Shazam (2019) – Review and Analysis

 

I recently watched the 2o19 Shazam film, again, because the first time I saw it… I didn't know what to make of it. I’ve read a lot of the original Bill Parker/Otto Binder/C.C. Beck Golden Age stories, some of DC’s 1970s revival by Denny O'neil and Elliot Maggin et al, Paul Dini/Alex Ross’ Power of Hope, Jeff Smith’s remake of the classic Golden Age story, The Monster Society of Evil, Jerry Ordway’s Power of Shazam!, Judd Winick’s Superman-Shazam: First Thunder, and Grant Morrison's Thunderworld #1. Originally, the Captain Marvel character was a vaguely separate identity from Billy, though sometimes they shared thoughts and were implied, at times, to be the same person. In the 1980s, the underwhelming and poorly received New Beginning storyline—by Roy and Dan Thomas with art by Tom Mandrake—made Billy and the Captain a single person. Jerry Ordway’s wonderful reintroduction of the mythos in 1994 followed suit. Billy Batson is Captain Marvel. Captain Marvel is Billy Batson.

On a technical level, 2019’s Shazam is a beautiful film. The special effects are perfect. The lighting and the set design is stellar. The wizard SHAZAM looks incredible, as does the Rock of Eternity. I would have preferred Captain Marvel's costume to be closer to the 18^th century Prussian soldier uniform that he has worn in a lot of the comics, as opposed to a big red onesie. Still, this film is a visual feast! The soundtrack (at least the main orchestral title by Ben Wallfisch) is fitting of a 1940s Parker/Binder/Beck story and is absolutely inspiring: one of the better superhero themes of modern cinema. 

The overall story/plot is engaging and a relatively tidy 21^st century update on the Captain Marvel/Shazam mythology. Where the film suffers is in characterization… they have renamed Captain Marvel into Shazam! The legal difficulties with Marvel Comics DO NOT technically forbid DC from calling the character Captain Marvel inside a work (comics, cartoons, books, films, etc.). All comics, films, packaging etc. must dub ONLY THE TITLE: SHAZAM! Because DC owns the Captain Marvel copyright... Marvel owns the Captain Marvel trademark... And trademark is a brand, not a copyright. So, why they didn’t call Billy Captain Marvel in the movie while marketing the film as Shazam! is because DC has decided (since 2o11) to play it safe and rename the good Captain, Shazam! But that’s the wizard’s name. It kinda defeats the purpose of the whole concept, in my opinion. Again, DC DOES HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT to call the character Captain Marvel as long as the title/branding of the work is Shazam!

This film is based on the 2o11, New 52, comic book run by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank, which reinvents and reboots the Marvel Family completely… as an adaptation of those comics, maybe this movie works… I never read those stories. I don’t think Geoff Johns understands Captain Marvel’s character. Nevertheless, I was entertained when I watched this movie. Warners made a funny, charming adventure flick… however, a lot of the window dressing has changed. There is no Fawcett City in this universe; it's placed in Philadelphia, PA. Characterization of Billy in his Cap (sorry, Shazam!) form is rather obnoxious and resembles very little of the Captain Marvel character or the Marvel Family. Captain Marvel is supposed to have the Wisdom of Solomon. IF the adult hero must have a mind of a 14- or 16-year-old boy, make him a mature 14- to 16-year-old boy. The whimsy and humor of Captain Marvel stories is not supposed to come from the characters themselves, but from the situations. At any rate, the point of this film seems to be that unheroic characters (like Billy Batson) learn to become heroic. Fair enough. But they don’t really get Sivana exactly right either. He's more of a genius tycoon, rather than a thwarted scientist. Oh well! And why does Captain Marvel (Shazam!) have lightning powers? I do remember him having hypnotic powers in the Golden Age, briefly… but I don't think he could ever shoot lightning from his fingers. Weird!

There’s a lot to love about the general tone and plot. The foster kids (Freddy Freeman/Captain Marvel Jr., Mary Bromfield/Mary Marvel, the other foster kids) are all adorable and charming. The film is well acted. I just think the characterization of Captain Marvel/Shazam is not what a Captain Marvel/Shazam movie should be. I’m a little sad because I’m a fan… somewhere in my head is a Captain Marvel movie that has the reverence and verisimilitude of Richard Donner’s Superman! Maybe the sequel will improve things? Fingers crossed!  

A look at the various cuts of Superman: The Movie

I recently watched all the officially released versions of Superman: The Movie as well as “The Final Cut” fan-edit. I came away realizing that the Special Edition is the best version to watch.

The theatrical cut is the tightest version of the film. Honestly, with the Special Edition available since 2001, I rarely watch the theatrical version anymore. It was a nice revisit as this is the cut I grew up with. I understand it’s the preferred version for many fans but those added scenes in the Special Edition have spoiled me and now I just feel like something's missing from this cut.

The “Special Edition” acts as Richard Donner's Director's Cut and, it’s my favorite version to watch. Donner himself has mentioned that this is his preferred edition of the film as well. It features an additional 8 minutes of footage, including new Krypton footage, added dialogue, and the now infamous trap sequences (machine guns, flamethrowers, and a freezing chamber) before Superman enters Luthor’s lair. For me, the added footage enhances the film because it gives us more scenes of Christopher Reeve without being superfluous, and the color grading is enhanced as well. The pacing remains tight and we get more of the movie.

The “Extended Edition”, released on Blu-ray, is the 1981 television cut. This 3-hour-and-8-minute version of the film was the original cut of the film in late 1977 before being re-edited for theatrical release. It first aired cut in two parts as a 2-night event on the ABC network. This version is more commonly called the "Salkind International TV Cut." This cut adds some amazing additional footage of Superman flying that should have been included in the Special Edition, in my opinion. Other than that, it’s a slog to get through. So much unnecessary footage slows the pacing, including whole scenes of added dialogue, and some of the added footage needs to be further color corrected to match the rest of the remastered film. It’s great to watch at least once, or maybe twice, to satisfy curiosity and see what was left out of the theatrical cut, but ultimately, it's not the ideal version. Most of the added scenes don’t really add anything to the film.

The “Final Cut” is a fan-edit by Kathryn Ross, a freelance film editor. This cut of the film runs 2 hours, 56 minutes and incorporates most of the Extended Cut footage while also digitally enhancing or altering many of the effects shots and adding some neat flourishes like added planetary effects in the opening credits. I like this edit much better than the Extended Cut as it is much tighter and the enhanced visual effects add a lot to their respective scenes. Changes in color grading enhance the colors of some scenes and the audio mix has been altered in places. This altered cut even incorporates the opening Daily Planet scene from Superman II: The Donner Cut as a Post-Credit scene. For anyone who may be new to fan edits, there are many different edits of this film. Kathryn Ross' edit is probably the best fan edit of the film. 

Because Superman: The Movie is the best superhero movie ever made, and the grandaddy of all comic book movies, all of these versions offer a fun experience. Each cut adds something that enhances the original theatrical version. The weakest of these remains the “Extended Cut” because of its pacing issues. The “Final Cut” is gorgeous, an admirable attempt at restoring and honoring the film. Donner's “Director's Cut,” a.k.a. the Special Edition, remains the best version. If someone wants to watch this movie, I’d recommend they see each of these cuts, but for my money, the Special Edition is the definitive version.

The Iron Giant (1999) - Review and Analysis

The Iron Giant, for me, is not just one of the greatest animated films ever made. I consider it one of the greatest movies of all time. It does everything a great film should do. It expertly delivers its themes, is well-paced, and makes you feel for the characters. It's the kind of film that can only happen with minimal studio interference, or letting a director and their team do exactly what they need to do to make a great movie.

Based on, or inspired by, the 1968 children's book, The Iron Man: A Children's Story In Five Nights, by British Poet Laureate, Ted Hughes, The Iron Giant was the result of Warner Brothers trying to compete with the success of Disney. Towards the end of the Disney Renaissance, the revival that started with films like The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, Warner Brothers had tried several times to keep up with their rival's animation success, delivering mediocre film after mediocre film. Finally, in 1999, Warners delivered The Iron Giant, a period piece steeped in Cold War era hysteria. It's a tribute to the Atomic Age that tells the story of friendship between Hogarth, a young kid from New England, and a mysterious, giant robot. Hogarth finds the mechanical monster while playing in the woods. In steps Kent Mansley (he works for the government) to spy on Hogarth and ultimately try to capture his new friend. Along the way, we meet Dean McCoppin, a beatnik sculpture artist, who helps hide the Giant when the authorities get too close. By the end of the film, the Giant saves the town of Rockwell from the military's missile assault and, at the very end, the Giant's pieces begin reassembling themselves. Whether or not there was setup for a sequel is a good question. Personally, I'm glad we never saw one. A sequel to such a near-perfect film might only tarnish its legacy.      

The movie had been in development, at least since 1991, when Don Bluth's studio had eyed adapting Ted Hughes novel, but ultimately turned it down. Brad Bird, who had been looking to do a feature saw The Iron Giant as a perfect opportunity. The director reworked the novel into a new concept, pitched it to Warners and the project was greenlit in 1997. However, by the time it was released, despite winning many awards and receiving widespread critical acclaim, The Iron Giant delivered a bomb at the box office. Virtually no marketing campaign existed for the movie. Apparently, the studio had pulled back on promotion after the dismal failure of other movies like Quest for Camelot. Of course, like all classics that don't perform well, The Iron Giant found its great success on home video. 

Now, what makes this movie so great? Well, the story's highly engaging, and the animation is superb. But it's really the astounding voice cast that brings the characters and situations to life. Eli Marienthal plays Hogarth as a wide-eyed, enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky kid. Jennifer Anniston plays Hogarth's overworked and skeptical mom. Harry Connick Jr. plays Dean. Christopher McDonald plays Mansley to a T. John Mahoney is excellent as the annoyed General Rogard. Vin Diesel was an inspired choice for the giant. Even though he delivers few lines, Diesel's deep vocals deliver a naïve, innocent performance that makes you feel for the giant. Each character is so well conceived that its easy to forget that this is supposed to be a "family film."  

If you haven't watched this in a long time, well, there's no time like the present. Like my favorite comic book movies, this is one of those films I can watch anytime and it always puts me in a good mood. It's a great little film, and certainly the best animated film of the 90's, in my opinion. Great for kids and adults alike. 

The Films of Ralph Bakshi

For animation buffs Ralph Bakshi needs no introduction. For the uninitiated, he pioneered the genre of "adult animation" through independent exploitation films in the 1970's. He's an unsung hero to many animators for his contributions to the medium but others view him and his work as little more than a product of 1970's counterculture. 

Born in 1938 in Haifa, Palestine (now part of Israel), his family migrated to the U.S. when he was a year old in 1939. He started his animation career at the famous Terrytoons Studio. He quickly rose through the ranks,  also working at Hanna-Barbera and producing cartoons for CBS. His first work was directing and producing animated shorts in the mid 1960's. He also directed twenty-five episodes of the 60's Spider-man cartoon. He then went on to write, produce, act in, and direct his own independent animated features and short films. 

Fritz the Cat was Bakshi's first major project in 1972. Based on Robert Crumb's underground comic strip of the same name, this exploitation film features an anthropomorphized cat named Fritz who drops out of college and gets involved in the 70's counterculture movement in New York City, ultimately becoming a revolutionary leftist. The film satirizes the culture of the time, making statements on college life, the counterculture, politics, and race relations. The film features heavy profanity, sex, and drug use and is considered a pioneer in adult animation. It recieved an X rating from the MPAA and was criticized as being pornographic. While not his most beautiful looking movie it definitely is entertaining and I love how intelligent Bakshi treats the subject matter.     

Heavy Traffic was Bakshi's next feature. Released in 1973, this is about a young cartoonist obsessed with playing pinball named Michael Corleone (not The Godfather), who encounters all sorts of characters you'd expect to find in the gritty, impoverished neighborhoods of 1970's New York City. It features a few live-action segments and is just as exploitative as Fritz, featuring plenty of sexual situations, vulgarity, and violence. This was also given an X rating but it was far more successful and is often cited by critics as his best work. I find it to be a strange movie, at times incomprehensible, but still kind of enjoyable. If you're accustomed to Bakshi's unique animation style, you might also enjoy it.  

Coonskin came out in 1975. Featuring appearances by Scatman Crothers and Barry White this feature was part live-action, part animation. It's an urban crime film, part comedy, part Blaxploitation. It's a modern retelling of the black folk tales and legends popularized by Uncle Remus. Scatman Crothers plays the old man who narrates the stories of Brother Bear, Fox, and Rabbit in Harlem. This does get a lot of praise from critics and Quentin Tarantino has called it one of his favorite 1970's films. I find it hard to watch because of all of the racial stereotypes. It's my least favorite of Bakshi's work.     

Wizards was a departure from Bakshi's previous films. Released in 1977, this was a science-fiction/fantasy film. It tells a post-apocalyptic story of the wizard, Avatar, and his band of fairies, elves, and dwarves who must use magic and technology to defeat the evil Blackwolf. This is far more enjoyable and plot-driven than Bakshi's previous films and was his first film made for general audiences. Bakshi still manages to slip in the social commentary, exploring both the dangers of technology and the effects of political propaganda (the Nazi swastika is used as a symbol of war). I enjoy this movie, even if the pacing is a little slow by today's standards, and I think anyone who likes fantasy films will too. 

Perhaps, Bakshi's most infamous work, The Lord of the Rings adapts the Tolkein epic into a gorgeous 93 minute masterpiece. I still enjoy this movie more than Peter Jackson's trilogy. Coming out in 1978, Bakshi's movie may have been the most realistic looking film released since the Golden Age of Disney animation in the 1940's. Why? Because it was rotoscoped... filmed in live-action and then traced over, frame-by-frame, to create hyper-realistic animation. It's gorgeous atmosphere is one reason why this is my all-time favorite fantasy cartoon and it still holds up.   

1981's American Pop is Bakshi's return to adult animation. It's a musical film, telling a legacy story of a family's journey through the music of the 20th century. Russian immigrant, Zalmie, arrives in New York City. He marries a stripper  and their son, Benny, becomes a jazz pianist. Benny is killed in World War II but his son, Tony, goes on to great success as a songwriter during the 60's, as does Tony's son, Pete, in the 80's. While I appreciate the attempt at drama, I'm not much for musicals. I know Bakshi fans love this, and the animation is stellar, but this one is lost on me. 

Hey Good Lookin' is like 1982's vulgar and gritty answer to West Side Story. It's a violent yet comedic look at 1950's Brooklyn street life and tells the story of rival street gangs. This is another favorite of mine. The gritty subject matter is balanced with clever humor that lightens the film's darker tone. It's a proper return to the urban crime that defined Bakshi's early films. The animation is good as well.

Fire and Ice is another animated fantasy film. Released in 1983, after the success of The Beastmaster and Conan the Barbarian, this film tells the story of a tiny village that gets destroyed by a glacier, which serves as the deadly domain for the evil Ice Lord, Nekron. The only survivor is a young warrior, Larn, who vows vengeance for his home's destruction. Because this is Bakshi's most action oriented film, it was filmed in live-action and rotoscoped, just like Lord of the Rings. It's a darker film with memorable characters and an engaging story. This film is also well-known for Bakshi's collaboration with the great fantasy and comics artist, Frank Frazetta. Fantasy lovers should dig it.

Cool World feels like the most contemporary of Bakshi's work. It came out in 1992 and marked Bakshi's return to feature films after nine years of producing shorter works. This is yet another live-action/animation hybrid. It's a black comedy/fantasy that tells the story of a cartoonist who finds himself in the animated world he thinks he created, but has actually existed long before he was a cartoonist. He is seduced by one of the animated characters, a femme fatale named Holli Would, who wants to become human. It stars Kim Basinger, Gabriel Byrne and Brad Pitt. It was a box-office bomb and many consider it Bakshi's worst film. I actually like it and, although the plot can be a little slow, I'd say it's worth a watch. The effects are not as well done as films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit but are passable. I think the subpar effects and audiences not knowing what to make of this film upon release contributed to its poor performance.   

Bakshi continues to work today and his latest project, an animated short from 2015, is called Last Days of Coney Island. It is a return to his gritty urban films of the past. Bakshi's definitely an underappreciated artist in animation, especially these days. With any luck, future generations will discover and appreciate his unique work. 

DC Showcase Short Films - Review and Analysis

The DC Showcase short-films are a series of animated shorts that started in 2010. They shed spotlight on various characters within the DC Universe. These shorts are part of the broader DC Animated Movie Universe. 

These shorts start with The Spectre, a story that borrows from a lot of sources. It's inspired by the Wrath of the Spectre comics from the 70's but also takes many cues from the more modern Spectre stories. Right before this short came out I had just read Jules Feiffer's book, The Great Comic Book Heroes. I loved the Spectre story that was featured in it, so, I was primed for this. It features a Jim Corrigan here who works in Los Angeles rather than New York, as he did in the original Golden Age Spectre stories. Here, Jim goes after an old flame who paid to have her father, a Hollywood movie star, killed so she could get his money. It's a basic murder plot with horror elements but it does a good job of revealing just who The Spectre is... a cop who was murdered and became a ghost to exact cruel vengeance on criminals. Although this is pretty straightforward, it offers very impressive visuals. The animation is solid too. A strong effort right out of the gate.     

Next is the Jonah Hex short. This is what the film version of Jonah Hex should have been. It's a straight up western story that gives you more of a glimpse into who Jonah Hex is in twelve minutes than that terrible movie ever does. This was the cartoon that made me notice the Jonah Hex character. After watching this, I immediately went to my local comics shop and bought up as much Jonah Hex as I could find. In this story Hex arrives in a town in search of a man called Red Doc, who was killed the day before by a corrupt Madame named Lorraine. Hex meets Lorraine who tries to kill him. Her attempt on his life fails and he forces her to take him to an abandoned mine. When she and Hex go into the mine, we find out that Lorraine has murdered many men for their money and stored their bodies there. As Hex finds and secures the body of Red Doc, Lorraine tries to kill him again. Hex knocks her out and leaves her to die. Lorraine awakens and sees Hex ready to ride off. She offers to make him her new partner, but Hex responds by kicking down the rope, trapping her there. It really is entertaining stuff and makes me wish we could get a Jonah Hex animated series.   

The Green Arrow short is another great one. It feels like an extension of his appearances in Justice League Unlimited. We get an appearance by Black Canary too which is sweet. While this doesn't really explore Oliver Queen's motivations, enough of his personality is presented that you get a feel for who he is. Here, Arrow is tasked with protecting a princess at an airport from an assassination attempt by Count Vertigo. Action ensues and we get to see that, despite his brash arrogance, Green Arrow is really an honorable superhero... who loves Black Canary very much.  

The longest of these short films, Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam, has to be the best of the DC Showcase cartoons. It tells the origin of Captain Marvel (now called Shazam in popular media, even though that is the wizard's name). The origin story overlaps with a story Clark Kent is reporting on about underprivileged youth in Fawcett City. When Shazam's encounter with Billy Batson summons Black Adam, a battle between the new superhero, Captain Marvel. and his evil counterpart is unleashed in Fawcett City. Superman shows up to help, and thus we see the first meeting between Superman and Captain Marvel. What I love about this short is just how fun it is. This is the cartoon that made me want to read Captain Marvel and explore the character's history. It's such an engaging story and in the last few years, thanks to this cartoon, I have become a huge Captain Marvel fan.    

With Catwoman, DC decided to continue Selina Kyle's story from Batman: Year One, which is one of DC's best animated adaptations. In this short, Selina Kyle goes after diamond traffickers who have also abducted several women. Selina serves as an anti-hero and brings down the operation, while also managing to keep a little something for herself in the end. It's a really fun cartoon for Catwoman fans. Plus, it's written by Paul Dini, so you can't go wrong.  

Sgt. Rock was fun. I've never really been drawn to war comics and Sgt. Rock is one of those classic Golden Age characters that I know almost nothing about. I went into this expecting a story about WWII combat. Imagine my surprise when Sgt. Rock battles supernatural enemies. Sgt. Rock leading a band of archetypal monsters (DC's weird monster team, The Creature Commandos) against a band of Nazi zombies? Yes, please! 

With the Death animated short, well, I surprisingly really enjoyed it. I'll admit, I never have been too invested in Neil Gaiman's Sandman books (or Gaiman's writing in general) but I like the existential nature of this short and the overall plot of a down-on-his-luck artist coping with personal demons really spoke to me. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the Death character, the story was interesting. I really felt connected to Vincent; a very relatable character.   

The Phantom Stranger feels like a more sophisticated Scooby Doo cartoon. Taking place in the 1970's, it tells the story of a young woman named Marcie who attends a party at an abandoned mansion with her friends. An enigmatic being named Seth tries to seduce her and her friends in an effort to steal their souls. The Phantom Stranger shows up and must save them. Being a casual fan of The Stranger, I really enjoyed this and am glad to see the character get more exposure.  

The Adam Strange short seems to be a reimagining of the Adam Strange mythos. It's less faithful to the original concept of Adam Strange, DC's version of Flash Gordon, and more about telling a story with a new version of the character. The plot is interesting enough and features a nice amount of action, with Strange fighting to protect a heavily populated asteroid colony from a race of invading insects. For fans of Adam Strange I'm sure this is a treat but I found it kind of boring.   

A Death in the Family is less an animated adaptation of the 4-issue Batman story and more like supplemental material for the Under the Red Hood movie. It would have been nice if they had made this an actual feature-length prequel that adapted the story and explored Jason Todd's time as Robin further. Instead, the short runs just over 20 minutes long, but the full interactive version runs about 90-minutes. It feels like cartilage material was added to Under the Red Hood, which already was a good Batman film. I would have preferred if this cartoon was a straight-up adaptation, as faithful to the comic book story as The Dark Knight Returns movie was to its story. A Death in the Family is one of my favorite Batman stories but this "adaptation" left me cold. 

*NOTE: There are other short-films in the works that I have not yet seen: a Kamandi short, one featuring The Losers team, a Blue Beetle cartoon, and a Constantine story.                                                       

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. 

Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012) - Review and Analysis

Many of my followers have been waiting on my thoughts on this beloved trilogy. So, here we go!

Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy that ran from 2005 to 2012 is a master class in dramatic storytelling. These films tell stories of dark, noir-ish, urban crime that are filtered through the lens of the DC Comics character, Batman, in a Post 9/11 world. While these are well-crafted crime dramas they may suffer as Batman movies, depending on one's perspective or preference, due to a hard re-imagining of character and mythos as well as an emphasis on realism. The goal of this series is to place Batman in a less heightened reality, which limits what villains can be used. As a result Gotham City is recast as Chicago with gothic elements, and plot and character motivations are explained to us through dialogue so that we can understand specific intent.

The series starts with Batman Begins, released in 2005. In my opinion, this is the best film in this series, and this is the only exception to the idea (proposed by more than a few fans) that these are not really Batman movies. As the title suggests, this movie focuses on the origin of Batman and to date is the best-adapted origin story of a major comic book character since Superman: The Movie in 1978. This is because the film draws heavily from the popular origin story, Batman: Year One, by Frank Miller, which ran in Batman #404 to #407. The reason this works as a Batman movie is because it mirrors the Year One storyline, which was a grounded and more realistic take on the origin of the character. The other storylines that are drawn from include The Demon Saga from the 1970s, which introduces Ra’s Al Ghul and the League of Assassins (here called League of Shadows), as well as The Man Who Falls, both written by Denny O’Neil. Blind Justice, Batman’s 50th anniversary story from 1989, written by Batman screenwriter, Sam Hamm, is where the character of Henry Ducard originated.

The middle part of the trilogy, The Dark Knight, released in 2008, continues the theme of realism in a crime drama setting. This is where the series ceases to be less about adapting Batman and begins to tell its own story featuring supporting characters of the Batman mythos. Sure, characters from the comics appear, and the portrayal of the Joker character by Heath Ledger is phenomenal, but the heightened comic book world is abandoned in favor of a Law and Order style approach. Unfortunately, Ledger’s Joker portrayal is so defining that it steals the show and places the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character, as well as Bruce Wayne’s love triangle with the Rachael Dawes character, far in the background. Particularly brilliant is the fact that the Joker character comes straight out of Batman #1 from 1940. This is the only way that the filmmakers could produce a realistic Joker, though they seem to mistake Joker’s randomness and criminality with anarchy. The Joker should not ever be politically motivated and has nothing to do with left wing ideologies such as anarchism, both in this film or in the comics. It's also interesting to see the introduction of the batcycle, known here as the “Bat-pod”, in this movie. I also appreciated that The Long Halloween was referenced narratively in places as well. 

The third film, The Dark Knight Rises, from 2012 is the furthest departure of comic book Batman yet. We are introduced to the cat burglar/master thief version of Catwoman and loose adaptations of both the Bane character and Talia Al Ghul. Bane’s motivations are similar to Ra’s in the first film but he seems more bent on a genuine redemption for the oppressed than Ra’s ever was. In this film Bane is a terrorist, in line with Talia and her father and, while his motivations deserve sympathy, his actions are appropriately condemnable. The new version of the Batwing, known here as “The Bat”, is a nondescript aircraft, resembling neither plane nor bat. This film brings the story from the first film full circle and wraps up a rather uneven trilogy.

All in all these films are very well made, thought provoking and entertaining as crime stories. The casting of Bale was great for Bruce Wayne, though his Batman leaves something to be desired. His voice should have been closer to Michael Keaton’s gruff whisper than the throat-cancer version that was delivered. Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox was inspired casting, even if the character was slightly different from the source material. Gary Oldman delivers what is perhaps the definitive portrayal of James Gordon. Ledger’s Joker was great and is rightly deserving of all the praise he gets. The score, highlighted by an anthemic march by Hans Zimmer, fits this trilogy well though it will never compare to the operatic Batman theme by Danny Elfman.

Gulliver's Travels (1939) - Review and Analysis

For this blog entry I’d like to bring some much deserved attention to a film that, today at least, is forgotten by most people. Die-hard animation buffs know this one and some even prefer it to Disney’s later efforts from the 1970’s.

Gulliver’s Travels, while being a cartoon, for many years was the most popular, albeit a very loose, adaptation of Jonathon Swift’s story. Released in December of 1939, this was the Fleischer Studios’ first full-length feature. It was a response and reaction to the success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and, as such, is the second feature length animation by an American studio. Paramount commissioned the feature after Disney’s success.

Like Disney’s debut feature, Gulliver’s Travels was a resounding success at the box office.The movie earned roughly $3 million in the United States during its original run, impressive because it was limited to just fifty theaters during the 1939 Christmas season. Unlike Snow White however, eleven people, all on staff at Fleischer Studios, ultimately directed this feature. As much as animation in films and television is a group effort, this one truly was.

The animation itself is trademark Fleischer. The characters have that early cartoon style and the movement is very reminiscent of their other work like the Popeye cartoons and Betty Boop. The story takes advantage of techniques and sight gags that were common in early cartoons. I remember as a young kid being fascinated by how lifelike Lemuel Gulliver seemed, and wondered why all of the Lilliputians and the Blefuscu army looked so cartoony. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the realism of Gulliver’s world and the fantasy of the Lilliputian realm.

Most of the music and songs are typical of the era’s cartoons and nothing really special. There is a standout however. The song, "All’s Well", that gets sung at the beginning by Gabby, the Town Crier, is very catchy and memorable. The love theme, "Faithul/Forever", might also get stuck in your head if you’re not careful.

By today’s standards, the story can be a little slow in places but audiences in 1939 were enthralled and had little problem with the pacing. The battle scenes between Lilliput and Blefuscu are still very enjoyable, but it’s a film very much of its time. Again, while animation buffs appreciate it, it doesn’t hold up nearly as well as the early Disney features. It doesn’t have the realistic quality or pacing of Pinocchio for example. It’s also not as well known because new generations aren’t being introduced to it like they often are with every Disney picture. That being said, it’s an interesting piece of animation history. It’s worth a watch and, for animation buffs, should probably be owned on DVD.

The good news for those who have never seen this movie is that it has fallen into the public domain. It can be viewed online at just about every major video site. It can be downloaded legally as a digital copy here: https://archive.org/details/gullivers_travels1939

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - 1990 – Review and Analysis

       One of the greatest comic book adaptations to screen is the 1990 TMNT film. Why this movie holds up so well, why it was so expertly cast, and why the tone was perfect are all a result of the hard work, care and dedication from director, Steve Baron, the actors, producers and designers.

       Production on a live-action feature film of the Ninja Turtles franchise started in 1988. Filming began in July of 1989 and went to September. A budget of $13.5 million was granted by Golden Harvest (up to then known for making low budget Hong Kong action movies). The film was shot almost entirely in North Carolina at Carolco Studios (one of the largest non-Hollywood studios in the U.S. at the time) with inserts and location shots happening in New York City. 

       As an adaptation, this movie hits several marks and blends various elements from the cartoon and comic book. The turtles’ masks are multicolored just as in the cartoon (in the original comics they all wear red bandannas). April is a TV news reporter, though here she works for Channel 3 News while in the cartoon it’s Channel 6 News. The story is constructed around several plots from the first dozen or so issues of the Mirage comic. In the comic it is Leonardo, not Raphael, who is ambushed by the Foot Clan. In the original comic, the farmhouse belongs to Casey Jones, not April. The rooftop battle and Shredder’s defeat come from the end of the first issue.

       The tone is perfect for a TMNT film. It’s humorous enough in places to be great for the kids and mirroring the then ongoing cartoon series, but also it’s surprisingly hard edged enough to be taken seriously by older fans and adults as well, mirroring the Mirage comic book. The jokes and lighthearted humor mesh incredibly well with the gritty real life drama and dark themes of street crime and gang violence. The movie juggles its disparate elements expertly and it's surprising just how "adult" the film can feel, for something that was essentially marketed to six-year-olds.

       In the film, the turtles are actually actors and martial artists in foam latex suits with animatronic puppet heads. Jim Henson and his famed Creature Shop were responsible for designing the suits and heads. The look of the turtles onscreen remains incredible to this day. In fact, it’s surprising how much better these turtles look onscreen than their CGI counterparts from the newer films.

Elias Koteas stands out in his role as the vigilante sports nut, Casey Jones. He is the definitive Casey Jones. Judith Hoag was charming and beautiful as April O’Neil and has defined the role for many fans, myself included. Shredder looks genuinely menacing in his metal armor and the fight scenes and martial arts choreography are also top notch, on par with other low budget action films of the day.

       This movie would go on to become the most successful independent feature in history (until it was unseated by The Blair Witch Project in 1999), earning roughly $202 million worldwide when all was said and done. The movie’s success prompted several sequels, none of which were very good, however, the second outing, The Secret of the Ooze, will always hold a special place in my heart.

       The reputation this flick has garnered as the “best turtle film” and as one of the greatest comic book movie adaptations is well deserved. It’s all about the tone and the pathos of the characters as they struggle to rescue Splinter from the clutches of the Foot Clan. Is the film dated? Yes. The pop culture references of the time as well as a gritty late 80’s looking setting of New York definitely make it stay in a single place and time. But, for TMNT fans there will likely never be another movie like it. Every time I watch this I am swept away by the gritty, urban fantasy. It remains one of my favorite films of all time and should be held up as probably the greatest adaptation in the history of the franchise.