Machete

Title: Machete (2010)
Director: Robert Rodriguez, Ethan Maniquis
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba
Rating: R
105 minutes

This is a crazy movie. At one point Machete (Danny Trejo) swings out one window and into the window one floor down with a man’s intestines. This was originally seen as a fake trailer between Planet Terror and Deathproof. Basically Machete is an ex-federale who was burned by a drug pin, Torrez (Steven Seagal), and emigrates to Texas trying to work as a day laborer when he is offered $150,000 to kill Senator John McLaughlin (Robert DeNiro). It turns out to be a setup to bolster the senator’s poll numbers. Now a massive manhunt is looking for Machete and Machete is looking for the men who hired him. This is basically a 2010 mexploitation.

I love Cheech Marin as Machete’s brother, a gun-toting priest. He was incredibly funny in the part and oddly convincing when blowing people’s heads off. He is a fallible priest who knows he is fallible.

Danny Trejo is a badass. That is all that really needs to be said about him and his character.

There is footage from the original Grindhouse interspersed in the movie, sometimes it is more noticeable than others. There is gratuitous blood and gratuitously bloody shots. Really this is just a fun movie. You can have a good time watching it and it is different from just about any movie that has been released recently.

If I judged this movie based on quality and cinematic value, it would be ** 2/10
If I judged it based on how much fun you can have and how much enjoyment can be had while watching it, I give it a ********* 9/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Title: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Director: Edgar Wright
Genre: Action, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Michael Cera
Rating: PG-13
112 minutes

Again this is a movie based on a comic book I have not read. The movie centers around Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera). He sees a girl, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and becomes utterly infatuated with her, despite the fact his is dating a high school student, Knives Chau. Despite the protests of members in his band and his sister, Pilgrim pursues her and ends up dating her. Unfortunately she has 7 evil exes, with super powers, determined to destroy Pilgrim for the love of Flowers. Pilgrim must fight and destroy each one in order to win the right to date Flowers.

I know that several people love Michael Cera, but I don’t think he is strong enough to carry a movie on his own. Despite Scott Pilgrim being the protagonist, I found myself enjoying the supporting character far more than the main character. That being said, I did like seeing this lanky nerdy guy in these crazy action sequences. It is the aftermath of the battles and the scenes leading up to it that are lacking. His character is very much like every other character he has played, and that is fine because they work in supporting roles, but the personality is not strong enough to base a movie around. I have not seen the other movie where Cera plays the lead, Youth in Revolt, but I didn’t really feel a need to see it.

The supporting characters make this movie. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is subtly funny as Flowers. She has a whole festival of crazy going on around her and she is still very calm about it all. Kieran Culkin plays Pilgrim’s gay roommate, Wallace. He is probably my favorite character in the movie. His character is the funniest and the ego he has is fitting for the character, whereas Pilgrim’s seems inflated and aggravating. The drummer is his band, Kim (Alison Pill), also has a very strong character that is funny without pushing it down your throat. I also love all the exes, particularly the last one. There were times I was almost rooting for the exes because they were far more interesting than the main character.

I also particularly liked the style of the movie. It is very old school video game-y. Pilgrim gets points for each ex he defeats and they shatter into coins. There are also flash back sequences that are apparently in the style of the comic. It is a somewhat romantic film, but it is unlike any that I have seen. In basically every genre, the movie is unique. The movie was also really funny. I think it could have been funnier and significantly better, if someone besides Cera were cast. It is still a fun and geeky and good movie. I will probably buy it, but due to the style I think this would be a great one to see in theaters.

******* 6/10

Hot Fuzz

Title: Hot Fuzz (2007)
Director: Edgar Wright
Genre: Action, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Simon Pegg, Nick Frost
Rating: R
121 minutes

Simon Pegg is funny. Just in general, he is a funny guy. In this movie the uber strict, uber structured London cop, Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), gets transferred to a small, supposedly sleepy town, Sandford. The first time he meets his new partner, Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), the man is sent to sleep off his drunkenness in a cell. Danny constantly questions Angel on his big city lifestyle and sees London as a real-life action movie. The two quickly stumble upon a series of accidents resulting in the deaths of several annoying or unsavory members of the town. The whole movie is a smart and funny satire of action and horror movies.

The duo of Frost and Pegg is gold. Pegg usually plays slackers or over the top characters. Here his character is so stuck in the proper procedures, he is almost boring. His performance is engaging, though the character dull. That may seem counter intuitive, but that is the truth. Although Angel might not be the smartest cop on the force, next to Danny, he seems like a Mensa member. The “odd couple” partners make the extreme aspects of each personality delightful instead of grating. The actors must be comfortable with each other. That is the only way the chemistry and timing can be natural.

This movie also has some of my favorite British actors. Bill Nighy is a London Chief Inspector. Martin Freeman is a sergeant. Jim Broadbent is Danny’s dad and the head inspector in Sandford. Timothy Dalton (not a favorite, but really funny in the movie) is a high honcho in the politics of Sandford.

The script is really well-written and the acting is corny when it needs to be corny and funny. There is a twist that is completely unbelievable, in the sense that it is so unlikely to happen in real life and so ridiculous to become funny. It’s not one where you want to watch every week. It helps if there is some distance between the viewings, but it is definitely worth seeing.

******* 7/10

Equilibrium

Title: Equilibrium (2002)
Director: Kurt Wimmer
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Christian Bale, Taye Diggs
Rating: R
107 minutes

I would say this movie is one part 1984, one part Fahrenheit 451, and one part Vulcans from Star Trek. John Preston (Christian Bale) is a cleric working for the government to round-up sense offenders, those citizens who purposely experience emotions and possess contraband that can elicit feelings. After accidentally breaking his morning dose of Prozium, Preston begins to understand the danger and freedom in emotions.

Christian Bale uses the same intensity that makes him a great Batman for the stoic cleric. His reintroduction to emotion is not a violent burst of dramatic feeling. It happens gradually, naturally. There are occasionally stronger bouts but they are not the overcomplicated and overacted experiences they could have been. Bale knows the line that needs to exist for this character and walks it beautifully.

Taye Diggs’s Brandt is Preston’s partner. His belief in the government, the Tetragrammaton, is furiously fixed and ingrained. Unfortunately Diggs lacks the pure strength needed for this type of character. He is too amiable. As such his more violent reactions seem oddly out of character. There are ways of being amiable and ruthless. Diggs just lacks the ruthlessness to make the role work.

I think the most impressive part of the movie is the intriguing fighting style. The characters practice can best be described as practicing karate with guns. They don’t use the guns purely for shooting bullets at people, but instead they are often used by the assailant holding the muzzle and working with the butt of the gun. The actors have learned this choreography with extreme skill. Every action is precise and strategic and surprisingly fast. Part of what makes this movie fun to watch is this unique style.

Overall it is a good movie with a good actor and a very interesting style. I love movies with this type of story line. It is very Orwellian and I love Orwell. For those who like a movie to give you something to think about, there are elements of that in this movie. For those who want strong and interesting action, it’s there. All in all it is a good movie and definitely worth the price of renting or buying. It is one of the more under the radar movies that should have been a hit.

******** 8/10

Serenity

Title: Serenity (2005)
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Sci-fi, Action
Lead Actor(s): Nathan Fillion
Rating: PG-13
119 minutes

I adore Joss Whedon. I have watched and loved every television series he has created. This movie is an extension of his series “Firefly” which got royally screwed over by Fox when they decided to air the episodes in the order determined by a pecking chicken. The episodes can be seen in the order intended on the dvd or on hulu which hosts 5 episodes at a time. The film picks up approximately six months after the series ended. Shepherd Book (Ron Glass) and Inara (Morena Baccarain) have left the crew, but everyone else is continuing with their not altogether lawful jobs. Near the beginning, Simon (Sean Maher) and River (Summer Glau) decide to leave Serenity, but when they are at the departing point, Summer goes crazy and maims several bystanders and almost kills Mal (Nathan Fillion). Before fainting after Simon says the safe term, she whispers the word “Miranda.” The crew end up going on a suicide mission to figure out the mystery of Miranda and its deadly consequences. They also have to stave off a dangerous assassin after River and Simon.

Nathan Fillion is pitch-perfect as Mal. He always has been, but after the hiatus the show was forced to go on, he had no problem slipping back into his brown coat. His character is incredibly smart and knows how to play off people. If needed he can play the slightly dim jokester. In truth he is a very adept, loyal, and intelligent captain who would do anything for the safety of his crew.

Chiwetal Ejiofor plays the unnamed assassin. From his first scene, you realize this person is slightly unhinged and really quite terrifying. His weapon of choice is a very sharp, rather long sword. He is very different from the villains glimpsed at in the series (“two by two, hands of blue”). They were utterly emotionless and much more robotic. This guy is a bit scarier because he seems human, yet he has no problem mercilessly murdering several people just to shake those on Serenity.

This is a great follow-up to a great series. All the actors who reprise their roles slip easily back into the characters and the new ones are well-developed and interesting. The mysterious Miranda (which would have appeared at the end of the second season if it had been renewed) makes for a very intriguing and unique plot, in my opinion. The only thing I would have liked to see is them follow through with the “hands of blue” rather than introduce this new character. We got just a glimpse of them in the series and I would have liked to see more. She film is filled with the quintessential Whedon wit. It is fun, frightening, sad, funny, and intriguing all in a fascinating setting. This space western universe that Whedon created really deserved better treatment by Fox and a second season at least.

********* 8/10

V for Vendetta

So I wrote this almost 2 weeks ago and just never posted it. Whoops.

Title: V for Vendetta (2005)
Director: James McTeigue
Genre: Drama, Action
Lead Actor(s): Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Rating: R
132 minutes

This movie stars two actors that are truly skilled. Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) is out past curfew in a totalitarian Britain when some cop-like agents threaten to assault her. She is saved by a masked man self-named V (Hugo Weaving). She is then pulled into V’s schemes to overthrow the government and expose the corruption within.

Just as the role of Mathilda hinted at the amazing possibilities, the role of Evey proves that Natalie Portman has developed and matured into an astounding and capable actress. The evolution of the character could have seemed fake in another actress’s hands, but due to the strength of Portman’s performance, it is natural and almost makes the audience feel that they have developed along with her. She especially shines during the torture scenes. The power of her performance can be displayed in the scene where she has her head shaved. By the way, Portman is still as beautiful bald as she has always been.

Hugo Weaving is just as powerful. Despite his face never showing, he is able to convey such depth and emotion that it seems his mask slightly changes depending on his mood. Physically V can go from the extremely dramatic (his “V”-laden speech) to the soft and subtle (his preparations for his finale). When describing his origin, the pain is palpable in his voice. He has a heartbreaking tendency to his voice in the latter part of the movie. His part in the twist is also quite well done.

A last actor whom I would like to highlight is Stephen Fry as Dietrich, the host of a variety show who secretly defies the government by collecting contraband among other things. Although not as powerful a character as those above, Dietrich is nonetheless important and Fry knows this. He plays the monkey to the government when needed, but when in private with Evey, he shows strength and power. Fry excels at this role as he does with most.

While I understand the frustration of Alan Moore, the author of the comic, I still find the movie to be executed with skill and precision. I have read the source material and find it to be slightly better. It is much more brutal than the movie and rather than just freedom from the current government, V desires anarchy in Britain. The thing I find especially lacking from the movie that was far better in the novel is the description of the government. We lack a lot of information in the movie that made the book much more powerful. For instance, we only see the fingermen, the cop-like agents, in detail in the movie, whereas in the book, the government is based on the human body and so there is an ear, eye, mouth, etc..

I love this movie and on its own, it is a great movie, but when compared with the book, the flaws of the movie begin to come out. I highly recommend seeing it for the performances of Weaving and Portman, but I also suggest reading the graphic novel. It is excellently written and enhances the movie.

********* 9/10

Robin Hood

So I was completely right to assume that I would be unable to post while in New York. The internet in our hotel was $14.10 every 24-hour period and although there was a Starbucks just below our, I was crazy busy and generally rather tired at the end of the day.

Title: Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Russell Crowe
Rating: PG-13
140 minutes

After seeing this movie, I have come to the decision that I am not a fan of Russell Crowe. Even in the movies I like, it isn’t due to Crowe. I did like Gladiator, but it was mostly because of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. This movie tells the story of Robin Hood before he became Robin Hood. The first scene is of Robin is during The Crusades and he is just a lowly archer named Robin Longstride. In this movie he is not a nobleman wronged and forced into outlawry. Instead he leaves a battle and runs to the woods with three of his friends. They come along a slaughter of knights, including Robin of Loxley, who were bringing King Richard’s helmet back to England. They quartet don the deceased knights’ garb and Robin Longstride assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley. He goes to Nottingham and basically assumes Loxley’s life after meeting with the deceased’s father.

I think Robin was completely miscast. This is supposed to be the very beginning of Robin Hood’s life and yet, Russell Crowe looks like he would be an elder in a medieval town. He also does not have the vitality a young Robin should have. I think this may have been a director wanting to use an actor no matter how appropriate the role. I can think of several actors who would have been more appropriate than Crowe, especially for such a young Robin. Hell, Kevin Costner had more energy than Crowe does. Crowe also lacks the swagger that is so central to Robin. I think that he completely misses the personality of Robin.

I also had a problem with the characterization of Robin. In my opinion, a large aspect of Robin’s drive is his removal from the nobility. That is lost here. Instead Robin is a commoner who would have stayed in the woods and away from everyone if it weren’t for an accidental blood oath to the dying Loxley. Will Scarlett, Little John, and Allan A’Dayle follow Robin faithfully, but I don’t see much of a reason for them to. He never shows a lot of leadership over them and they don’t seem to have any reason to follow him over say Little John.

Luckily there was some good acting and fun interpretations. I loved Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. If Robin had been appropriately age cast, she would have been too old for the actor. Due to the choice of Crowe, Blanchett is completely fitting. She is a badass. There is really little other way to describe her. She stands up to the perverted, though not very threatening, Sheriff when all strong and able men were gone to The Crusades. I do find her acceptance of Robin Longstride as a replacement for her husband, Robin of Loxley, a bit rushed and improbable.

I also very much enjoyed Little John. Kevin Durand brings the right amount of humor, brawn, and idiocy to the character. He is probably one of the most enjoyable aspects of the movie. His facial expressions and actions are remarkably appropriate and intelligent. Durand understands his character much more than some of the others. I also liked the performance of Mark Addy as Friar Tuck. His adoration of his bees is very sweet as is his sacrifice of them to help save the town from attacking French. He also displays his reluctance but acceptance of his profession with skill and believability.

The thing I had the biggest problem with would probably be the script. The original script focused on the Sheriff of Nottingham and had him as an anti-hero with Robin being the villain. I think that story would have been vastly more interesting than the one we were served with. The treatment of the characters and the legend seems almost rude. There is also a ridiculously large amount of villains. There’s the Sheriff, Prince John, Godfrey, and the King of France. It made for a convoluted and awkward plot.

Personally I will stick with the Disney Robin Hood, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Purely for the superb performance of Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham). I think the original idea would have been far more interesting and unique. There is also the tragic casting choice of Crowe. The film might have been salvageable had an appropriate actor been cast. Instead wonderful performances from some supporting characters are overshadowed by the horrible script and lead actor.

****4/10

Iron Man 2

I will be going to New York next week and doubt I will be able to update. Sorry about that. So the next update will be up May 24th.

Title: Iron Man 2 (2010)
Director: Jon Favreau
Genre: Action, Comic Book
Lead Actor(s): Robert Downey Jr.
Rating: PG-13
124 minutes

Although there are several new characters in this sequel, the shining star is once again Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. The main drive of the movie is the dissolution of Tony’s health and the desire of the government to take control of the Iron Man suit. The palladium core of the suit is slowly poisoning Tony and causing serious health problems. Obviously he also has a new villain in Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) and a less promoted villain in Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). He also has a new ally in Natalie Rushman or the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), and Col. Rhodes (Don Cheadle) all return.

I personally think that the best way to describe Downey’s performance is as a lovable asshole. He brings the same humor that made his initial performance so memorable to this movie, but there is also more of the self-destructive behavior that is critical to the character. Downey is able to play both parts with skill and consistency. I honestly cannot think of another actor who would be able to play the part with the same attitude.

Justin Hammer is meant to be a less successful business adversary of Stark who absolutely hates Tony. Rockwell is once again wonderful. He has the ability to make the audience hate him with a passion, but in another role feel hugely sympathetic to him. He is a sniveling guy who wants to be Tony Stark, but will never achieve his greatness. I am not entirely sure how I feel about the other villain’s performance. There are elements I really like about Rourke’s performance, but there are quite a few times that feel forced and overdone. The best parts of his performance are when he is battling Iron Man and I don’t think that is a good thing.

Pepper seemed a bit whinier and shriekier in the sequel than the first and I don’t particularly like that. I would like to see Pepper be a bit stronger than she has been so far. I think Tony’s attraction would also be a bit more understandable if she were able to fight his will more. I did, however, love Johansson’s performance as Black Widow. The character is not referred to as Black Widow in the movie, but that is who she is. She is able to play the stereotypical assistant before her true purpose is revealed, but she also plays a total badass ignoring Stark and thrashing several security guards. I think the film of her incapacitating the guards had to have been sped up. She moves with an agility that was a bit shocking to me.

Nick Fury made some more substantial cameos in the movie and it is little surprise that he excels portraying the character that was based on him. It will be interesting to see his character continue to appear in the Avenger related movies.

The most controversial performance is obviously going to be that of Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes. He replaces Terrance Howard in the role for undisclosed reasons. I personally adore Cheadle. I think he is a fabulous actor. I also have to admit I do like Cheadle’s performance more than Howard’s. Cheadle’s performance is more fluid and natural than Howard’s. I have always felt that Howard was a bit hard and robotic in his performance, which given Stark’s personality seems odd for his best friend. Cheadle’s performance seems more conducive to a relationship with Stark.

Favreau does better as both a director and as the character Happy Hogan. The action scenes are more cohesive than before. Because less of the origin had to be told, more of a story could be told and Favreau took advantage of that to go a bit higher and more adventurous in his settings and dressings. I also like the development of the character Happy. I believe that he is setting up the eventual relationship between Pepper and Happy and I love that. I like when trilogies or sets of movie have different aspects that evolve into later developments.

This is once again one of the better comic movies. It has the fun of the first while also having some of the more serious traits of the comic. It has several character from the previous movie while also deftly integrating the new ones. The biggest detriments are those of Pepper and Vanko. One of my favorite parts has to be the quick cameo of Stan Lee as Larry King. I thought that was absolutely hilarious. I definitely recommend going to see this in theaters because unless you have an enormous television the experience won’t be the same.

******** 8/10

Casino Royale

Title: Casino Royale (2006)
Director: Martin Campbell
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Daniel Craig, Eva Green
Rating: PG-13
144 minutes

Finally Bond is great again. I never liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He wasn’t manly enough to be 007, in my opinion. Daniel Craig is a perfect mix of manliness, suaveness, and all around badassness. The plot follows a young Bond who has just attained 00 status. Bond enters a poker game at Casino Royale to stop Le Chiffre, a banker for terrorists who also happens to cry blood.

As I said Daniel Craig is just about everything one could want in a good James Bond. He doesn’t quite have the easy cockiness yet that was so wonderful about Sean Connery’s Bond. He is brash and wonderful at the physical aspects of the Bond character. Craig goes through the opening sequence of extreme parkour with enviable ease. Craig’s Bond is just beginning to get the trademarks of his indelible character. He invents his famous martini during this movie. He also has moments of softness with his Bond girl, Vesper, that aren’t always present in the Bond movies. All in all Craig is a refreshing and new Bond that doesn’t reinvent the character, so much as delve deeper into his psyche. Again I say thank god Brosnan is gone.

Eva Green is the Bond babe, Vesper. She has many of the qualities of the best and most memorable Bond girls. She is intelligent, able to be on the same level as Bond in most ways, beautiful, and sly. She is the representative from the bank that fronts Bond the money. Vesper does not immediately take a shining to Mr. Bond, but instead their relationship develops naturally. The scene following the stairwell massacre is a wonderful piece of acting with very little dialog.

Mads Mikkelsen is the baddie Le Chiffre. He is seriously creepy. He cries blood and has a weird, almost marbled eye. He is as cold and calculating as Goldfinger and proves constantly that he is only out for himself. He and two other supporting characters really help round out this film. Jeffrey Wright is Felix Leiter, an American agent also after Le Chiffre, who helps keep a sometimes hot-tempered Bond cool enough to continue his mission. Finally Giancarlo Giannini is Rene Mathis, a contact of Bond’s who is not altogether on the right side of the law. These three men help keep the plot on track and not have it dissolve into a stereotype or even parody  of a Bond film.

The writing and directing are both superb. Martin Campbell is wonderful at knowing when and how to shoot the action versus story versus romance. He really does a wonderful and balanced job on the movie. The opening credits are some of the coolest I have seen in ages. It would be hard to really explain them, but they use the poker motif as an inspiration and then create a unique and interesting credit sequence. This movie is a great beginning to a new Bond legacy that will hopefully continue despite the news yesterday of an indefinite postponement of the next Bond feature. Hopefully more will come out with Craig and they will be more like Casino Royale than Quantum of Solace.

********* 8/10

Batman Forever

Title: Batman Forever (1995)
Director: Joel Schumacher
Genre: Comic Book, Action
Lead Actor(s): Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones
Rating: PG-13
121 minutes

Those who know me know I love Batman. If I dressed up or went to conventions, I would probably be considered a fangirl. I completely geek out on Batman. That being said, I only like 4 of the 7 movies I consider in the Batman cinema universe. This is not one of them. I love Batman but detest Robin so this movie really had little hope for my approval. In this movie Batman meets his ward but is unable to save the rest of the Flying Graysons from Two-Face. Bruce Wayne takes Dick under his wing. Meanwhile a suspicious death at Wayne Industries causes Batman to look at Bruce’s employees and finds Edward Nigma (E. Nigma) who is beginning his career as The Riddler. The Riddler and Two-Face team up to steal information from the residents of Gotham through their TVs.

Val Kilmer is an awful Batman. And not in the I thought he would be bad and I am too stubborn to change my mind. He is just god awful. He is not even very good as Bruce Wayne. He is robotic and stiff. There is also little to no change in his performance from Bruce Wayne to Batman. It is important that they are portrayed as two distinctly different characters. Kilmer also often seems bored in the movie. He is playing one of the coolest characters of fiction and he seems like he would rather be anywhere but there. I can’t say that Chris O’Donnell as Robin is any better. For some bizarre reason Schumacher decides a way to edge up the movie was to have Robin have one of those stupid stud earrings and ride a motorcycle. I also am not entirely sure I can impartially judge O’Donnell due to my complete loathing of the character.

The villains are also completely off. Casting Jim Carrey as The Riddler was the wrong decision. I don’t feel I can completely blame Carrey. The producers and director must have wanted his crazy style for The Riddler, but I don’t feel that is appropriate for the character. The Riddler is supposed to get enjoyment from puzzles and making people solve them. This does not equal crazy. I also hate the costuming choice of that atrocious catsuit. Two-Face was also rather inappropriate. I think the problems with Two-Face are equal parts creative team and Tommy Lee Jones. I often like Jones as an actor. I don’t know if all the people working on the movie didn’t understand Two-Face or what, but in a similar fashion as Kilmer’s failure as Wayne v Batman, only the crazy half of Two-Face is on-screen. There are supposed to be two distinct and contrasting sides to Two-Face. His original persona was a respected lawyer. Lawyers have at least some sense of gravity to them, but none of that was seen on-screen. I did, however, like his layer. I am not sure it is very cinematic, but it is very graphic.

The only actor/character combination I liked was Nicole Kidman as Chase Meridian. It does help that she didn’t have an established character that was interpreted completely wrong and she is doing a job very similar to what I would like to do. The seriousness that Kidman usually has works quite well in this role. She isn’t as annoying as the constant shrieking, shoeless wonder, Vicki Vale and she is far more practical than Catwoman. It is also nice that she is such an intelligent character given that most of the intelligence of the other characters is sacrificed for absurdity.

As hinted at so subtlely above, I think it was a huge mistake to hand the reins of the franchise to Joel Schumacher. I mean he put nipples on the batsuit. There do not need to be nipples on the batsuit. He put The Riddler in a skin-tight green jumpsuit covered in black question marks. He put an earring in Robin’s ear. He took Two-Face and gave him one crazy personality. The only good thing is the casting of Nicole Kidman and to a lesser extent Drew Barrymore as Two-Face’s “good” girlfriend.

This is not even my least favorite Batman movie. The movie is very Schumacher. There is a great deal of subtlety in the Batman universe and characters and that is not his strong point. There are times when that can work, such as, The Phantom of the Opera, but not Batman. Despite the horridness of this movie, he was allowed to direct another one. Thank goodness we have someone who understands and respects Batman directing now and he has said that Robin is in a cradle somewhere in his bat-world. Sorry this was so long.

**** 4/10