI VALE'S!!!  The scene ends with Bruce shot a bunch, but he's immune to bullets so whatever.  Soon Vicki does learn Batman's identity, and the film finally shifts focus to actually following and being about Batman.  We no longer need an audience proxy, so get rid of her, turn her into a damsel, and we can focus on the hero.  You know, like we should have been in the first place!  Too little too late.

The movie stumbles to a finale through parades and stupid guns and Batman firing a MILLION bullets and rockets, as well as shameless pandering, and then a bunch of non-fights where Batman throws no punches in the clocktower, people just jump to their death, eliminating themselves.  Including Joker.  And finally it is over.

This film is a mish-mashed, uneven, unfocused frivolous piece of nostalgia that cannot hold up to even the slightest but of scrutiny from a discerning, objective eye.  And it is very hard to be objective considering how much I utterly hate the film, too.  And you know what, that is crazy unfortunate, because Tim Burton had a really strong eye for theme and vision as a director that has slowly chipped away and evolved into the caricature of a career he currently has.  Look at the far superior adaptation made by Burton, Batman Returns.  It is focused, driven, has a strong plotline, great characters, and while the focus may not be on Batman in that film either, that is by design.  Keaton requested lines and scenes cut from the script to showcase the villains and make a darker world.  And they didn't shoehorn in another audience proxy/love interest.  I'll defend Batman Returns to my dying day, to my final breath.

Later down the timeline, you get the Schumaker films and then the Nolan ones.  You look back and you see the West era.  All of those films, regardless of how good or bad they are, are focused.  This movie is a mess, cannot tell a good story, is filled with terrible or pointless characters, is filled with overacting and terrible dialogue, all of the "action" in this movie is the pits ... Tim Burton's Batman fails in every conceivable way I can think to grade it.  The only good thing I have to say about this movie at all is that thank goodness it happened, so that other superhero movies could be seen as profitable and get made.  This movie made a whole heap of money.  Oh oh oh, the main theme is also really good.  The rest of the music is completely forgettable, but the main theme is great.  Those things do not make Tim Burton's Batman stop sucking, though.


Grade: F---

• June 3^rd – Gigli (from Rachel Runion)  Grade: C
• June 4^th – Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen (from Joel Gould)  Grade: D--
• June 5^th – Lenny the Wonder Dog (from Jason Schmidt)  Grade: F+
• June 6^th – The Cat in the Hat (from Josh Hendricks)  Grade: F---
• June 7^th – The Cat from Outer Space (from Nicole Clockel)  Grade: B+
• June 8^th – Popeye (from Drew Turner)  Grade: F--
• June 9^th – Tim Burton's Batman  Grade: F---

Oh, and one more thing.  When discussing Batman you eventually get down to "who is the best Batman?"  So I'll do this real quick: Keaton is the best singular Batman, Val Kilmer is decent all around, Clooney is a good Bruce Wayne only, Bale is ridiculous everywhere, Adam West is Adam West, and the only REAL Batman is Kevin Conroy.  But that's just my opinion.

BONUS GRADES:

Batman Returns ........................... Grade: A++

Batman Forever ............................... Grade: C

Batman and Robin ......................... Grade: F+

Batman Begins ................................. Grade: B

The Dark Knight ............................... Grade: A

The Dark Knight Rises ................... Grade: D--

Batman the Movie .......................... Grade: D+

Batman Mask of the Phantasm ..... Grade: A++

Batman Under the Red Hood .......... Grade: B+