Let you in on two little know facts about myself: A) I'm a huge movie buff, and B) I'm a monsterous Batman freak (Ladies please, please try to keep your panties on). I also tend to be a snob when it comes to both of these subjects. I'm one of those assholes where if you ask me how I felt about I certain movie I begin my reply with "Well it started off strong, but once it hit that 3rd act blah blah blah, character archs, blah blah..." before going into a long-winded, grammatically incorrect, rant for about 15 minutes, of which you probably/hopefully tuned out after I said "3rd act". Discussion with me about Batman are similar except worse because then I start quoting lines from the freaking comic books like they're Bible scriptures (not to say that they aren't) to people that couldn't care less and have no idea who the hell Killer Moth even is (nor should they). So when the discussion of Batman movies is brought to my attention, I tend to be, to put it extra mildly, very opinionated.
My favorite Batman movies are as follows (animated flicks included) in order from greatest to good:
The Dark Knight
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Batman Begins
Batman: Under the Red Hood
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Parts 1& 2)
Note the lack of certain other Batman films on the list. "Where are the Burton films?" you might be asking yourself. And if you're asking that, you obviously missed the title of this post.
WARNING: HUGE GEEK RANT BELOW. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK:
I get into HUGE debates with my friends over my passionate distaste for the Burton Batman flicks (even last night with one of my roommates). Average Joe movie goers (especially those that were born in the late 80's) LOVE Burton's Batman. specifically Batman (1989), the one with Jack Nicholson as The Joker, and that other actor that played the short guy in the black bat costume that's hardly in the film. Many people just LOOOOVE that movie.
They love it because it has Nicholson eating up scenery. They can quote all the awkward lines to their heart's content, and... that is really anyone ever has to back up the flick. Usually they only stop defending the film to take the time to try to bash The Dark Knight, because they think it's cool to do that now. "Heath Ledger's Joker is just a rip-off of Beetle Juice" is the new hipster cool thing to say to try to make Burton's crap (I'm talking about Batman '89, not Beetle Juice. I actually like that film) look better. I really want to meet the guy that started THAT comparison trend, so I can shake his hand and congratulate him on having no idea how to compare performances to one another (Beetle Juice was a 100% comedic performance, Ledgers was a sadistic, nuanced, layered... dammit! Starting to rant again). If you have to bash another film, to make yours look better, maybe there is something wrong with the movie you claim to be superior. And no, I'm not being a hypocrite, because I'm not bashing Batman to make The Dark Knight look superior. I'm just bashing it because I think it really, really sucks. And I've always thought that, even as a little kid when I first saw it. I never like Michael Keaton as Batman neither. The dude barely does any acting in the movie and is basically there just to be a stiff (and SHORT) body for the Joker to play off of. Yeah, people bash Christian Bale's Batman voice, but at least you remember it. Do you even remember what Keaton's sounded like? Could you do an impression of it right now if I asked you? EXACTLY!
The reason I hate Batman '89? Because it shits on both my Batman geek side and my film geek side off to no end. I'm sure less of you care about the pissed off Batman geek side (cough Batman killing, Joker killed Batman's parents, Prince?, Gordon is a moron, Batman acts nothing like Batman, Joker acts nothing like Joker, a WTF love story, Batman 5ft nothing, "you wanna get nuts" scene, Joker not scary, Knox?, Alfred lets Vicki Vale in Batcave cough cough), so I'll discuss why this movie is terrible from strictly a filmmaking.
First of all, to all of you that like the film, let me ask you this; What was the plot of the film? Go on, I'll wait while you think...
Buzz, times up! What did you come up with? HAHA! that's right, you came up with nothing, because that was a trick question. There is no plot to Burton's Batman. Here's basically what happenes in the film:
Batman and the police do some stuff. The mob does some stuff. Jack becomes The Joker. Joker starts killing people with gas and poison for no real reason. Prince. Batman decides to take a break from banging Kim Basinger to stop Joker from killing people (seriously, he finds out how to stop The Joker's poison like halfway through the film, but doesn't destroy the plant making it until the very end of the film?? WTF????!!!!!!!). Batman magically realizes That Joker killed his parents for some reason. More Prince. Batman kills Joker. Batsignal. Roll credits.
You see, the film starts off strong in the first 30 minutes or so. The film establishes some characters: Batman, Vicky Vale, Knox (who?), Gordon, Harvey "Lando" Dent, the Mayor, Grissom, and Jack. It also gives us some semblance of a plot in the first act as well, Batman is fighting crime, the police and reporters Vale and Knox (who?) are trying to track him down and discover his identity, the Mob is trying to find an angle against new D.A. Harvey Dent (which sounds a lot like the plot of another Batman movie that I did enjoy... but I digress). I'll be the first to admit that the first 30 minutes of the film are very well done, but unfortunatly, 90% of everything that is established in the first act of this film goes down the crapper at a very specific point. Which, ironically, is the exact moment when Nicholson falls down into that the vat of chemicals and comes back as The Joker, only to completely destroy every single interesting plot thread that was created prior. It is at this point that the film ceases to be an actual move and instead transforms into just a series of silly random events that, besides (spoilers) Joker's death at the end, could be rearranged in the film in any order and still would have made just as much sense.
For those of you that smartly avoided getting the same useless film degree that I did, let me explain: The vast majority of films (the one's that aren't direct-to-DVD) are all made up of 3 acts; beginning, middle, and end. The beginning establishes characters and themes that are the backbone of the flick. The middle (or conflict/"the meat" of the movie) carries these characters through a bunch of trials and tribulations, testing them at every turn. And the end is the climax, that typically brings everything that was established at the beginning full-circle, to close out the film. This is basical film structor 101, the very basics of screenwriting and storytelling.
Batman '89 basically has a beginning and an end, with a bunch of mindless crap about the Joker, which utilizes nothing that was established in the beginning. Both Harvey Dent, the mob, Gordon/the police, Knox (who?) and the press, and all the other subplots are completly ignored in favor of watching Nicholson ham it up. Seriously, the who subplot with Harvey Dent vanishes 30 minutes into the film. Watch it right now if you don't believe me. That's just bad writing. Even Batman (who's name is the title of the friggin' movie) is reduced to what is basically a supporting role.
"But The Dark Knight's (which is basically a superior, more source material respectful remake of the '89 movie) Joker just stole the movie in that one too", you might be thinking. Yeah, Heath Ledger's Joker may have stole the show, in terms of amaizing acting, but that film still had a beginning, middle and end , with themes presented at the start that carried through smoothly till the end. No sub-plots mysteriously vanished in The Dark Knight. Hey wow! I also can describe the plot:
Batman, Gordon, and new D.A. Harvey Dent (now actually in the film, Burton) for an alliance to take down the city's mob. Unfortunatly as their joint efforts begin to show progress, a criminal named The Joker escalates the situation and plunges the city into chaos, and the 3 heroes are forced between crossing the line between hero and vigilantte.
So why do so many of you guys love this film, even though by film standards it is terribly made? Nostalgia. People watch this film and think back to the first time they saw Batman on screen and think "wow, old stuff is neat". That's fine, I'll give you that, but just because something is old, doesn't mean it's good. I mean, like I said, the film has not plot. None at all, and yet when I say that "I hate it" you automatically try to defend your childhood. Well I hate to break it to you, but Power Rangers was silly with bad acting, Scooby Doo was predictable and boring, and Batman '89 was a very badly written mess with no plot and a 5ft nothing Batman.
And if you want some GOOD Batman nostolgia, go watch Batman: The Animated Series. That shit is still excellent. Ditto for Animaniacs.
Also, everyone needs to stop hating on Man of Steel. That movie rocked and you know it. Read a comic, trolls. ;P
No comments:
Post a Comment