Rickshaw Law - The Finale: Rochester Lawyers Enzo Prosciutto and H.P. Barnes are forced to take the law into their own hands to stop all this rickshaw bullsh#% once and for all.
In the wake of the rickshaw uprising, Rochester Lawyer Enzo Prosciutto unveils a dark secret about his past. Meanwhile, his beloved law partner H.P. Barnes also reveals a dark secret... about Prosciutto's past.
Hello, Internet So I stopped posting blogs for a while. Reason
being that I got tired of writing about movies as opposed to making
them. So my absence has been so that I may return to production... Yeah, I know. No one cares... The following video is a "making-of" for a cheese
commercial that a friend and I embarked upon and will probably never see
the light of day... but the outtakes are pretty funny. Check out the
newly transformed Shooting From The Hip, now in video.
You could say that most of M. Night Shyamalan's movies should be on this list. Signs had the worst acting and possibly the worst climax I've ever seen. The Last Airbender was just a monumental joke. However, I choose The Happening based on it being M. Night's supposed "comeback movie" and then sucking 100% ass in almost every regard. It sums up pretty much the constant disappointment that has become his career.
M. Night started out with a lot of promise. The Sixth Sense was pretty much M. Night's retelling of The Shining, but without the hotel. It had a twist that shocked the world unless you're Director Doug Brown, who had no idea until 2002 that Bruce Willis' character was a ghost. He just thought he was cold all the time. But I don't know if M. Night can really be credited with the success of The Sixth Sense. The cast was utterly superb. You had Bruce Willis in his only performance where he didn't use a gun; Haley Joel Osment earning that Oscar nod; and Donnie Wahlberg, who gets very little credit for his terrifying performance as an escaped lunatic. But movie after movie, M. Night's films went from hokey to bad, to absolutely horrible. Twelve years later, his name has become synonymous with several of the worst movies ever made. Yet, for some reason, he keeps getting budgets of $130,000,000 when filmmakers like me can't even get a f$%@ing handshake.
The Happening stars Mark Wahlberg as Elliot Moore, a high school teacher caught up (somehow) in a strange epidemic. For some reason, mass groups of people are committing suicide without reason or rational explanation. Not knowing how to handle this, the characters flea the city in a vain attempt to get away from... whatever this is. Shyamalan described his idea as being in the same vein as "The Birds and Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Incorrect statement, sir. Those are actually good films. This is most definitely not. Even its star, Wahlberg himself claimed, "It was a
really bad movie... F%$@ it. It is what it is. F&%$ing trees, man.
The plants. F@#$ it. You can’t blame me for not wanting to try to play a
science teacher. At least I wasn’t playing a cop or a crook." Well,
there you have it, folks. Don't ever accuse Marky Mark of not standing by his director. But that being said, f%$@ing trees is right and we'll get back to that...
My biggest problem with The Happening is that a movie about mass suicide is a cheap shot in my mind. Suicide is something that generally rubs everybody wrong (I would hope). Exposing us to an hour and a half of it is kind of tasteless. It does lead to a handful of interesting sequences: There's the opening where construction workers throw themselves off a building, which is a pretty stark image. One sequence follows a gun that multiple people shoot themselves with. Kinda creative. But then there's the sequence where everyone is watching a video of a man who walks into a tiger cage and taunts the beast until it mauls him. To me, watching people watching a video on someone's phone is about as scary as seeing you're coworkers watching youtube videos of puppies at work.
The whole time I was watching this, I was thinking that none of these deaths are actually scary, just unsettling and not in a good way. If you were going to make a horror movie like The Birds or Invasion of the Body Snatchers, don't you think an epidemic of mass murder would make more sense? It would definitely raises the stakes. Characters would be forced to defend themselves rather than be airy, whimpering, passive, wussies.The threat would actually be a physical thing rather than just a looming conceptual one. Mass suicide for me just feels self-defeating, which is the nature of suicide I guess... and also in very poor taste...
Typically, all M. Night movies end with a twist. That's pretty much his signature, one that has gradually become a joke over time. And as Wahlberg stated, it's f*%$ing trees. Yep. Turns out the root of all the outbreaks are trees in the end... I mean, really? Trees?! Trees were the cause of all this mass hysteria? Trees?! Trees are your twist?! That's the best you could do, M. Night?! Trees?!
Another reason I picked this film is that it's got M. Night's worst twist of all his films. In a lot of cases, the twist is the only reason for watching. In this one, it's the most disappointing part. I probably would have been happier with absolutely nothing rather than f&@$ing trees. Sorry if this is a spoiler for some, but I might have just saved you the biggest disappointment of your film-viewing life.
For your viewing displeasure, Mark Wahlberg pulling an Emilio Estevez in Maximum Overdrive and talking to the tree in his office. If you wanna learn how to talk to trees, Mark, take lessons from Hugh Jackman.
The title alone gives you a pretty good idea what Gymkata is about. I rented it having seen it reviewed by Red Letter Media and was wondering how a ninja/gymnast movie would hold up. I was pleasantly surprised with most of it, and absolutely terrified with some. That's right. I said terrified. All in all, most of what Gymkata offered were a lot of surprises I did not expect, making it a very worthwhile bad movie.
The plot is surprisingly complicated. While watching Gymkata, I almost found it almost impossible to know what was happening. I knew there was a deadly game involved, but wasn't sure why the main character Jonathan Cabot (Kurt Thomas) had any interested. Turns out Johnathon Cabot is a gymnastics champ whose father at one time took part in this deadly game and lost, losing his life as well. The game itself is an endurance test held in a fictional country called Parmistan (which will come up again later), where the contestants avoid obstacles and run from Parmistanian warriors bent on killing them. If a contestant wins, he is granted one wish of his choosing.
So early in the movie, our hero Johnathon is approached by the SIA (Special Intelligence Agency) about entering the tournament so that if he wins, they can use his one wish to set up a satellite monitoring station for the Star Wars Program... Yep. That is what they want to do with his only wish. What assholes. Also, this is also the only non-animated movie I've ever seen where wishes are actually part of the plot-line. But Johnathon also has his own reasons for entering the tournament. If Johnathon wins the game, he will be honoring his father and accomplishing what he could not... Wow. So yes, a lot going on, but is anyone really watching it for the plot? No. So let's see some more Gymkata.
The star Kurt Thomas was an actual Olympic Gymnastics winner. So for an unassuming, nimble little white-boy, he's got some sweet moves and manages to execute them with noticably more grace than JCVD (which takes a bit of the grit out of it). The action sequences in the movie, though low-budget, are competently made. You watch them, ooh'ing and ah'ing as Kurt Thomas gracefully kicks some ass. Is Kurt convincing in that sense? Very much so. Is he an action star? No. No, not at all. It's hard to take an action hero series who oddly looks a lot like Wayne Gretzky and dresses like... well, like a dork. I mean seriously, would you be able to take JCVD seriously if he wore a Christmas sweater? So agility is no question. Kurt does a good job kicking ass, especially in the scene where he fights an entire village using only a pummel horse... But as far as be imtidating, well...
Kurt's presence aside, the location of the movie was the most off-putting thing about it. Fictional countries seem to only work in Perfect Strangers or children's cartoons. I refer you to Genosha in X-Men. But when you create one for a movie, you're fall subject to some problems, such as race, ethnicity, culture, etc. Little things. And yet, when you create a country that doesn't have any of those (minus barbaric gaming), you get the great Parmistan, a country named after a cheese-topping, populated by lazy-eyed extras, and decorated with a mix of Russian, Amish, Islamic, Scottish, and Asian stereotypes. It's pretty much a case of "The East" for those of you not familiar with Orientalism. Simply put: in North America's eyes, whatever isn't the west is the east. (Better examples of this can be found in the Italian Sword & Sandal Films, more specifically involving the dance sequences.)
Another strange aspect of the setting is that the characters need to make it through "The Village of the Crazies," a village populated with deadly lunatics. It's a fifteen minute sequence near the end of the film and is as strange and terrifying as anything David Lynch has ever made. John is forced to do battle with maniac after maniac, each with their own brand of psychotic.
I guess mental health is a bit of a grey area in the Parmistanian government. The Village of the Crazies might not be a sequence many will enjoy, but I thought it gave the movie a bit of edge from being just another generically bad action film.
Gymkata is a lot of fun and worth seeing for some decent action and a good string of laughs.
For your viewing displeasure, the "Village of The Crazies" sequence in full.
"Super Mario Bros." (1993), Dir: Annabel Jankel & Rocky Morton
$48 million in Budget vs. $20,915,465 in Gross
I'm sure you all remember the evolution of Nintendo. Oh, yes. From the dusty, old, 8-bit original Nintendo to the game-changing Super Nintendo in all it's color and 16-bit glory. But the kids buying these technical marvels had no interest in the technology involved. Our understanding of Nintendo came through the ever-changing, ever-evolving spokes-character Super Mario and his brother Luigi. Then it was announced that a Super Mario Bros film was being made. Suddenly, every kid who saw The Wizard was ecstatic with anticipation. When it was finally released, millions of young video gamers went to the theaters, started watching, and quickly asked themselves, "What the f&$# is this?" The answer to that question is simple: the most expensive betrayal of our childhood prior to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace rearing its ugly head.
I watched this movie recently, trying to figure out what the thinking behind this big-budget disaster was. Now that I am much older and have more of an education than when I was ten, I have a couple theories. Picture yourself as the guy in charge of making The Super Mario Bros. movie. It's a tough gig. You're in charge of one of the biggest non-film franchises in history and are obligated to a planet of children to not disappoint them. That being said, what is your most rational course of thinking?
Well, firstly, when there is kids involved, so the safest bet is an animated movie (like we've seen with the recent Lego movie coming out.) Makes sense. Cartoons are cheaper. Cartoons are less risk. Cartoons need less explaining. Parents are likely to bring kids to a cartoon because they're generally harmless. (It should be noted that the most recent Super Smash Brothers game for the Nintendo Wii had an animated story involving the entire Nintendo universe and accomplished that without using any dialogue.) But no, the overlords at Nintendo just put down $2 million dollars to give the rights of the character (temporarily) to a film studio. Back then, $2 million clams would have been the entire budget for an animated film, so, needless to say, they expected something a little more substantial.
So the more logical cartoon idea is out. Okay. Next question: How do you bring Mario to the real world? How do you explain the warp whistle, the pipes, the mushrooms, the Goombas, the turtles with wings, any of that to an audience paying money to see this? What possible logical connection can one make for any of these elements to co-exist in the same world together?
Next, who does one cast to play these characters? Well, Bob Hoskins is a rounded, portly fella. Kids already know him from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (or if you were a kid like me, The Long Good Friday), so he would make a great Mario. And for Luigi, well, who other than Fox's soon-to-be House of Buggin's host, John Leguizamo? Hmm. Well, he kinda looks Italian (but is actually Colombian) and comes across pretty dopey. Definitely not the worst casting choice in the world. But then there's the challenge: who do you cast for King Koopa, a giant, fire-breathing monster that lives in a flying castle? Oh, that's easy! Dennis Hopper of course! That's right! Star of Blue Velvet, and also one of the most notorious coke-heads in all of Hollywood. What kid wouldn't recognize "The Hop" and love seeing him King Koopa, even though the filmmakers made no effort to make the two look alike at all?
Finally, what kind of mood should the picture be? What would the Mario world be like if it were in our world? I know! A Blade Runner-esque wasteland with mutants and jet packs and crazed dictators. Oh yeah. Kids will love that... Well, no. No, they didn't. Not in the slightest. Of all its flaws, this is where the Super Mario Bros. movie fell flat on its face. Playing any of the Mario games, you'll clearly see that the colors are bright, the music is always jovial, the characters are dancing, even if they are your sworn enemies with them, and everyone is very happy and very contented in their little universe (minus Princess Daisy perhaps). So why when making a Super Mario Bros. movie does one stray so far from the merry little world that the two universes cannot even be compared, even slightly? And also, what's with all the f%$@ing slime everywhere? Is this Alien Resurrection or something?!
I will never forgive Hollywood or Nintendo for The Super Marios Bros. movie. I can understand the frustration in trying to find the logistics in making this movie work, but if doing so was that hard to begin with, then why make it all? Next time (and I'm sure we're due) think like Lego did and stick to cartoons.
And for your viewing pleasure, the live-action Mario TV show from the 1980s that also did not reflect the game, but at least had the jovial tone right...
I had seen North when it first came out in theaters in 1994. I was young, but remember enjoying it. Not until doing research had I discovered North is pretty much universally hated as a film. Both Siskel and Ebert nominated it as the worst movie of 1994 and many consider it to be one of the worst movies of all time. Wow... But to be honest, I don't really get the general hatred towards this film. Maybe my standards have dropped with my increasing age, but this is the first movie on my list where I really don't understand why everyone hates it so much.
One of the few things I can think of that I dislike about North is its opening credits. The film opens with a series of soft-focus shots of North's toys on his desk. Personally, I felt it looked cheap and did not reflect the tone of the film at all. If this was Rob Reiner's way of letting us know that we're watching a kid's film, well, thanks. Apart from Bruce Willis' lackluster voice-over work, I can't really say much else that bothered me about this movie, besides the ending, which we'll get to that...
So what is it that bothered everyone else so much about this movie? Well, firstly, the plot centers around a boy-genius named North (Elijah Wood) who is the picture-perfect son and envy of every family, except his own. Unable to cope with his insensitive parents, North decides to become a free-agent, causing a major media stir as the world follows in anticipation of his journey to find more fitting parents... So, from what I've read from most reviews, people found the plot unrealistic. Okay. But it's a movie, and a kid's movie at that, so it's not really supposed to be realistic, is it? Secondly, North comes across as a bit selfish in his desire to find better parents... but when you have a nagging Julia Louis-Dreyfus (in a terrible wig) as your mother and Jason Alexander as a mid-life crisis father saying that he "found blood in his stool," well, I don't entirely blame him for wanting to explore his options. Thirdly, a lot of critics claimed that the film showed no respect towards parents and didn't treat the family unit as having any value. Maybe so, but if you were a kid growing up in the 90s, it's likely your parents found a great replacement for your babysitter. That's right. Television. And if you're parents were plopped in front of the TV all night until they got back, Bart Simpson and Al Bundy were more likely you're real babysitters; so in terms of knocking down good old family values, North didn't really teach us kids of the 90s anything TV hadn't already...
One thing I will agree with most critics on is that the characters of North are vulgar, callous, and superficial... Can't imagine a movie starring the cast of Seventh Heaven having that many gut-busters. In fact, North's portrayal of children reminded me a lot of the very precocious youngsters of Wes Anderson's movies. Critics also claimed the humor didn't seem intended for children... Maybe it wasn't. The blood-in-the-stool joke made by Jason Alexander did actually throw me off during my most recent viewing, but the 1990 Nicholas Roeg film Witches (based on a book the Roald Dahl) had children being turned to mice and killed, and that holds a rare 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. No one seemed to think that was too much for kids. The only difference between Witches and North is that violence is okay, but toilet humor isn't.
Humor aside, a lot of critics also claimed to find the movie offensive, especially in its stereotyping of, well, Texans, Samoans, The Inuit (featuring Kathy Bates in red face), The Amish, Africans, Chinese, French, etc... but compared to a modern episode of Family Guy or American Dad, the film's cultural insensitivity is pretty mild by today's standards. For me, the most offensive thing about North was the ending. Turns out that it's all just a dream. Yep. The whole movie, complete with voice-over narration, was just one big dream. North had fallen asleep in the mall and his loving parents have been worried sick about him.The family is reunited and all's well that ends well... Just as an aside, if you've ever take a screenwriting class, that is the first lesson in how not to piss off your audience... not to mention the blatant endorsement for Fedex.
But all in all, it's a bit shocking to me how violently opposed people are to this movie. I didn't think it deserved that much disdain. Am I alone in this? And for your viewing displeasure, Siskel and Ebert's initial and hateful review of North...
"Highlander 2: The Quickening" (1991), Dir: Russell Mulcahy
$34 million in Budget vs. $15,556,340 in Gross
Oh, the cunning Franchise Killer. Yes, the Richard Donner Superman franchise and Tim Burton's Batman franchise were among many of its victims (arguably surviving, just to run the same course again), but some victims of thismurderer of artistic merit never even had a chance. The Highlander franchise is definitely one of those victims...
Having aged greatly on my part and seen the first Highlander movie several times now, the most credit I can give the original is that it still holds up as a neat idea. Immortals walking amongst us to do battle in the streets with swords is pretty cool. The rest of the original is a bad 80s special effects film (looking a lot like a Queen/Pink Floyd video) with a soundtrack by Queen (arguably the best part of the movie). But in the end, Connor MacLeod (Christoper Lambert) conquered the bad guys, was granted the ability to live a normal life, and retired to Scotland. How could they ever imagine bringing the character back after all that? Well, they couldn't really, but did anyway, resulting in this giant, unimaginative, steaming pile of stool.
One of the charms of the first Highlander film for me was its narrative simplicity. Early on in the film, we are introduced to MacLeod, learn that he is immortal, and that the Kurgan (the unforgettable Clancy Brown) wants MacLeod's powers for himself. Four hundred years earlier, Ramirez (played by Sean Connery) gives us a quick rundown of the rules of the immortals, so the cards are on the table and we're set to take part in this badass game of elimination. Simple. Effective. To the point. The subsequent sequel, however, had to get fancy and throw all that simplicity out the window for stray cats to nibble on.
Highlander II: The Quickening is set in a future where the ozone layer has evaporated and a force field is the only thing keeping earth alive (invented by Connor MacLeod, who was an antiques dealer in the first movie and never mentioned anything about having a scientific background). Now much older, he is hated by everyone and treated like garbage for saving human existence... Ungrateful jerks. No wonder he's looking forward to dying. But suddenly Connor has a whole whack of problems when the evil immortals from his home planet come to earth to f%$& sh$% up...
Wait. Let's back up a second. The Highlander is an alien?! Really?! Since when did that happen? The first movie made no point or hint of that. Most audiences would've thought "Wait, isn't the Highlander from Scotland?", hence the name Highlander and most of the first film taking place in Scotland, but no, this Highlander's apparently from Planet Zeist... So yeah, this second movie just slips in some crappy alien origin storyline as if none of us with a working brain would have even noticed. Now, apparently back on Planet Zeist, MacLeod and Ramirez (not the most alien-sounding names) were captured as part of some treacherous rebel group and exiled to be reborn on earth. How they accomplish that God-like feat (not to mention the evil immortals would've had to do the exact same thing for all the other hundreds of immortals who were somehow magically reborn on earth for the first movie) is beyond me. But all that aside, this entire subplot is, well, a rip-off Superman's origins... Yeah, I know. Who cares?
Anyways, led by everyone's go-to-casting-choice-for-a-villain, Michael Ironside, General Katana and these evil immortals somehow manage to penetrate the shield protecting earth's atmosphere. From there, they fail at killing a very tired, very old man, and accidentally restore MacLeod's powers of immortality so he can be young and handsome again. But while MacLeod does the old Highlander electric-light-show song and dance, following the advice he got on Planet Zeist, MacLeod screams out Ramirez's name. Then (somehow) brings his old friend back from the dead... so they can kill people and make hammy jokes about it... and then Ramirez just dies again...
Yeah, this whole movie is just a mess. As well as being one of the elusive Franchise Killer's many victims, it's also early signs of Sean Connery's inability to recognize a bloody awful script from the 1990s (having three of his films from that era on this list). The latter Highlander films aren't much better. From this one, I enjoyed seeing MacLeod as an old man (for fifteen minutes), learning insults of the future ("Hey, cheese-di$%!"), and enjoyed the future battle between Old Man MacLeod and the two meth-head immortals with jet packs. What I didn't enjoy was the lack of coherence for one, the fact that there was no gratuitous Highlander sex scene (as in the first, third, and fourth), and a sore lack of Queen soundtrack.
Two sequels followed this, a bad TV series and some animated films. The franchise clearly peaked after the first entry and has been in a state of decay ever since. Last year, there was rumors of a reboot with Taylor Lautner in the works, but those have disappeared, thankfully. I'll stick with my VHS copy of the original, thanks...Wait a minute. This franchise has for the most part sucked ass. Maybe it's ripe for a fixin'... or maybe not and just come up with something original.
And for your viewing displeasure, the opening of the movie including the Planet Ziest storyline, bad voice-over narration, and crappy special effects...
Sometimes, it's great to be a man. When I first saw the movie Nemesis, I realized that this movie pretty much had everything: action, robots, bewbs, explosions, robots fighting other robots. What more could a horny, raging, adolescent teenager ask for? Well, maybe a touch of story for one... a little less narration telling us the character's inner-feelings... some acting notso bad that literally every line had to be dubbed... a better ending maybe (that isn't exactly like the first Terminator), or even a satisfying one? Yes, these are the things the movie lacks and makes it arguably bad, but for what it offers in terms of overwhelming, action extravaganzas, one has to sacrifice any expectations of intellectual satisfaction to enjoy this film.
Rising from the ashes of the legendary Cannon Group and coming off Cyborg, a very similar film, Albert Pyun's movie opens with our main character Alex bringing back a hooker to his hotel room. The hooker insists on checking him to make sure he's not an undercover. Well, turns out Alex is, popping her one in the face -- BOOM! -- and thus revealing that she is actually a cyborg posing as a woman (awkward!). Shethen says to Alex, "Goddamn cop!" and Alex rebutts "Goddamn terrorist," quickly finishing her off -- BOOM! And that's how the movie begins. Yes,indeed,the perfect man-movie.
Picking up from that sequence, the title character Alex (Olivier Gruner, the poor man's JCVD) runs from a group of terrorists dressed like 1980s Havana vacationers into probably the most excessive, outlandish action sequence I can recall. The terrorists and Alex exchange endless rounds (which a co-worker pointed out to me that their guns never recoil) and then up the anti with explosives, causing probably more explosions in the first 10 minutes than T2 had entirely (I counted 16 at least). But for all it's awesomeness, I think there's been only six lines of dialogue spoken at this point, or even less, so there's not much story to follow...
I can't really tell you what the story to Nemesis is because it's very confusing. Alex is partly machine, but seems to have come to terms with the fact; so you can't really say it's about man vs. machine, or even a man vs. himself because being part machine is what gives Alex the ability to fighttheother cyborgs, and fighting cyborgs is what makes his character so f*&%ing awesome, so we just whatever is thrown at us.
Back to story: So after surviving his battle with the Havana terrorists, Alex goes forth to hunt down the only survivor on their side and guns her down months later... Well, there's another plot-line out the window. What now? Well, what happens next is he quits the LAPD to become a freelance trigger-man, but the LAPD wants him for one last mission: to find and kill a terrorist named Jared. Later, we discover that Jared is actually a woman, and not only a woman, but already dead... except that her memory core survived somehow, so to keep those memories safe, they must be implanted into Alex's cybernetic eye...
Okay. Yeah. You know what. Even trying to type out this plot-line confuses me, and it doesn't stop there. If you haven't figured it out yet, the story is not the point. Similarly to other over-stylish 90s action-films, like The Replacement Killers or anything by John Woo, Nemesis' story means nothing. Now, that brand of thinking sounds kinda bad and, yes, the rejection of any form of intellectual stimulation is probably why most modern movies just plain suck ass these days; but in the case of this low-budget, low-brow Terminator knock-off, what really are one's expectations? Simple: action, style, soundtrack, and Mira Sorvino with her bewbs hanging out the whole movie. Shameless, yes, but this is why you watch these movies, to satisfy the simpleton in you, to give a high-five to that former teenager who just wants pure excess and wants it right now.
Unfortunately, that means that most men will probably watch this film alone. Women will have no interest, guaranteed, and especially after the tasteless nude scenes with former USA Beauty Queen Deborah Shelton and Fitl On Film's blog favorite -- you guessed it -- Tom Jane, and not Coolio. So for all the guys, go grab yourself a six pack, go to your local video store (or youtube), get some chips, and let Nemesis just take over your mind.
And for your mindless viewing pleasure, an opening scene that I don't think any man can say no to... minus the hack voice-over narration...
It's time, my friends. Time to ask where Batman went so wrong? Why did such a beloved character deserve such a hateful artistic stoning? And even worse, why is Chris O'Donnellstill alive? Why, why, why?
With the release of Batman & Robin came a number of career casualties: Joel Schumacher made an apology to Batman fans for killing the franchise. The public has sorta forgiven George Clooney for being the worst Batman since, well, Batmite. Chris O'Donnell should have been made a sacrifice to the vengeful theater-going Gods for such florid blasphemy. 90s hottie Alicia Silverstone got downgraded to D-Movie Hot Girl. Uma Thurman should just be ashamed of herself. The laughable Bane got a badass makeover in Chris Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, even though neither reflect the character from the comics. And no amount of Arnie's action movie puns could save this train wreck. I remember going to see Batman & Robin with my entire family, which I shortly realized was exactly what Warner Brothers wanted out of this new franchise installment. Since infancy, I've lived and breathed Batmanreligiously. He is still my favorite fictional character, and it's doubtful that will change.
At the time, though, and under the false impression that Batman Forever had actually been a good movie, (mainly because of Jim Carrey's performance as The Riddler) the next film was to feature Mr. Freeze as the main villain and I was very excited. Bringing probably as much pathos and sympathy to the Batman Universe as the title character himself, Mr. Freeze is Batman's only reluctant villain. His goal has always been to save his dying wife Nora, a sympathetic one but alas one that also makes him very dangerous too. With a varied but fascinating history in comics and television, it seemed like a great choice... then they cast Arnold Schwarzenneger in the role.
A grave misstep, yes, but could Arnold really be blamed for the entire movie falling apart? With three feature films and an animated series all in one decade, I think Batman was getting a little played out in the public eye, (Did you guys hear that Ben Affleck's gonna be the next Batman?) and nobody wanted the same old song.
Prior to the movie's production, I picture the Warner Brothers' executive board having a catered lunch and trying to decide what needs to change with this fourth Batman installment to keep the franchise fresh (and probably used the same school of thinking as Lucasfilm did with Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull). "Guys, we need to make Batman something the whole family can enjoy. Husbands, wives, kids, grandmas, grandpas! So let's go ahead and lose the whole depressing witnessing-his-parents-being-murdered thing. I'm sure he'd be over that by now. Get rid of all the gritty urban futurism and replace that with neon lights and C.G.I. instead, and as far as the Tim Burton's movies go, f&%$ 'em and his little Frankenweenie too."
Now, I'm pretty 50/50 with the Burton films, (in fact, pretty 50/50 with all Batman films), but at least Burton knew to steer clear from the campy Adam West series and stick with the darker, moodier settings and villains the comic books had. But alas, we ended up revisiting the Adam West Days and added Schumacher's stamp of gay culture to the iconic characters' mythology as well (I refer you to the bat nipples). I have no problem with gay culture, but I think most gay men would probably agree with me that they'd rather see pretty boy Zachary Quinto from Heroes being a psychotic, badass Demi-God than another flash of Clooney's blatant plastic package...
Bat nipples and bat crotch aside, the film's also just plain stupid, from Mr. Freeze's singing hockey team to the f*&%ing Bat Credit Card, to Bane reduced from a super-genius to mindless idiot, to the climatic giant freeze gun (no one saw that coming), and finally appearance by Fitl On Film's blog favorite -- that's right -- Coolio himself! Do any of these ideas sound... good... to anyone? Maybe the studio stopped making Batman films for eight years for a very good reason. At that point, I was pretty much done with these movies. I didn't like Batman Begins, but Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises swayed my return. But now that Mr. Affleck and Legend Killer Zack Snyder have taken over the franchise, I feel as if we are entering another West/Clooney Era. Eight years from now when they reboot the franchise again, this will be known as TheAffleck Era, and then shortly renamed TheWest/Clooney/Affleck Syndrome. Hm... See you again in eight years.
And for your viewing displeasure, Honest Trailers takes a biting stab at this mess.
