In Defense of Joel Schumacher's Batman!

It's important to remember that Joel Schumacher, by his own admission, was a Batman fan. Had he had his way, he might have adapted the seminal comic book story, Batman: Year One. Alas, that's not what was made. For what he delivered in 1995, Batman Forever is not a bad film, and looks incredible. It's the most comic book looking version of Gotham City with its fascistic architecture, neon lights and colorful alleyways. There's a darkness to the city that looks more like something out of a mid-1990's music video on MTV than the dirty, mysterious, expressionistic metropolis that Burton gave us in 1989. So, yes! Gotham looks like the Gotham that was appearing in the comics of the mid to late 90's: colorful, overblown, and big. The other sets all feel very much like Batman to me, and the "Forever batmobile" was my favorite as a kid (since I was teen however, I lean hard to the '89 Burton-mobile).

The costumes were quite good for their time as well. The batsuit known as the "Panther suit" was a sleek and sexy update from the first Keaton suit. But then rubber nipples were added. They make no sense, are garish, homo-erotic and unnecessary. They add nothing to the film at all... except unintentional humor. "Tee-hee, Hee-hee! Look at those nips, oh my god!" My point is, the Panther suit, sans the nipples, was quite good. Robin's costume is the closest to the Neal Adams Tim Drake design that we are likely to ever see in a major Hollywood production... again, it looks great, sans the nipples, though it coukd have been a little less metallic and shiny. The "Sonar" suit was reminiscent of many of Batman's alternate costumes over the years in the comics. The villain costumes are also excellent. As far as aesthetically, they are striking, pretty accurate to the source material and fit the overall look of the film... even if the Two-Face makeup could have been redesigned to look more realistic.

The acting is quite over the top, at least in the cases of the villains and, if the script had been less ham-fisted, more thoughtful in its approach and played with more drama, the overall film would have been much better. The problem comes in the fact that the movie is incapable of juggling its tones. It wants to be serious and dramatic but is also far too campy and loud. Where I think the film shines is in its drama. I think Kilmer was an excellent Batman and a thoughtful, charming Bruce Wayne. His performance shows that he understands Batman. Chris O'Donnell was as good as the script called for. I believed him as Robin and bought his trauma. Overall, I enjoy the film and think if Jim Carrey and T.L. Jones (both very capable actors) had the opportunity for more serious performances, had the drama outpaced the humor, this film would be highly regarded today. This film had potential.

Batman and Robin is an entirely different animal. Rather than dissect it completely, all I can offer is what I like about it and, perhaps offer some suggestions to what might have improved it. I think, like its predecessor, the film is great looking. The cinematography is tight and it feels like a dark comic book movie, in places. Most of the film is a fever dream, an acid trip. This comes down to a bad script. Mostly.

George Clooney's sincerity as Bruce Wayne proves that he could have been a better Batman than he was. I'm not sure that his acting range would have allowed for a "Dark Knight" type of grim avenger, but with a better script, and a better suit, he could have done better. Chris O'Donnell's performance feels phoned in, but it's consistent with his portrayal of Dick Grayson in the previous movie. I always liked the Nightwing inspired costume too. Barbara, as played by Alicia Silverstone is wrong. But, I'm a fan of Babs Gordon in the comics. Sometimes, I feel like if she dyed her hair red and had given a less wooden performance, she could have been great... that is, IF she had been Jim Gordon's daughter. Then again, I'm not sure if she is a good enough actress to tackle the brainy, determined Commissioner's daughter from the comics. The villains were great looking, but the acting was bad. Uma Thurman looked like Ivy but her performance was dreadful... she's a better actress than what the script called for. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Freeze, again, he looked the part and his suit was awesome. The performance however, and the numerous sight gags and ice puns, were not what a Batman film needed. Bane, well, it wasn't the character from Knightall. He wasn't cunning or strategic, just more of a hulking brute.

I think Schumacher is a great director who was gifted with talented actors. The studio, the scripts by Akiva Goldsman, and the insistence to tone down these films into pop-oriented summer entertainment is what hurt these films. I really enjoy Batman Forever and I think it deserves a better legacy. Batman and Robin has some amazing looking scenes and shots. Aesthetically, it's not really that bad. Even the plot is decent. But too many one-liners, too much camp and the over-the-top nature of the film make this one of the worst films of all time. Had the stars aligned, had Schumacher been given more control and a better script, Batman and Robin would not be a bad movie. 

Spawn: The Poster Child of The Dark Age of Comics

Spawn, created by Todd McFarlane, was THE comic book character that ushered in the 1990's Dark Age of Comics. He has his antecedents and the precedent for characters like him were set by the culture of the late 80's. Not only was Spawn (and characters like him) brought about because of the sophistication and mature themes of comics like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, but also popular rock music of the time and the youth-centered culture of MTV.

Debuting in May of 1992, Spawn #1 sold 1.7 million copies and, for a long time, was the biggest selling indie-comic of all time. The book tells the story of Al Simmons, a mercenary that works for the U.S. Security Group, a government agency commanded by Director Jason Wynn. When Wynn sets him up, he is killed and goes to Hell. Making a deal with the demon, Malebolgia, Simmons agrees to become a Hellspawn and lead Hell's army if he is allowed to see his wife, Wanda, one last time. Simmons returns to the living realm, badly burned and under supervision of Violator, a demon disguised as a clown. After his death and subsequent rebirth, Simmons is now Spawn, a powerful Hellspawn who is thrust into several adventures where he takes down street gangs and organized crime in the city of New York.

I was about 7 years old when Spawn debuted and completely missed out. I was most intrigued by the action figure line of the the mid to late 1990's. By that time, McFarlane Toys was a powerhouse in the toy industry and Spawn figures were everywhere. The character always intrigued me for his darkness and edginess. His storyline was always very intriguing, but I would not read the comics until I was much older.

I did catch the 3-season Spawn animated series at various times as a kid. It debuted in 1997 on HBO and seemed so adult, mature, and sophisticated at the time that I was instantly a fan. It was made for mature audiences but was not very sophisticated. The animation is very well done by 90's standards but the story can be very deliberately paced. I still enjoy it when I see it these days, though I recommend watching it in one 6 hour block. It unfolds very well if you watch it in one sitting and tells a compelling story. If you watch it over time, it is not as easy to digest.

Also in 1997, the Spawn movie was released in theaters. I watched it for the first time in the late 1990's and thought it was well done. It's a basic origin story with a decent plot. Even with it's bad CGI and mediocre special effects, by today's standards, it's an entertaining, dark actioner. There are some corny bits but, if you're a comic book fan, it can be enjoyable. It does routinely get thrown on the "Worst Comic Book Movies of All Time" list. I disagree. It's fairly well done for a 90's action film and is a decent adaptation of the early Spawn book. I think at the very least, if you're a Spawn fan, you should get something out of it.

There are some comic book readers, veterans of the hobby, who dismiss Spawn as a product of the 90's, an edgy, overblown summation of the comic book Dark Age. For many, he belongs in the 90's and is not very compelling. I disagree. For me, he's far more than that. Spawn is a timeless character who sells his soul so that he can reunite with his loved ones, a violent man at war with himself.

I would recommend watching the animated show at least. If you want to read the comics, start at the beginning with issue #1 and read until about issue 50, at least. If you still like it, keep going. The comic is quite well done, especially the early issues, some of which were written by Grant Morrison and Alan Moore. That said, as with any back issue comic book, it can be dated. But what do you think? Do you like Spawn? Is he a cool concept or, does he amount to nothing more than the ultimate edgy, dark antihero?