Batman (1989) Review

            I grew up in the 90’s, so naturally my childhood WAS Batman.  The award-winning cartoon show was red hot, a series of Batman movies were rolling through the theaters, and a boy was not a boy unless they bought every single Batman action figure sold.  I, of course, was caught up right in the middle of this craze, having my own collection of action figures and begging my parents to let me see every Batman film (yes, even Batman and Robin)

            Then, as I grew older, the films matured along with me.  Christopher Nolan directed the 21^st century Batman movies more for the adult crowd than for the children, focusing less on the spectacle of Batman and more on his philosophy.  Batman Begins and The Dark Knight showed a new vision of Gotham City that was grittier and more analogous to present-day America.

            With all of the praise that the new Batman movies have received, it somewhat pains me that the Tim Burton style for Batman, the one that inspired the 90’s vision of the Caped Crusader, is becoming more and more obsolete.  Watching the 1989 Batman again after many years made me realize how the things that I admired most about Batman originated or were showcased in that movie.  The swelling orchestral score, the shadowy atmosphere of Gotham and its citizens, and the almost supernatural villain are what made Batman so impactful to pop culture and to myself.

            If you were to ask me what the main difference is between the 90’s Batman movies and the newer movies, I would tell you this:  The Burton/Schumacher films told the Batman story as a mythology, while the Nolan films told it as a real-life account.  In Batman, everything about Batman and Gotham was grandiose.  In The Dark Knight, everything is rooted in realism.  This allowed Nolan to relate Batman’s dilemmas with the moral dilemmas of a modern society dealing with senseless crime and terrorism.

            My biggest problem with The Dark Knight, though, is that there was just too much “talk” about Batman.  Every character was ready with a speech about the nature of Batman and why we need Batman and what Batman should do and so on.  In Batman, there was no need to explain the Caped Crusader.  Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne was able to express the dilemmas and inner conflicts of the character through only his amazing acting skill.  Also, the stylistic “Burtonesque” art design effectively communicated the industrial coldness of Gotham and the invariable drive of Bruce Wayne’s mission, both of which are virtually unknown in The Dark Knight.

            Between the two Jokers, I have to admit that Heath Ledger’s Joker is the more memorable one.  However, Jack Nicholson did a great job portraying a dynamic Joker, one that evolved from a normal street thug to a psychotic clown mob boss through the movie’s course.  What makes the Joker one of the greatest villains in fiction is the complete delight he fails to hide whenever he does these horrible crimes.  Nicholson conveys this aspect of the character effortlessly and iconically in Batman.

            With so many critics now calling The Dark Knight the greatest superhero movie ever made, I urge everyone to take a second look at Tim Burton’s Batman.  Sure, the plot and the characters are more over-the-top, but the 1989 movie and its thoughtful style offers a sort of timelessness to the character, whereas Nolan’s version, heavily influenced by current events, will eventually become dated.  It was Burton’s vision of Batman that introduced a whole generation to this great character, and it will be Burton’s vision of Batman that I will continue to adore.

            Rating: 4 Stars

(For the record, I would also rate The Dark Knight with 4 Stars, but I do like Batman a little bit better.)

Studio: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.

Production Company: PolyGram Filmed Entertainment

            Running Time: 126 minutes

Hop (2011) Review

            It’s the middle of spring, and you know what that means!  It’s time for the flood of Easter movies to hit the theaters near you!

Or maybe not.  Easter is a holiday that is just not as celebrated in Hollywood as other days of the year, such as Christmas.  The only notable Easter story that can be told on the big screen, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, has already been done multiple times before (The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion of the Christ, etc.).  Also, the mythos of the Easter Bunny is just not developed enough to produce many film-worthy narratives.  Hop, the newest movie from director Tim Hill, attempts to overcome the latter hurdle by becoming the quintessential Easter movie of our age, and without referencing Jesus Christ once!

The legacy of the Easter Bunny that Hop establishes is…familiar, to say the least.  In fact, I bet that the script for Hop was finished after some guy took a script for an upcoming Christmas family comedy and replaced each “Santa Claus” with “The Easter Bunny”.  You got the magical, jovial gift-bringer, the yearly event that brings joy to millions of kids worldwide, and the villain who seeks to usurp this beloved character from his yearly duty.  For God’s sake, the Easter Bunny even has a sleigh in this movie.  A SLEIGH!

This is just one way in which this film feels contrived.  Tim Hill has definitely done this type of movie before, after directing Alvin and the Chipmunks and Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties.  If you have seen either of those two movies, you know exactly what to expect with Hop.  The cute, computer-generated critter (E.B., voiced by Russell Brand) enters the life of a shiftless, unsuccessful human (Fred O’Hare, played by James Marsden), initially causes havoc, and then helps the human overcome his tragic flaw.  You can call almost every joke and plot point in this movie before it happens.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t anything to like about Hop.  What really saved the story are the energetic, solid performances from the two leads.  James Marsden, from the X-Men trilogy and from Enchanted, shines in this movie through his likable, enthusiastic personality and his fearless physicality, though the character he has to work with is not very interesting.  Also, Russell Brand, from Get Him to the Greek and Arthur, provides E.B. with a voice that flows with humor and playfulness as the bunny hops into his crazy shenanigans.  Together, the two actors put a lot of effort into their roles and really have fun with their performances, which is especially important for a children’s movie.

Besides those two, we have House’s Hugh Laurie as the beloved Easter Bunny, The Simpsons’ Hank Azaria as the conniving second-in-command Carlos, The Big Bang Theory’s Kaley Cuoco as Fred’s sister, Sam, and Office Space’s Gary Cole as Fred’s father, Henry.  The rest of the cast are not as memorable as the two leads, but you can tell that they are not simply collecting their paychecks for this movie.  They all do competent work and make this movie worth watching.

I was pretty impressed with the computer effects with this movie.  The combination of computer animation and live-action usually does not translate well on the big screen in most family films.  However, the interaction between the Easter characters and the humans in Hop is very believable, and bunnies and the chicks are animated smoothly and energetically.  Also, the sight of the Easter factory will amaze both child and adult alike.

Hop does suffer quite a bit from poor writing and lack of innovation.  However, I would still recommend this movie for a harmless, family-friendly Easter activity to do with young kids.  The children will love this movie for its bright colors and playful energy.  The adults will like the nuanced bits of humor and the clever use of computer effects.  Since it is after Easter, I would only recommend renting this movie when it comes out on DVD.  It’s a good film to watch once on Easter, but there is no guarantee that you or your family would want to make it a yearly tradition.

Rating: 3 Stars

Studio: Universal Pictures

Production Company: Illumination Entertainment

Running time: 95 minutes

Greetings!

Hello, and welcome to my film review blog!  I plan on reviewing a variety of movies, both new and old, in a somewhat consistent schedule.  I do not have any experience in film criticism (outside of the college course), so this is both a learning experience and a free-time hobby for me.  I hope you will enjoy my reviews and contribute to my postings through the comments section.

Let the film critiquing commence!