Change Your Image
MasterFantastic
Reviews
Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders (2016)
Terrific send-up of a send-up!
What can you say about a campy cartoon based on a campy television show done in the 1960's? You can go in one of three directions: A) it doesn't work; B) it works very well; and C) it works most of the time.
I'm going to go with C. I grew up watching the show in the '60's, so I knew about the formula from Day One. And the formula here isn't any different. In this rendition, Batman and Robin return to foil the canonical dastardly group of super-villains who have acquired a duplicator ray and threaten to copy the Earth itself.
Batman to the rescue! Taking on the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, and the Riddler--not to mention an equally dastardly spray that turns Batman evil--good triumphs once again.
Good points. It was nice to hear Adam West and Burt Ward reprising their roles as Batman and Robin respectively. Julie Newmar is terrific as Catwoman, and the other voice roles, particularly the super-villains, are handled surprisingly well, considering the originators of the voices are no longer on this plane of existence.
There is also a lot of sly humor, references to the 1989 Batman movie, and Frank Miller's Batman--"This is an operating room, and I'm the surgeon"...that line has always stood out to me.
Downer points. The animation is good, not great. It seems that DC cut a few corners in its animation department. It isn't terrible by any means, but it isn't memorable, either. You can also hear the age in Adam West's voice, although Burt Ward still sounds like his old self. Julie Newmar is somewhere in between.
That aside, the reaction shots--face palms, grins, nods to the camera--seem out of synch, almost telegraphed. There weren't too many, but they were noticeable.
All in all, though, this was an enjoyable Bat-Swing down nostalgia lane, and it was great to hear Adam West, Burt Ward, and Julie Newmar do what they do so well. Long live the Bat...and thank you, Adam West and company, for making this viewer's childhood fun.
This Is Paris (2020)
Will the real Paris please stand up...or leave?
While the title is somewhat unflattering, it's my perception of what Paris Hilton was and perhaps still is. Admittedly, it's a little hard for me to take anything Paris Hilton says at face value--at first.
However, perceptions change. This was a revealing documentary, revealing in the sense that she suffered trauma and abuse as a young girl and then teenager, that she put on a public false front to conceal the hurt, that she surrounded herself with yes-people who catered to her every whim, and that part comes through quite well in this film.
At the same time, though, what we see in her public face is that which we remember. And what we remember more than anything else is an image of a vapid, spoiled, not-too-bright socialite who comes from old money, who doesn't have to worry about where her next dollar is coming from, who flaunts her success to everyone willing to listen to her, and who makes it appear that she doesn't care what anyone else thinks because she's rich, rich, rich!
Still, she likes animals, so that's one point in her favor.
Yet...after watching this documentary, in spite of some of the revelations of her friends, her entourage, her relatives, and her own observations, I never really caught who the real Paris Hilton was and is. She's always come across as the living embodiment of spoiled WASPy privilege, and revelations in this documentary aside, she's not done much to alter my perceptions of her. I don't wish her ill; I wish that on no one.
But I have a feeling that this youtube flick is simply another way for her to reinvent her public persona, to gain more followers to someone who should have grown up years ago, and to show another side of her personality without ever revealing who she truly is.
Samson and Delilah (1949)
"He'll not kneel to any god but his own."
So says George Sanders, the evil king of the Philistines, during the climax scene. But before we get there, there's the reenactment of how Samson came to be. In typical C. B. DeMille fashion, this film offers spectacular special effects (for its time), a solid musical score, decent acting, and a climax scene that literally brings down the house.
We all know the story of Samson, and while some 'facts' are played around with, Samson and Delilah still stands as one of the best biblical movies ever made, the story of a flawed hero who wanted to serve his people--the ancient Hebrews--and yet marry a Philistine woman (nicely played by a very young and sweet Angela Lansbury). That their marriage went unfulfilled leads to Samson changing from wastrel and playboy to an avenging hero. It's a story of faith lost and faith found, and rarely has a spectacle managed to entertain as well as uplift in its own way.
The acting is surprisingly good. Victor Mature always had sort of a dopey look about him and he used to make fun of his career, but here, he's quite restrained and offers a solid portrait of a flawed, doomed hero. Hedy (not Hedley) Lamarr is beautiful, slight Austrian accent and all. Granted, she was never that great an actress (although she was superb in The Strange Woman) but here, all she had to do was look at the camera and everyone forgave her. And she and Victor Mature had a surprisingly good chemistry onscreen.
George Sanders as the king was excellent as always, Henry Wilcoxen as his faithful subordinate, and was that George Reeves (TV's Superman) in a cameo as a soldier? Yes, I believe it was.
The fight against the thousand Philistines was well staged. Granted, somewhat hokey, but with good special effects, a thrilling musical score, slow motion (not often used in American cinema at that time) it has yet to be topped.
Of course, the final act is a showstopper and it stands alone. There have been other remakes, but none stands against this version of the Philistine temple being destroyed. Sanders raising his cup of wine before he's crushed and uttering "Delilah" sums up the entire proceedings, a statement of a woman who betrayed both sides, yet found faith and love in her final moments. This is a flick worth seeing over and over. It's that much fun.
Superman: Man of Tomorrow (2020)
Man of tomorrow is yesterday's news
Origin stories are always tricky. Too much exposition, too much reliance on old themes and old storylines, they become dull. Too little, they're empty. This effort is somewhere in between. While it isn't terrible, it isn't that great, either.
What we have here is another reboot of how Superman came to be and a riff on how Parasite came to be but not unbe. The story is familiar and with a "love conquers all" message at the end--not needed, IMO, because of how treacly it was--it brought down the movie to a level of barely passable.
Pluses. The voices are good, particularly Zachary Quinto as Lex Luthor. I'm used to Clancy Brown, but Quinto's riff on it wasn't bad, and the evilness of Luthor in the final showdown was solid. Darren Criss as Superman/Clark Kent was fine, and Alexandra Daddario as Lois Lane was good. I'm sort of spoiled by Brad Garrett's interpretation of Lobo, but Ryan Hurst does well enough, showing the meanness...but not all the humor. Ike Amadi as Martian Manhunter does well enough in his role, investing his character with gravity and pathos.
Music. Good, but not great. Direction also good but not great. The story could have moved a bit faster. It was a by-the-numbers direction job, but not terrible by any means.
Minuses. The animation could have been a lot better. It reminded me of The Brave and the Bold style, with somewhat less of a black outline around the characters.
Parasite reminded me more of Godzilla: Resurgence (which was pretty awesome, IMO) but his character really didn't move me one way or the other. He's supposed to garner the audience's sympathy for his condition; he left lukewarm. Couldn't hate him, but definitely didn't like him. Every superhero needs a villain, and Lobo was more compelling in his own way.
But the biggest drawback was the overall familiarity of the story and the unwillingness to move in a different direction. I'm a huge DC fan, so I always look forward to what they come up with, but this is a far cry from being their best or even being near their best. It's worth a watch, but not a buy.
X (1963)
What haz been seen...
Poorly spelled title aside, this has to be Roger Corman's best film in terms of direction, acting, and story, right up there with The Intruder, a film about an evil bigot (superbly played by William Shatner) that was made the year before X.
X benefits from an excellent performance by Ray Milland as a doctor who tests the limits of science in a quest to see beyond human limits--and pays for it. Harold J. Stone, Diana Van der Vlis offer excellent support, and Don Rickles, the Merchant of Venom himself, plays a straight role as a ruthless carny exploiter and he's terrific in his role.
While the special effects are poor by today's standards--and were probably considered so-so then--Corman wisely eschews focusing on them, preferring to concentrate on Milland's performance as a doctor who pushes the envelope at every opportunity.
The ending was a shocker then, and it's still a shocker now. Very much worth seeing--no pun intended.
Who's Minding the Mint? (1967)
"You'll have to talk louder, I lost my hearing aid..."
While the premise of a great heist had been used before multiple times in previous movies, Who's Minding The Mint keeps things going from pretty much the start of the film.
Playboy Jim Hutton, a swinger who likes to keep things loose and noncommital, accidentally takes some fudge--made by co-worker (who has the obligatory crush on him) Verna, destroys the money, and hatches a scheme to print up some new money to replace what was destroyed.
Enlisting the aid of his father--Walter Brennan, who's retired and angry that he'd been forced to retire--Hutton is forced to recruit new members just to get the caper going.
With an all-star cast, director Howard Morris keeps things hopping with sight gags aplenty. And the characters are great!
Milton Berle, as a pawnshop owner. Berle steals every scene he's in and he rates it.
Jack Gilford, as a deaf safe-cracker. ("You'll have to talk louder!")
Victor Buono as a former ship's captain--and he gets some of the best throwaway lines--and watching him go down with his ship is hysterical (okay minor spoiler) is brilliant.
Joey Bishop as a compulsive gambler. ("Everything's still a little blurry.").
And the rest of the top bananas deliver perfect support, including a cute beagle and a batch of puppies.
Sure, the ending is contrived. Sure, it's a feel-good flick.
Guess what? After more than fifty years, it's still one of the funniest films ever made. Totally worth it.
Superman: Red Son (2020)
Is so-so, comrades. Read graphic novel for more enlightening look at Red Son
Okay, silly headline out of the way, this could have been great, but instead, it turned into the usual America-good-Russia-bad oversimplification that's been going on and off for the last few decades. Promising start, but it was quickly undermined by poor dialogue, so-so animation--and it felt and looked rushed, cramming the source material into 84 minutes or so--and characters you couldn't really care about.
I get the twist on the usual DC characters--Batman, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman--in this universe, but they weren't the least bit likeable. The voice acting was good, but if they'd had lines that mattered, it would have been more enjoyable.
Bottom line: read the graphic novel, or see the motion comic on other social sites. That's infinitely better than this version. DC usually puts out tremendous animated movies. Justice League: Dark, Gods and Monsters, Wonder Woman, and others are far superior examples of animation. This one isn't. It isn't a total disaster, but it could have been something great.
Mosura tai Gojira (1964)
Probably the best Godzilla film outside of Resurgence...
In Mothra v. Godzilla, if you want a knockdown, drag-out fight, this is where you go. Godzilla emerges from the ground--and he was buried under ice in his previous film, but whatever--to ravage the Earth and try to destroy Mothra's egg. Never mind that Mothra wasn't much of a mother. After all, she practically abandoned the egg and it was washed away in a storm.
But that doesn't matter, as she comes back to rescue her offspring with a vengeance, and if there's one thing you never do, you never mess with a mother. And Mothra will do anything to protect her babies! With this installment in the franchise, the trick photography--models, wire action, actor in a very well made Godzilla suit--all come together in a seamless whole. They're not just monsters; they show real personality, something very difficult to do in this genre, but here, it works and works well.
The secondary story, that of a greedy developer ruining the environment, is also quite well fleshed out, and it lends an air of seriousness to the entire movie, something sadly lacking in later installments. The acting is decent enough, although I found the English version's dialogue somewhat simplistic. (If you can, watch the Japanese version with subtitles; it plays better, in my opinion).
The music by Akira Ikufube is well used here, and the twin 'fairies' played by Yumi and Emi Ito, singers and actresses who were twins in real life, lend a cuteness and sweetness to the drama. If you're a Godzilla fan, don't miss this one.
Batman: The Movie (1966)
Make words spontaneously appear when you punch someone...
I have a confession to make: like many, I watched the TV series as a kid and then the movie. Sure, it was formula, but as a little kid, formula works. Here, Batman gets the big-screen (albeit low-budget) treatment a year after it debuted on television, and the results, while mixed, are still fun.
It seems that the super-villains of Gotham City--the Riddler, Catwoman, the Joker, and the Penguin--have decided to team up and kidnap the members of the United Security Council (parodies of the real UN members) by dehydrating them (!) and thus, control the world.
Batman to the rescue! Through a series of quips, puns, bad jokes, and thrills, they manage to capture the super-villains and restore the United Security Council to their former selves...with mixed results.
Pluses. Low-budget or not, Leslie H. Martinson (the director) manages to keep the action flowing nicely. The film is quite well-edited, and there is that bomb scene on the pier where he tosses the Salvation Army, a new mother, lovers in a boat, and ducks, into the mix, working on a small set and he STILL manages to pull off the scene, albeit with nary a straight face in sight. Batman's immortal line of not being able to get rid of a bomb is hysterical, it has been repeated endlessly, and, guess what, it deserves to be.
The acting is appropriately broad, with Frank Gorshin hamming it up as the Riddler maniacal Richard Widmark giggle, rubber-face and all--and he was the only bad guy who ever scared me as a kid--Cesar Romero (mustache!) having fun as the Joker, Lee Meriwether is fine as Catwoman, and Burgess Meredith is great as the Penguin.
Adam West (RIP) was always sort of wooden, but here, his straight-faced delivery works. Same deal with Burt Ward as Robin, and the rest of the cast, they know their roles.
Minuses. While the fans will probably carp and say, "The Joker should be more evil, the Riddler deadlier, etc." keep in mind that this show (and movie) was made as a parody of the old 1930's and '40's serials. If you want serious, watch the Nolan trilogy with Christian Bale in the lead (and that's an excellent trilogy, too!). Here, this is fun all the way. It's not serious and it was never meant to be taken seriously.
As well, the film does suffer from low-budget woes in the special effects department, so the cast and the crew had to make do with what they had. The special effects department had to make do with mainly hard effects, and while that was obvious--especially in the final fight scene on a lake (standing in for an ocean)--it was still fun.
That's what the 1960's Batman was all about. Thanks, Adam West and company, for making this reviewer's childhood fun.
Star Trek: The Doomsday Machine (1967)
"Not with my ship you don't!"
What else can be written about one of THE finest episodes ever made in any sci-fi program or any other TV program, period? Suspense, humor, superb acting...this episode has it all. While there are a few flaws and some goof-ups--yeah, you get a few spoilers--it's SO good that you'll overlook the mistakes.
The Enterprise comes across the wrecked ship of the USS Constellation and finds only one survivor aboard--its captain, Commodore Decker. It seems that a giant windsock of death is blowing the ever-lovin' hell out of planets and ingesting their remains. (The sound the Doomsday machine makes is worth watching the episode alone). Once the Constellation's captain comes aboard the Enterprise, the hunt begins and the commodore--superbly played by William Windom--plays Captain Ahab with shades of Captain Queeg thrown in to the Doomsday machine's Moby Dick.
Pluses of this film are many. A superb musical score done by Sol Kaplan, excellent acting by the entire cast--watching William Windom have a frontal meltdown is awe-inspiring and horrifying as he recounts the last seconds of his crew's existence--and William Shatner showing how a captain should act. Shatner's always caught flak for his broad (at times) acting style, but here, he's forceful, measured, poised, and utterly in control, the way a captain should be. Leonard Nimoy as Spock has no equal here, and he gave a quiet, thorougly authoritative performance. In fact, everyone was perfect.
But, really, Windom steals the show, sort of like the director saying, "Okay, just turn the camera on and let him go." (Yes, I stole that from Jim Carrey talking about Clint Eastwood and I'm not ashamed to say it!).
Now, there are a couple of goofs that others have cited. One, the fight between the security officer and WIndom--you can see the scuff marks on the floor made by their boots which shows they'd been practicing. When the Constellation gets underway, Scotty is wearing a tricorder, then the ship shudders and he falls into his semi-crucifix position against the reactor screen and the tricorder strap is gone, and two seconds later when he signals the captain, it's back again.
There are a couple more, but the biggest suspension of disbelief is when the windsock attacks the Enterprise. If it's death ray is capable of decimating a planet, isn't it safe to assume that it would destroy the Enterprise at once? Yet, it gets blasted at least three times (maybe four) and then the machine holds it in a tractor beam. Why? Why not simply destroy the ship? That doesn't make sense.
Even how Kirk manages to destroy the planet-killer is a bit deus ex machina, but the show is so well done, that can be forgiven. Overall, this is a must-see for any scifi fan who wants to watch a well-written show that offers maximum suspense combined with terrific acting.
Bigger (2018)
Nice try, but very inaccurate
When I was a kid growing up and got into weight training, Weider's name was everywhere, and it still is. The film does a good job of painting Weider's formative years, but once it gets into the actual nitty-gritty of showing how the IFBB grew, the inaccuracies grow by leaps and bounds. As an example, the IFBB was founded in 1946, not 1951. Arnold, when he came to the US, barely spoke English, and even then, his accent was incredibly thick. (It still is, but he speaks English far better now).
My biggest quibble is with the acting and the script...both aren't great. Julianne Hough is pretty and does okay as Betty Brosmer (Weider), but as for the others...Tyler Hoechlin tries hard, but he fails to get that rather nasal intonation the real Joe Weider had. Kevin Durand is a decent actor, but here, he's just a foamin'-at-the-mouth rabid anti-Semite, and his character shows zero depth. Same for the rest of the cast, although I give Calum von Moger (Arnold S) credit for trying.
The inaccuracies--as mentioned before as well as by other commenters--continue with a lot of the movie glossing over the real way Weider and his brother worked. It was a cutthroat business, but the film fails to show how Weider managed to screw over other bodybuilders when it came to contracts and paying residuals for photo shoots. It does nothing to address the problem of steroids or the various legal scandals Weider went through. In short, it's a one-sided, rose-colored love song to the vast and, IMO, very flawed Weider empire.
Shin Gojira (2016)
A new take on Gojira/Godzilla
I've always been a fan of Gojira/Godzilla, and I was pleasantly surprised at this film. It has a lot going for it, mainly a new concept on the "what-if" scenario, and for the most part, Shin Gojira/Godzilla: Resurgence, succeeds.
First, the pluses, of which there were many. The cinematography was good, the special effects were much better than in the previous versions, and the overall new look of Godzilla from tail to full-blown reincarnation of the famous monster was well done.
Additional pluses for the snappy dialogue--the scene where the scientists are included and told what to do is really funny as well as attention-getting--and, overall, the film does a wonderful job of satirizing Japanese bureaucracy and the total incompetency displayed by the politicians. If you're not familiar with Japanese culture, then this will be a revelation. (Although with bureacracies worldwide, incompetency sort of comes with the position).
Yes, it's been done before, but here...excellent. Odd to see purple laser rays coming not only from Gojira's mouth--and its lower jaw splitting apart--but also from its back and tail, but that's the newest version, and once again, to this viewer, it's a welcome change.
Fair warning: if you're expecting to see knockdown, drag-out fights between giant kaiju, you're going to be disappoint, son. While there are some dynamic action sequences, the film examines the often boneheaded responses of the government more than it focuses on action, although there is enough of that.
If there's one weak point, then it's the acting of the nominal star, Satomi Ishihara. The other actors/actresses are just fine in their roles, but as for Ms. Ishihara, while she's pretty enough, her English is horribly stilted and her intonation is poor.
She's supposed to have lived in the US for a time, but listening to her try to speak English was painful, and overall, her character is annoying. However, that's the only drawback of this latest take on the giant, ravaging lizard. If you're into new takes on old greats, then this film is highly recommended.
Batman & Bill (2017)
An excellent documentary.
Growing up as a child, I always saw the name of Bob Kane as the creator of Batman. I never imagined someone else was working with him or had contributed to the concept of creating Batman. I'd seen interviews with Bob Kane, and it always seemed that the Kane wanted to talk about himself and never said much about Bill Finger or Jerry Robinson, although they certainly contributed.
The key word here is contributed. From other documentaries, it comes across as though Kane had the main idea, and that Finger and Robinson helped out. But how much? It's a toss of the dice, but if you're to believe this documentary by Nobleman--who did the research--and Argott, who filmed it--then Finger had a greater hand in the creation of Batman than anyone else realized, as did Robinson.
When I watched Batman & Bill, it came across to me as a well-balanced, insightful, and rather sad look at how the comic book industry was run, and also the characters in that industry who would do each other out of the credit in order to get a larger paycheck. That was Bob Kane. I'm not disputing that Kane was the one who originally came up with the idea. His idea, his risk, yes.
But Finger, apparently, suggested the major changes in the costume, the cowl (Kane originally had a domino mask and the costume was red), and the gadgets that Batman used, many of the rogues gallery, all of which Kane seemed--seemed--only too happy to take on as his own creative ideas. It is sad that Finger was--and there is no other word for it--cheated, IMO, out of what should have been half his legacy.
This documentary sheds new light on the legend of Batman, its creators, and the men who created him and brought him to life. Highly recommended.
Samson (2018)
An insult to anyone interested in films about history.
Here we go again with yet another retelling of the famous Biblical tale. The acting was beyond amateurish in most spots, the special effects--if that's what they were purportedly called--were weak, especially the lion killing scene--and the direction was choppy and altogether terrible.
There is a reason why some classic movies shouldn't be remade. This is one of them. Granted, the 1949 version with Victor Mature also had a so-so lion killing scene, but the other special effects were quite impressive for that age, and George Sanders as the king was impressive. In contrast, Billy Zane seemed to be doing the king's role only for the paycheck.
Meh.
Don't waste your time on this celluloid travesty. Instead, find the DeMille version and have fun. This modern version doesn't even deserve one star, but I couldn't go any lower than that.
Justice League (2017)
Justice has come...sort of.
I'll be honest. I was hoping for something that was cohesive, something that rocked the house like Wonder Woman...and it didn't happen. However, all is not lost. While the film had flaws--big ones--it was enjoyable enough for me to give it this reasonably high rating.
First, the bad news. The film is disjointed, as badly cut up as BvS's theatrical feature was. You can blame this on the writers or the studio executives or both; it doesn't matter. What matters is that the film looked like patchwork. I haven't seen the extended version--assuming that rumor is true--but it might be an improvement...might.
Point two is the lack of individual character buildup. I think most people know the origin stories of Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg, but here, they're reduced to a few lines of exposition to explain how they got that way. While Marvel did the smart thing, that being giving their superheroes their own origin flicks and then bringing all the heroes together, DC seems hellbent on just tossing in their heroes all at once. Bad strategy, IMO, and while it won't kill the franchise, it will limit them unless they change their thinking.
Now, to the good parts. The acting is excellent. Affleck is Batman and does a very credible Bruce Wayne, Jason Momoa reminds me of Randy "Macho Man" Savage--"ooooh, yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!"--and Ezra Miller as Flash is appropriately geeky/goofy.
All Gal Gadot has to do is to smile, but she gets her part. She KNOWS what being Wonder Woman is all about. At turns tough and sweet, she IS Wonder Woman. Ray Fisher as Cyborg is quietly effective, and really, there are no slackers, acting-wise or relating-wise. They play off each other perfectly.
Ciaran Hinds as the voice of Steppenwolf is also good. His character has always been sort of two-dimensional, but Hinds does well with it.
The action sequences are dynamic, and the music (by Danny Elfman) is effectively retro, with riffs from the Flash TV series and also the Batman movies of the late '80's and early '90's. All of these good points were enough for me to give the film a rating of seven. I know the DC faithful were/are disappointed. I was, too, but the fun factor was there for me, as well as the thrill of seeing the superheroes of my youth team up. I can only hope JL 2 will be worth it. Time will tell.
The Cowboy (2014)
Definitely influenced by Tarantino...maybe Rodriguez, too.
Short films are not usually my thing, but this turned out to be an exception and a pleasant surprise. The dialogue between the two principle actors has a cadence and rhythm all its own. Additionally, the direction and cinematography are what I'd expect someone with a fair amount of years under their belt doing this to exhibit.
Not so. Everyone is an unknown, at least to this reviewer. It doesn't matter. This is an immaculately conceived production, worthy of garnering great views and reviews. 10/10 and every point was well deserved!
Wonder Woman (2017)
Good, not great, but fun overall. Spoilers are here, though...
Overall, a very solid flick, fun, clever in spots, with a terrific musical score--Junkie XL ought to get a special nod at the Oscars for his 'battle music'--Wonder Woman has finally made it to the big screen in her own origin movie.
The action starts on Themyscira, the early days of Diana's life as a child and then as a young warrioress, her entrance into man's world, and her battles which shape her as the superheroine she will become.
Pluses of this film are many. The interplay between Diana and Steve (solidly acted by Chris Pine) is good on its own, with a couple of well-placed jabs on males being needed for the essentials in life (babies) while not being there for pleasure. That went over the heads of a lot of people, but whatever.
The action is solid. Yes, the final battle sequence is a tad too long, and some of the CGI is a bit cheesy, but still, decent. As mentioned above, the music is excellent, the acting solid by the leads as well as the supporting cast, and the feminist angle is mentioned, but not bludgeoned to death.
I enjoyed the relationship between Gadot and Pine. Like many, I thought her too skinny for the role when I heard about Batman versus Superman, but was pleasantly surprised by her appearance. Yes, she could have been a bit more muscular, but these things take time. As it is, she put on about sixteen pounds and looked good enough. She does have a somewhat flat voice, but used her wide-eyed expression to good advantage.
Chris Pine has also never been known for his range, but here he excelled. He and Ms. Gadot seemed to be having fun with their roles, and the rest of the cast seemed to be having fun as well.
The direction was solid. Patty Jenkins is not known for her command of action scenes, yet she did a decent job. The slo-mo was employed a few times too often, but it worked more often than not, so there it is.
Now, for the negatives. Sorry, they have to be stated. While origin stories do demand exposition, it went on for too long. I think it could have been cut down somewhat. Did we need all that? Did we need to see the buildup to the battle scenes so drawn out? That could have been somewhat tighter.
I also had a problem with no one mentioning Charlie's shell-shock too much. It's shown when he's sleeping--nightmares--but nothing more than that. (Spoiler) Then there's the battle with General Ludendorff; it doesn't make a lot of sense. He inhales a 'supergas' which increases his strength, but really, he almost bests Diana in their fight, and she should be able to tear right through him, but doesn't.
In spite of these deficiencies, Wonder Woman gives DC's first female superhero a chance to shine, and shine she does. People can quibble all they like about the setting being WWI instead of WWII--as in the comic books. They can compare WW to Captain America, and there are some similarities, yes. But overall, Wonder Woman showed that DC can make decent action flicks AND present a solid message. They did that with Wonder Woman.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
Excellent in every way, but...yeah, I got spoilers
I have not read the book, but I have to say that even though I don't particularly care for magic, this was one magical movie experience. The premise is that dangerous, magical beasts are loose in 1920's New York, and an Englishman abroad, Newt Scamander, dares to brave the Gotham streets in order to find them. Along the way, he meets a No-Maj, Jacob Kowalski, Porpentina (Tina) Goldstein, a disgraced former Auror, her sister Queenie, and eventually solves his problems...most of them.
There are sub-plots aplenty. A potential war between No-Majes and wizards is brewing. A rogue wizard, Grindelwold, has been causing havoc and no one knows where he is. Newt is in over his head, and only by some quick thinking does he get out of it. And then there's the romance (sort of) between him and Tina, and that of Jacob and Queenie.
So, is it a perfect movie? Yes...and no. The positives first. The acting is first-rate. Eddie Redmayne as the shy, almost Asperger-like Newt, is fine in his role. He's passive, yet shines when he has to and takes command. Katherine Waterston as Tina is fine, if somewhat bland in her role. Colin Farrell as Graves is excellent and Johnny Depp provides a startling cameo. He has only two lines, but packs menace into each of them. The other parts are well handled.
In particular, Dan Fogler as Jacob and Alison Sudol as Queenie, a seemingly bubble-headed flapper, is nigh on perfect. Unlikely, yes, but perfect, and the ending sets up a possible reunion. His line to Queenie at the end--"I wasn't even supposed to be here...I wasn't supposed to know"--is touching and heartbreaking.
The music is, at turns, sprightly, dramatic, and moody, yet never overpowers the movie. The direction is solid, and the period detail along with the mythical beasts is fine. The CGI--what else can you expect in a movie like this--is superb, yet never dominates.
Now, the downside. There are plot holes--big 'uns. (A few spoilers ahead). Kowalski at the bank seemingly causes the disturbance and the bank manager thinks he's guilty of potential theft, yet no one ever comes around to question or arrest Jacob.
As well, Newt wonders about Graves' origins, and at the end he casts a spell to reveal Graves' true identity. However, unless there was a scene cut out where even a little exposition is given about Graves, then something is amiss.
New York is not as crowded as it should be. My mother grew up in the Bronx in the 1920's and she remembered it as being VERY crowded, but here, while there are a number of people, it isn't as packed as it should be. Cinematic license, I guess...but it stood out to me.
There are a couple of other outstanding unresolved plot points--mainly the fate of the Obscuris, well acted by Ezra Miller--so perhaps they'll be addressed in the sequel. Overall, though, I found it a fascinating flick and one I'd definitely buy the DVD for.
King Kong (1933)
A true classic
It wasn't that often way back when that Hollywood would make fun of its own conventions, but the granddaddy of all the Kong flicks does it up right. Forget about the old-time dialog and broad acting; focus on the action once Kong makes his appearance and scares the ever-living hell out of you. It was reported that moviegoers ran from the theater, screaming in panic. Sounds ridiculous, over the top hype...maybe, but who cares? This film is fun.
We all know the plot. Promotor extraordinaire goes to forbidden island, brings along the love interest, meets the monster, and it's Beauty and the Beast all over again. Fay Wray, the queen of the screamers, is pretty and talented, Robert Armstrong is all bluster as the promoter, and Bruce Cabot, more famous for his 'circuses' with his pal Errol Flynn later on, provides solid support. But it's Kong's show all the way.
The direction is simple and straightforward and builds maximum suspense, especially during the escape scene of Wray and Cabot as well as the fights between Kong and the various monsters. Yes, the effects are somewhat cheesy compared to the CGI of today, but back then, stop-motion animation was state of the art.
And yes, there is the old racist depiction of blacks/natives in the movie, but that's how it was then--unfortunately. Overall, though, this film, complete with poignant music at the death of the big ape, remains a classic and has so far superseded any attempt to do it better.
Green Lantern: First Flight (2009)
Green Lantern, First Flight, Soars
A very solid effort from the writers and animators at DC. The origin of GL, Hal Jordan, is solidly told, if a little quickly and predictably. We have the dying alien, Abin Suhr, giving his ring to someone worthy, ace pilot Hal, a decent guy doing a hard job and trying to have fun with it.
And fun he has! Hal takes to the ring like a duckling takes to water, and soon he is flying high with the other Green Lanterns, getting into trouble on alien worlds, and saving the day.
The pluses of the movie are many. The animation is smooth, and green never looked so good. The voices are excellent. Christopher Meloni excels as Hal, and Victor Garber is suavely evil as Sinestro. All the other voice roles are handled well; in fact, there are no slackers in the bunch.
The music is also excellent, providing drama when necessary, being playful and light at others. As always, the alien worlds were depicted imaginatively. Watching this movie might have been somewhat predictable, but it was a fun ride all the way.
Its only drawback was that Hal took to his power ring too quickly. No practice, no failures in forming constructs...nada. A little exposition might have made the screenplay work better, but all the same, it was enjoyable, and the ending fight between Hal and Sinestro was superbly staged. A worthy addition to any fan's animated collection.
Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)
Excellent and almost perfect, but... (minor spoilers included...maybe)
First off, a disclaimer in that I have not read the graphic novel--yes, I know, shame on me--and so I'm not totally sure if the movie follows the events of the novel faithfully or not.
The Killing Joke is really two separate stories, one told from the viewpoint of an of-age Barbara ("Batgirl") Gordon, and the other from the viewpoint of the Joker and details his origin story...maybe. It all leads up to a violent confrontation and a somewhat subdued and not totally satisfying ending.
I won't go through the details, as they've already been dissected, but I will summarize the positive and negative aspects of the movie.
Positive Excellent animation, color scheme; the saturation of the primary colors is fine, and the blackness of the night never looked better or more ominous. When we finally see the first emergence of the Joker, it's something revelatory and frightening, right out of a cartoon panel and that makes the movie even better.
The voice acting is superb. Mark Hamill IS the voice of the joker. John DiMaggio was good in Under the Red Hood, but Hamill stands shoulders and grin above everyone else. Tara Strong as Batgirl was also fine and then there's Kevin Conroy who has no equal as Batman, although many have tried. In my opinion, there were no weaknesses in the voice cast at all.
Action: fast and brutal, nasty when it had to be and with the Joker, over the top, as it should be.
Minuses Here's where the hate might come. There were two story lines, Barbara's and the Joker's, and while both were good, to me, they never meshed into a cohesive whole. Just my opinion.
Is the Joker's origin story the real one, or something he made up to fool others and perhaps himself into justifying his horrific deeds? We never know for sure, and that is, to me, a weakness...but it also does lend another layer to the aura of mystery surrounding him, so let's call it a minor minus. (It could also be called a minor plus, as the origin story has never really been included in an animated film, not to this degree, although it was done in the live-action version in 1989, so there it is).
As for the intimate moments, we get Barbara as a teenager who's no longer the gawky sort as depicted in some animated takes on the Bat, but a mature young lady who needs to prove herself in every way to her mentor. And...she does. Her tryst with her mentor--under the eyes of a gargoyle, no less--while not shocking, comes across as shallow and needy, as opposed to something natural.
Even worse, after the Joker is done with her--the famous 'picture' scene--and bashes the living daylights out of her father as well, poor Commish--the Bat shows little emotion when he finds out the extent of her injuries. Of course, he swears vengeance, but there's only ice-coldness. I don't blame Conroy for his interpretation of how Batman should have felt. I do blame the script for it.
As for whether the Bat gives up his no-killing code at the end of the movie, does he really kill the Joker? A lot of people are waxing back and forth over this. I think he did, as the Joker knows he's gone too far over the edge into madness, and the Bat grimaces at the Joker's confession. He understands the meaning of those words. He's seen Barbara disabled, his friend Jim Gordon hurt...all that pain flows, and yet he laughs at the Joker's little gag (which I had to admit was amusing)and the camera moves away, the scene fading to black, so maybe...
Altogether, it's a very good movie...but not totally successful. It is worth buying, though, IMO, and a worthy addition to a DC animation lover's collection.
Batman: Bad Blood (2016)
A solid entry in the Batman series
Although Batman was largely absent during the course of the movie, it was a wise idea to let the new blood take over, at least for a while. Following Son of Batman--which I didn't care for--and Batman vs Robin, this latest installment of the 'family saga' involves the disappearance of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Nightwing (Dick Grayson) and Damien Wayne (Batman's son) fill in and try to solve the mystery of the Bat's vanishing act, and two new additions also make their appearance, Batwoman (well voiced by Yvonne Strahovski) and Lucius Fox's son, Luke. There's also a very nice cameo appearance at the end by Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) and her outfit is pretty decent. In fact, all of the outfits are solidly drawn and Batwing's armor--shades of Ironman and War Machine--is pretty cool as well.
Capably written and voiced well by the entire cast, the plot of the movie has Batman disappearing at the hands of a villain known as the Heretic. A number of other baddies make their appearance--the Mad Hatter chief among them--and the leader of the gang turns out to be none other than Talia Al-Ghul, daughter of the late (maybe, always hoping for a retcon job) R'as Al-Ghul. It seems they're into mind control, and without giving too much of the plot away, they're out to get their piece of the world and need Batman in order to achieve their goal.
While fans may be disappointed at not having Batman keep the lion's share of screen time, it actually works better having the replacements try to find their way in a Bat-less world. Nightwing has the hardest job of all, keeping the disparate elements together, and to Jay Oliva's (director) credit, he manages to make it all work.
The pluses of the movie are many. Although I miss Kevin Conroy voicing Bats, Jason O'Mara does a solid job. Yvonne Strahovski is excellent as Batwoman, and Sean Maher as Nightwing lends a nice touch to the proceedings. There were no drawbacks in the voice casting from my point of view...fine work all around, and Robin Atkins-Downs as the Mad Hatter is appropriately creepy.
The music was good, the direction by Oliva kept things hopping, and the animation, much like in Batman: Gotham Night, was solid. Maybe not the best ever, but not weak by any means. The only drawback was a certain coldness to it all, a lack of depth in the emotions of the characters. Other than that, this is a movie any Batman fan would be proud to have.
Batman Unlimited: Animal Instincts (2015)
A semi-engaging time waster
The only reason I gave this entry to the DC animated universe a five is because it's Batman. That's it. What we have here is a futuristic Gotham with the ol' good guys against the ol' bad guys scenario. The basic plot has the Penguin recruiting many of the animal super-villains--Cheetah, Silverback, Killer Croc, among others--to help pull off a heist of, ahem, cosmic proportions. Naturally, the good guys have to stop them and you can guess the rest.
First, the good points. Decent music, fast moving, some good fight sequences.
And now, the bad. The animation looks like it's been scaled down significantly. I'm not expecting Pixar. I am expecting something decent. This wasn't. Batman's suit (light blue) hearkens back to the late 1960's take and it doesn't suit (no pun intended) this day and age. His gold get-through-the-force-field suit reminded me of some lousy Japanese anime...double ungood.
As for the script, again, while War and Peace ain't on the menu, this makes Jack and Jill Go Up the Hill read like a masterpiece. Cheesy, poor humor, poorer lines...the one good thing was the voice cast that did what they could with their parts. I miss Kevin Conroy doing the voice of Batman. He had the bearing. His replacement sounds like a slightly younger version of him, but with no depth.
The actress doing Cheetah sounds like a whiny child, and I got zero sense of menace behind any of the baddies. Not their fault, really; 'twas the script that done 'em in.
Finally, all the old stereotypes of animals being what they are were trotted out, and quite frankly, that kind of thinking should have gone out fifty years ago.
I heard this direct-to-DVD effort was to sell toys. My only question is: How many? Nothing wrong with selling goods to the kiddies, but this video is an insult to any comic book/cartoon fan.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
What happens when you... (some spoilers added--sorry)
...take a green alien girl--like, where have we seen that before?--a homicidal tree, a smart-aleck raccoon, a pro wrestler who looks like he lifts mountains before breakfast, and a cheeky hero cut in the same insouciant mold as a funnier Indy Jones? You get Guardians of the Galaxy, that's what, and Hollywood is far better for it. The story concerns a mysterious orb that holds the secret of life and death, five characters who all have their own goals in mind as they set out to retrieve it, a truly nasty villain (excellently played by Lee Pace)who wants to use it to destroy worlds, and a gang of thugs (led by an equally superbly limned Michael Rooker) who want the orb for their own purposes. The lead five have to band together in order to stop the villain and the chase is on. Needless to say, there are laughs and tears and lots of physicality, and it all works.
Major pluses are the acting. Chris Pratt as 'Starlord' (Peter Quill) captures the devil-may-care attitude of an old-time adventurer, Zoe Saldana is fine as Gamora, an enhanced alien who betrays her master in order to help save the universe, Dave Bautista as Drax--and he sounds a lot like Wes Studi (from Mystery Men) in some scenes--who takes everything literally, and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel as Rocket the Raccoon and Groot the walking tree, respectively. Lee Pace is appropriately rotten to the core, and although he's buried under a ton of makeup, the look of horror on his face as he's consumed by the orb's energy is perfect. Karen Gillam as the robotic Nebula is fine, and Benicio del Toro turns in a patented, eccentric and slightly creepy turn as The Collector.
The direction by James Gunn is solid, cutting away to show the action far and near when necessary, and the script (by Gunn and Nicole Perlman) has loads of endlessly quotable lines to recommend it.
The music is also perfect, not just the 1970's songs used, but also the theme music. Brilliantly employed at the climax, the lovely moment when the lights slow down for a fraction of a second as Peter controls the power and turns it on his adversary sent a shiver up my spine.
Now, there are a couple of deus ex machina moments given out at the end, but really, that's carping. What this movie is, is really a throwback to the old Errol Flynn swashbuckling movies from the late '30's and early '40's with modern sensibilities and a nifty set of CGI effects. Well worth watching time and again, and yes, I'm up for the sequel.
The Iron Giant (1999)
A boy and his robot
If you were a young, fatherless boy in the not-so-innocent but still portrayed as the innocent 1950's, and if you found a robot with amnesia that had powers way beyond anything you'd ever dreamed of, then this is the movie for you.
With a simple yet prescient message of tolerance for all, The Iron Giant stands metal heads and shoulders above many other animated features as it concentrates on character development as opposed to showing off CGI pyrotechnics.
The voice work is excellent, particularly Vin Diesel who manages to inject his character as the Giant with great emotion in only a few simple words. Jennifer Aniston as Annie, Harry Connick, Jr., and Eli Marienthal all portray their parts as people as opposed to just actors reading lines.
The animation is fine, although I've seen better, but it captures the period well enough. There are a couple of plot holes--mainly about the Giant managing to keep hidden so well when he is a, well, giant--but the movie is so gripping and the music moving (and a little maudlin at times) that you just can't help getting caught up in it.
Highly recommended.