Batman Returns: 1992

Initial release date: June 16, 1992
Director: Tim Burton
DVD release date: April 29, 1997
Rating: PG-13 (USA)
Music: Danny Elfman

   Tim Burton's gone batty once again, to take on the sequel to the Batman film that set the record straight on how a story about a man wearing spandex and a cape, can be dark, edgy, and deep with character fleshing.  This was the real Batman film, until 1992 when The Dark Knight's curtain was drawn wide open.  The question that remained, was if people could handle what they would see on the other side...Christopher Nolan and Joel Schumacher  would have their chance, but tonight we're riding down @#!*% 's highway in the Batmobile, where it has gotten significantly colder for our main hero and villains, The Bat, The Cat, and The Penguin.  Tonight is when the underworld freezes over.  This is Batman Returns!


   It's hard to believe that the Batman franchise is still running strong.  New arrivals of comics are becoming welcomed editions of the  B-Man universe, and hopefully Batman will continue to leave audiences in shock on the big screen.  I'm witting these words in light of the third and final Batman film by director Christopher Nolan.  It feels to me like an end of an era, and in some ways that's a good thing.  The sad truth for the caped crusader is rearing its ugly head:  Batman won't be here forever.  But, I don't claim to know anything, because nothing is absolute.  I'm just curious as too how many adventures a human male can go through, and not show any signs of aging.  At this rate Bruce Wayne must fight criminals every second of his existence!  I suppose it is just a comic, but that's what happens man.  That's what happens when Batman is the majority of your reading matter checked out from the library.  It was...intoxicating...Anyway, on with the review!

   In every conceivable fashion, "Batman Returns" is the most depressing Batman film created.  That's my opinion, granted, however I do have very good reason to believe this.  Tim Burton's first Batman film received allot of praise, so as a reward Burton was granted a sequel, AND given complete control of the film.  Perhaps maybe too much control.  Remember, Batman was targeted to children and adults (mostly adults), but this new film was much different.  I can safely say that Batman Returns is not a children's film.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that this movie strays from its predecessor.  In fact, Batman Returns is Batman 2.0.  Everything is improved on.  The characters have more back-story, there's more action, it's much darker, and there are more villains.  In fact, the villains are the best part about Batman in my opinion.  And their origins are even cooler.


   Our two villains in this film are Catwoman and The Penguin.  Both of these characters have very depressing origins.  The Penguin (Danny DeVito), whose real name is Oswald Cobblepot, was abandoned as a child by his neglectful parents who could not endure his disfigured body resembling a small bird.  This scene is shown at the very start of the film, and the opening credits role as little baby Cobblepot is thrown into the river inside of a bassinet by his parents.  As the baby travels into the sewers to be confined to a world of misunderstanding, our story begins.  This, I thought was a very Burton-esc way of starting a film, and because of this I did enjoy it.  However, it did raise a couple of questions, such as why penguins were living underground and if Paul Reubens' appearance as Mr. Cobblepot was meant to be a cameo.  But now lets talk about Catwoman.  Vicky Vale is nowhere to be found in this new film.  In her place we have Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer).  I like this character so much, and I also prefer her origin over The Penguin's.  Single Selina Kyle, lives alone in her apartment with only her cats to keep her company.  Her answering machine constantly spews bad new out at her:  Her mother's criticisms, missed opportunities for vacationing, and beauty product advertisements.  She is mistreated by her boss, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and after stumbling upon a shady business deal between him and Oswald things take a turn for the worst.  Watch the movie, and you'll know what I mean.

   Our villains do a fantastic job of keeping our hero busy, and setting an even darker tone than the last film.  Like I said before, it may be too dark for some audiences, which was the main reason why Tim Burton was booted off the Batman franchise for good.  But boy, did he leave an impact.  Comics would become darker than ever, and that lust for Batman was back!  So, it's a mixed opinion sort of thing.  Some people don't care for how bitter the ending left fans, and others just didn't like the extreme style Tim Burton used for the film.  However im on the other end of the scale, and I love this movie.  At the time that I saw the first Batman film, I would have been terrified.  But today, It's the perfect Batman film (for a Tim Burton fan).  Just keep that in mind.


8.1/10

Watch the Trailer Here 

 The Terminator:  1984   

Batman: 1989

Release date: June 23, 1989 (USA)
Director: Tim Burton
DVD release date: March 25, 1997
Rating: PG-13 (USA)
Screenplay: Warren Skaaren, Sam Hamm

   Batman:  The Caped Crusader, The Dark Knight, and even in some cases, The Dynamic Duo.  Bob Kane's creation of Batman has done nothing but evolve since Detective Comics had Batman appear for the first time in 1939 with the release of their 27th issue.  It featured Bruce Wayne as Batman against a Chemical Crime Syndicate, and it blew up in everyone's faces!  They had to know more.  However, today only a couple of copies of these very early Batman Comics still exist today, and we wouldn't see this darker side of Batman until much later.  In my opinion, these were Batman's best days, when not just crooks, but cops were afraid of Batman, and nobody could touch him besides the super crime lords that were as crazy as him.  In a sense, Batman first started out as an anti-hero, and I believe the new movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" will bring Batman's legacy full circle.  So in light of that, I have decided to review the Batman films by Tim Burton first, because this was technically the first feature-length film of Batman, with the darkest setting...so far.


   Being the fact that I have not yet expressed my admiration for Tim Burton, this review should be a deal lengthier than my previous reviews.  Let me start off by saying that Tim Burton is the strangest director I know, and has created by far the most films where you, as a viewer, shift uncomfortably in your seat, of run out of the theater screaming because he broke your mind, or you haven't been able to look away because his style is incredibly original, and unlike anything you have seen.  His visual style is sublime, his directing...strange to say the least, and a homage payer to many old horror films, and films in general.  The first of Tim Burton's works that I had reviewed, called "Vincent", was a great character study for Tim Burton, and if you know a great deal about him, you realize that Vincent, is really just Tim as a child.  But, if at this point in the review your asking why "Vincent" isn't posted on the site yet, it's because terrible things happen to reviews if you leave your computer on while the auto-save function temporarily glitches.  I suppose these things happen...

   However, I am prepared to write about some of the less appealing aspects that Tim Burton possesses.  "Batman" is a wonderful example of how Tim Burton can take an idea already thought up, and put his own spin on it.  Now, Tim has done this with the majority of the films he's directed, and as such he has been dubbed "The Remake King"...which isn't necessarily a good thing.  But don't worry, because "Batman" is an example of how an idea can  be made into a film, and not feel like it's been overused.  I'm not sure, but I think that this Batman film was one of the first of its kind to be made into a motion picture.  But there was a difference between this film, and the ones made before it.  This Batman film was made more for adults than for kids.  I believe this heightened ticket sales, as well as creating a wider audience to discover the Batman universe in, since Batman just began to convert to slightly darker story lines in the comics with the arrival of new artists.


  Batman teamed up with this kind of a director was a godsend to the film industry, as well as Batman fans.  The film presented a very dark setting (but not too dark), and this was one of Burton's specialties.  The city of Gotham was as stylistic as it was strange, but I suppose it had to be because Bat's and Clown's would be fighting in it.  Speaking of which, The Joker is an interesting character in this film.  Consider the scene with Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger) hostage to the clown.  Joker (Jack Nicholson) explains that his...psychosis...is more of an artistic one.  It's not so much as doing something because you can, rather sending a message through abstract destruction...because you can.  And it is an interesting notion, as well as one that would be plausible to The Joker, because of the deformities created by the mishaps in the Ace Chemical co.  And this is a very interesting foe against foe origin in this film, because if you think about it, they are each the creator of their own alter ego.  Young Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) kills Bruce Wayne's (Michael Keaton) parents causing him to become The Batman, and Batman pushes Jack into the infamous vat of acid, thus transforming him into The Joker.    

   This is truly the plight of Batman.  The idea that he may be creating more villains than he  can take off the streets of Gotham (If he's doing more harm than good).  Many people have touched on this theory, and have understood its significance.  Heck, even the animated series recognized the power within this thought.  This is also the reason why I believe Batman to be more of an anti-hero than a hero, but it fits his character and Gotham and especially this film.  Tim Burton's Batman is a very good movie, and it captures the struggles a crime fighter of this caliber must face.  It's dark and edgy, and brought out, not my likability of the horror genre, more so my...tolerance for it.  There are some campy moments, some funny ones, but at the center you'll find a stone cold flick worth checking out if your any kind of a Batman fan. 


8.0/10

Watch the Trailer Here

Next Review:  Batman Returns  1992  

          

The Vampire Bat: 1933

 Happy Birthday Dad, This Review Is For You...

   Since the beginning of horror films and literature, the vampire bat is probably, in my opinion, the most well known out of all the horror cliché’s.  In fact, this device has been used so much, that it is considered to be symbolic, to both the written word and cinematography to this day.  However, in some senses, the vampire bat is quite real to areas such as Europe and South America, where on occasion, they spread famine and disease.  It is a sad truth, one that is covered by Hollywood to make it 

appear as though a fairy tale.  It is often put next to The Vampire, and more famously, "Dracula".  But today I will not be reviewing Dracula:  1931.  Instead I will go just a bit farther, after Todd Browning's success with Bela Lugosi (I'm saving that for later).  Today I will be reviewing, "The Vampire Bat", from 1933!

   In the small village of Kleinshloss, the locals are scared with a serial killer that is draining the blood of his victims, and the Burgomaster Gustave Schoen is convinced that a vampire is responsible for the deaths.  The skeptical police inspector Karl Brettschneider is reluctant to accept the existence of vampires, but the local doctor Otto Von Newman shows literature about cases of vampirism inclusive in Amazon.  When the apple street vendor Martha Mueller is murdered, the prime suspect becomes the slow Herman Gleib, a man with a mind of child that loves bats.  The group of vigilantes chases Herman, while Dr. Von Newman's housemaid Georgiana is attacked by the killer.

   Although more prominently a horror film, "The Vampire Bat" kind of has a little bit of everything.  At first it’s a Mystery, then a Horror, then a Comedy, and finally a Science Fiction film.  The two genres’ that stood out to me the most were Horror and Mystery.  However beware, because this movie plays out as if it were a horror film.  And just as my review of, “The Invisible Man” tricked me, so has this film of leading me to believe that what I was watching was a horror flick.  

   But its main attraction is the perfect distraction making it seem like one genre of film when it’s actually another.  For, "The Vampire Bat" is actually, and always has been...a Mystery Film!  Just look at the facts; first, you have many disappearances in a small town.  Yes, there is some supernatural nature to the idea as well as horror, but how the townsfolk deduce the dilemma is executed as though from a mystery movie!  One of the occupants of the area is accused, however you yourself aren't fully convinced that he is the actual culprit because of the true nature this character has.  

   He is very shy, and though strange at times has an innocence to him that would compel the viewer to believe that he did not commit the crimes he was accused of.  This works well in the favor of the movie and I guess that it also balances the line between Horror and Mystery as well.  In this way, "The Vampire Bat" also reminds me of, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".  There is a mystery to the plot as well as implementing horror, the supernatural, and a dream state.  This was where the movie swayed more towards being a horror film above all else.  Each scene was distorted, warped and didn’t have a full grasp on the proportions of things, as if you were dreaming.  It is in this way that, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was more of a horror film than, "The Vampire Bat".  But I'm really sidetracking into something I could keep writing about for hours.  

   The movie is marketed and sold as a horror film, so I guess its false advertising but in a positive way.  Its like if you suddenly win a free cruise to (insert tropical island name here).  When you leave on the cruise ship back home, the people there give you the cruise ship with everything you liked on it and everything you didn't like on it even though it wasn't included in the prize, and you like it for a while until you realize you have nowhere to keep it, and you realize that you just wanted the vacation instead...or something like that.  So anyway, there is also a connection between this review and last review because Majestic Pictures, who produced this movie, was making B-Movies way before Rodger Corman (who directed, "The Terror"...sort of) was in the business.  He made B-Movies fast and inexpensive, which was the polar opposite of this film because they use a diagonal wipe for every transition!  Obviously this was overused because it was a new technique at the time.  It’s similar to, "The Guardians of GaHool" film adaptation and their new discovery of the SLOW-MO shot for every single epic fight scene.  And everyone in the cinema world knows that an overuse of an effect in a movie can be the very thing that leads it to its downfall.  

   Speaking of effects, the bats in the very beginning of the film look better than in, "Dracula" from 1931, because of the film’s use of lighting.  The screen is just dark enough so that you can see the bats but not the strings.  It’s a very good illusion and is pulled off very nicely.  However, the diagonal wipe is not the only aspect of the film, because this movie has also managed to use a device that almost all the early Vampire movies share.  They have one of the main characters at first disbelieves the rumors that there are such things as vampires.  But this fact isn't shoved in our faces for long, or at least not as long as, "Nosferatu" did it.  Although this establishes the super naturalism in the town is not something of the norm, it is very redundant if you have seen something like this time and time again.  As I've said before, "film is an art form that repeats itself".  

   However they do add comedic relief in some way, which isn't too overdone and for this movie adds a nice touch. However Herman, the assistant to the victim, reminds me a little bit of the two insane people from, "Nosferatu", and "Dracula".  This type of sycophantic side character is not new to vampire movies.  One thing that is used well is the whole aspect of hypnosis when murder is brought into a plot.  It reminds me of the character Murder Legendre, played by Bela Lugosi in "White Zombie", made a year before; "The Vampire Bat" was released.  Although somewhat similar, Lugosi's performance is much more memorable than this, because...well...he's Bela Lugosi!  But alas, just as Bela Lugosi does not star in this movie, neither do music.  That is to say that there is music, it’s just only in the opening and closing credits.  But I'm going to let this fault slide for now because this was very common for the thirties.  Music during the acting scenes was very new at the time and although as the years went by it wasn't being used regularly until the forties.  Also as an added bonus I am so happy with the supporting/lead actress, because she is not foolish or risky, rather smart, powerful, and independent without being in your face about it.  To go even further, she has screamed the least amount of times out of all the horror movies I’ve seen so far! And that just makes it so much better without succumbing to the normal cliché of acting.     

  To wrap this review up, The actual killer isn't that surprising so if you’re waiting for something big and dramatic, go ahead and don't be although there is a small twist at the end.  The film is just under an hour, so if you don't mind a-little-bit-of-everything-but-especially-horror-film, I encourage you to check it out!  This is also to those who especially love a good mystery once and awhile.

Verdict

I give this film 3 nice juicy apples out of 5

Next Review:  The House on Haunted Hill 1959