I Capture the Title

I recently stumbled upon Steven Hill's Movie Title Screens Page. It is a wonderful collection of screen captures of movie title screens.

I've always enjoyed watching opening credits to movies. I usually notice which the font is used, where the title pops up on-screen, and the music that plays throughout the opening credits. It is not something I think a lot about, but when I see a good title screen, I appreciate it because sometimes it makes a bold, non-verbal statement about the film I'm going to see.

Now, in alphabetical order, I present to you, a list of my ten favorite title screens.

I love the whole writing-on-notepad opening credit thing. I think it's pretty darn cool that it was writer/director Cameron Crowe writing it. That man has awesome handwriting, compared to my own sloppy scrawl.

I know this is pretty much the usual title screen to most Woody Allen movies, but I love the simple white text on black background. It is unbelievably classy.

This image is a true icon of the bristling elegance of early sixties cinema. Audrey Hepburn + Pastry + Tiffany's + Moon River = Title. I love it.

Catch Me If You Can is one of Steven Spielberg's most entertaining and underrated films of all-time. But fortunately, the highly stylized, sixties-inspired opening credits is often not overlooked. Like the film itself, the opening credits is a lot of fun, complete with a brilliant John Williams score to top it off.

I just saw this film fairly recently and liked it quite a bit since I'm a fan of Bob Dylan's music. I have to say, Cate Blanchett is really as marvelous as everyone says she is. Anyway, I love the opening credits to I'm Not There. "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" is a great choice for the opening credits but what I really love was the font used for the credits. I'm no expert on fonts, but it looks like a hybrid of Helvetica and Verdana. Or am I thinking too much into this and it's really just Arial?

Yeah, I have a thing for plain, simple fonts used in opening credits. When I see title fonts for movies like Star Wars and Jurassic Park, I tend to think that they look way too commercial-ready. The way the title appears across Steve Carell's post-suicide attempt Frank kind of sets the mood for the somewhat depressed, unstable bunch at the center of Little Miss Sunshine's dysfunctional family.

Gorgeous, much? Nobody films New York like Woody Allen.

I love this movie and I also love simple fonts. But this font is in pink so it makes it rather special.

This is probably my favorite opening title sequence ever. I find the revealing of the title really cool and creative for some reason. Elmer Bernstein's score is enchanting and lovely to listen to. To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my favorite movies (and books) of all-time, so I pretty much love everything about it.

Honestly, Vertigo gives me the spooks. So does this insanely freaky title screen.

-----------------

Feel free to share your favorite title screens/opening sequences!

Five Links Friday (#1)

Five Links Friday is a new thing here at BISTF. I wanted to do something that I could update weekly, like Valley Dreaming's Monday Movie Meltdown, Blog Cabins' Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released, or StinkyLulu's Supporting Actress Sundays. So the deal is, I share five links and provide some (hopefully) brief commentary on the subject. The links could be an awesome blog entry I stumbled upon, an amusing video, a catchy song, an interesting article I found, etc. It's a lot like show-and-tell, just with a lot of text.

So here it goes...

1. Batman on Film - "Let's talk sequel"

Jett of Batman On Film wrote an excellent article about the future of the current Batman series. Like me and many others, Jett wants another Batman film directed by Christopher Nolan, the vision behind Batman Begins and the most recent box-office and critical champion, The Dark Knight. Nolan's participation in the next Batman film is pivotal--and so is the material itself. After the overwhelmingly positive response The Dark Knight has received, how is any sequel ever going to top that?

David S. Goyer (screenwriter for Batman Begins) said he has a theme and villain in mind. Gary Oldman also suggested The Riddler as a villain in several interviews and I think he would make a terrific Riddler if he wasn't already Jim Gordon. But it has been mentioned repetitvely that at this point, the filmmakers aren't interested in doing well-known villains. I guess that crosses out The Riddler, The Penguin, and Catwoman.

But yet, I'm yearning to see Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Nolan's Batman universe. Now with Rachel Dawes out of the picture (Maggie Gyllenhaal will be missed--at least by me), it's almost a rule that every superhero on film needs a love interest. I know Batman has an insane amount of love interests from the comics, but Selina Kyle/Catwoman is an iconic character who is more than just "Batman's girlfriend." Her cat burgular/socialite character in the comics fits the Gotham City Nolan created almost too perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their minds to go with Catwoman after all. There have been some very talented and gorgeous actresses (i.e. Angelina Jolie, Emily Blunt, Eva Green, Kate Beckinsale) suggested for the Catwoman role, but I want someone entirely from left field. I want to see Winona Ryder (who was great with Bale in 1994's Little Women), or--this is an out-of-this-world suggestion, but I actually think Zooey Deschanel might make an interesting Catwoman, despite the fact that she's a little too adorable. Honestly, if Gyllenhaal was not cast as Rachel, she would have been my top choice for Catwoman. No, really--I, for one, find her incredibly sexy.

Then again, Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer were electrifying together in Batman Returns. If they want to do a convincing Bruce Wayne/Batman-Selina Kyle/Catwoman relationship this time around, Keaton and Pfeiffer will be hard to beat.

But Catwoman won't be able to carry all the troubles of Gotham on her own. If Batman ever needed a shrink, it would be now. What makes Hugo Strange a probable choice is that he isn't as popular as The Riddler or The Penguin, but he does fit into this reincarnation of Gotham like a glove. My personal casting suggestions are Jackie Earle Haley and Ben Kingsley.

So I'm interested to hear your take on the inevitable third Batman film. Villains? The plot? Rumors you've heard? Just anything, really.

2. The Editing Room - "Abridged Script for Superman Returns"

The Editing Room is one of my favorite new web discoveries from the past few months. It is a collection of hilarious abridged film movie scripts written by the very talented, Rod Hilton. Several of my favorites are the abridged scripts for the Harry Potter movies and undeserving Best Picture winner, Crash.

But after watching the terribly stupid Superman Returns a few days ago, I checked out what kind of script The Editing Room had cooked up for that movie. The abridged Superman Returns script is full of brilliance and everything that is said in the script are just too true.

Superman Returns just sucks. I've never been a huge Superman fan. I watched the Superman cartoons as a kid, the TV show Smallville, and Superman: The Movie and found the character unebelievably boring. Perhaps Superman doesn't necessarily have every imaginable superpower, but he sure has the majority of the top ten most desireable superpowers ever. The only things he doesn't have is a peace of mind since Lex Luthor's always around and a normal life with ladylove, Lois Lane. I also hate the Superman costume.

I tried to watch Superman Returns with an open mind, but Bryan Singer's film simply emphasized everything I didn't like about The Man of Steel. It doesn't help that the silly script doesn't give its title characters much lines. Brandon Routh plays Superman and Clark Kent with little charm or allure and I bet the only reason that he got the role was because he resembles Christopher Reeve, minus the acting chops. Routh just delivers a boring performance with already underwritten material.

Then there is the fantastic Kevin Spacey, who can spin yarn into gold like no other actor out there. As much menace and intimidating qualities Spacey tries to inject into Lex Luthor, whatever on paper just solidified him a weak villain. Lex Luthor also has a lame sidekick, Kitty Kowalski, who is played by the usually talented but ultimately disappointing Parker Posey. I believe Spacey does his best and has some fun with the material, but how could he beat the great Gene Hackman from the 1976 original when Hackman had nuclear missiles and Spacey only has real estate? Usually, in superhero movies, the villain carries the film along.

But how exactly is the audience supposed to care about some inane idea about the U.S. sinking and a development of a new crystal-formed island when nobody--not even the hero of the story--senses it as a threat until the last half-hour of the film? Keep in mind, this movie is 2 hours and 29 minutes long and the majority of those seconds kind of glazed past my eyes like a huge, unnecessary void. The "showdown" (if I can even describe it as such) between Lex Luthor and Superman must be one of the most anti-climatic hero-villain showdown scenes I've ever witnessed in my life.

There are a couple of thankless supporting performances, namely by Kate Bosworth. Bosworth as Lois Lane? The Razzies nominated Katie Holmes in her somewhat-terrible, somewhat-mediocre performance in Batman Begins, but not Bosworth for her amazingly atrocious portrayal of a supposedly intelligent Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter? I can't think of a performance more bland or a role more miscast (maybe with the exception of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code), but seriously--are we really supposed to believe that Bosworth is Lois Lane, after Margot Kidder's wonderful portrayal in the original film?

This time around, Lois has a new boyfriend in the form of James Marsden's Richard White (masterfully nicknamed "Cyclops" as a reference to Marsden's X-Men role in The Editing Room's abridged script). Richard thinks he is the father of the son he and Lois are raising together. Boy, is he in for a surprise someday. But I really like Marsden in the role and it doesn't hurt that he's a pretty good-looking guy.

Superman Returns has fantastic visual effects, but they all seem obligatory and unengaging. There is a major action sequence in the first hour of the film that looked cool as a film promo but when seen in the context of the film, it lacks the excitement of what the superhero genre is all about. The Editing Room's script captures the dullness and stupidity of Superman Returns much better than my short review. I know I gave this film a 5.5/10, but it's mostly because I found some of the scenes unintentionally funny and strangely enjoyable. Plus, it is technically a well-made film with a terrible script and a weak director.

But is it wrong for me to dislike a film so much, yet realize the tremendous potential a sequel may have? There is a lot of unfinished business left and if they hire the right writers, a sequel might work. I'm not saying I'll be first in line for Superman Returns 2, but I'm just saying that it's an idea that I'm surprisingly not against.

3. Youtube Video - "Castle in the Sky/Kiki's Delivery Service AMV set to Breaking Free"

So enough about superheroes. Let's talk anime.

I've been having a bit of a Hayao Miyzaki film festival these days at my house, ever since I saw J.D.'s favorite, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

A few days ago, I gushed about the lighthearted loveliness of Miyazaki's Kiki's Delivery Service. So far, Kiki's Delivery Serivce and Castle in the Sky are my two favorite Miyazaki films. I was quite ecstatic to discover a Youtube AMV of both films with music provided by--yep, you guessed it: High School Musical. But it's "Breaking Free," one of the not-so-terrible songs from the High School Musical soundtrack! You all know how I feel about High School Musical: I kind of hate it, yet I can't keep my eyes away. In fact, I think I hate it so much that I'm starting to love it. Truthfully, it's my ultimate guilty pleasure.

Some people on the comments section act like it's a travesty to have great art like Miyazaki's be combined with a song from an over-commercialized Disney TV movie, but hey--the song and images fit, right? Personally, I dig this video so I might as well share it.

4. EW - "Obama vs. McCain: The Great Presidential Pop-Culture Debate"

I was obsessed with CNN before my crappy cable wouldn't allow me to watch it anymore. I don't know the deep ends of politics or any of the technical terms, but it is something that always interested me to some extent. I don't support any major political party nor do I have a definite belief on how people should run my country. I guess I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to my personal opinion regarding politics, but that doesn't keep me away from checking CNN.com and watching the news almost everyday for fun.

Anyway, I found this amusing little piece from "Entertainment Weekly's" website with presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain discussing their favorites in the world of pop culture. I'm not partial to either presidential candidate (and I don't have to be, since I can't even vote in the upcoming election), but I have to admit, McCain certainly has better taste, although many preferred Obama's picks.

Care free to weigh in about which candidate has the better taste in pop culture? Or want to share who you're supporting in the upcoming election? Feel free to do so in the comments section. I'm in the mood for some political sound bites.

5. EW - "Jonas Brothers eye a return to Camp Rock"

I first saw this piece of news on Fataculture and it had me grinning from ear to ear, mainly because I knew a sequel to Camp Rock was inevitable. Am I looking forward to it? Not really. Camp Rock isn't as fun as High School Musical, but I guess that depends what your definition of "fun" is. I guess some songs from Camp Rock are kind of catchy and Demi Lovato has a nice enough smile to carry her role, but it didn't leave me dying for a sequel.

The real reason that I posted this article is because I thought it was kind of funny. This part made me really made me laugh:

A Disney Channel spokeswoman confirms that a sequel is in development, and that the [Jonas] brothers would like to premiere the movie in Central Park, where they'd serve pizza from their favorite New York restaurant.

I love how there isn't really a legitimate shooting script yet and they already know where they're having the film's premiere and what they want to do at the premiere.

-------------------

I promise you that my commentary will be much more brief next time. (I really, really type too much.)

"So dark the con of man."

The Da Vinci Code | rel. 2006 | dir. Ron Howard

Like many, I've read Dan Brown's best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code. As preposterous and ridiculous the puzzle pieces were, I admittedly enjoyed Brown's interesting but unconvincing and predictable mystery. The pieces were forcefully fit, but that didn't matter. The central mystery--the controversial theory--worked in the novel's context, but I don't believe a word of it. As a whole, the novel was solid entertainment and an acceptable work of fiction. When the film came out in 2006, it looked like a definite renter. It took me a few years to remember that the film version even existed and that I even had any intentions of seeing it at all.

The Da Vinci Code, on paper, seems like a suitable novel to adapt into a film. It has some suspense, some mystery, some adventure, and even some romance. National Treasure did a decent job with all those ingredients back in 2004. The problem was, Brown's The Da Vinci Code was a 496-paged bundle of explanations, flashbacks, history lectures, and long conversations regarding the central mystery. All those aspects works in literature and always had. In the hands of a good screenwriter and director, those aspects could have had a healthy translation onto film.

So I just finished watching Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code. I've came to the conclusion that it has to be one of the most boring movies that I ever had the unpleasant experience of sitting through.

Howard is a reliable and versatile director who had several career highs, including an Oscar win for Best Director for 2001's A Beautiful Mind. He knows how to make his movies look good and appealing to both audiences and critics. But what went wrong here? My guess is that Howard and the film's screenwriter, Akiva Goldman, trusted in their source material too much. They probably had complete faith that the book would translate perfectly onto the screen.

Howard and Goldman had every right to believe that Brown's mystery adventure would easily make a fantastic film, but unfortunately, that was not the case. Everything takes some effort, especially a good adaptation. The magical purpose of film is to show more and tell less but somehow, Howard and Goldman forgot that point. In the film, whenever something new pops up, a character has to explain to the audience what the thing is. This creates a fiasco of a lot of talking and not a lot of showing. Nothing ever gets the chance to unfold itself, therefore, nothing builds up. Because of this, the film loses much of its potential for thrills.

Tom Hanks stars as Robert Langdon, an acclaimed writer and university professor in symbology has come to Paris as a guest lecturer. Langdon's a pretty smart and likable guy (mainly due to the fact that he's played by America's Favorite Actor), so when a curator at Paris's famed Louvre museum is murdered and leaves several clues behind at the crime scene, the authorities contact Langdon.

Langdon meets a young French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) at the museum who warns him that he is suspect in the murder case due to a cryptic message ("find Robert Langdon") left on the scene and they have have to get out of the Louvre immediately--at least after they throw his GPS tracking system out the window and solve some of those clues the curator left behind on the floor, the Mona Lisa, and everywhere else. Sophie also reveals that the murdered curator is her grandfather. In response, Langdon absorbs the information and I could almost see Hanks's actor's mechanic move about and thinks, "Thanks for the info!"

The man who murdered the curator is a hooded albino man by the name of Silas (Paul Bettany) who brutally whips himself for his sins. Silas works for a mysterious man called the Teacher and Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina). Silas is a prime example of a character that is thoroughly compelling in the novel but works poorly on film. The flashback scenes that build his character so well in the book is all too brief and abrupt in the film--but does the film really have time for that kind of development? Probably not. But Silas is just a bore in the film and rarely seems malicious nor vulnerable.

As Langdon and Sophie make their escape with the Fleur-de-lis key in hand, a police officer, Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) pursues the two in a not-so-exciting chase sequence around the grim streets of Paris. After taking a breath or two, Langdon and Sophie reaches address inscribed on the Fleur-de-lis and finds a safety deposit box containing a cryptex. After making yet another near escape, the team seeks help from Langdon's friend, Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellan). Teabing just happens to be interested in the cryptex and believes it holds the clue to the Holy Grail. He shows a dull, explaination-ridden presentation using Da Vinci's famous painting, "The Last Supper" to inject some evidence into his theory: Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ. They had a child together. McKellan seems to be thinking and imploring, "Audience, be wowed!"

The dull presentation morphs into some kind of erudition experience for the audience that proves itself totally unnecessary. It is just more fluff so the filmmakers could try their best not to offend. A boring back-and-forth between Teabing and Langdon regarding their knowledge about the Holy Grail, the Priory of Sion, and the Vatican takes place, complete with flashes of images that resemble ancient times just so they can give an entire history lesson to Sophie and the audience.

But what's up with the Priory of Sion? Why do they bother to keep this "secret" that poses a threat to Christianity for so long? What's in it for them? Then again, I'm yawning, I'm falling asleep--I really don't care anymore.

The first hour basically sets up the foundation for the rest of the film. The rest of the film is just a lot of running around, making escapes, and revelations. Oh yeah, and a lot more revealing and explaining goes on too. I shouldn't forget to mention those poorly-executed flashbacks either. Those flashbacks are usually heavily narrated, jittery, and almost unnecessary.

Never has a more talented cast been wasted as much as The Da Vinci Code ensemble. Everyone is staid and serious; not even a joke could be told without a concerned wrinkle. Their facial expressions are full of mock intensity and heavy breathing that seem to add little to the drama.

Hanks has always been a enthusiastic actor, but he is terrible as Robert Langdon. I don't think it is entirely Hanks's fault that his performance is anything less than superb, considering he is a miscast from the first frame of his appearance to the last. Someone like Russell Crowe could have done a better job with the Langdon character.

The fact that Hanks has absolutely no chemistry with his co-star, French actress, Audrey Tautou, is a massive disappointment. In the novel, Langdon and Sophie were gradually falling in love, but that is not apparent in the film, and probably for the better. Tautou struggles with her English, but she pulls through the film. Tautou is a beautiful woman and has enough charm to carry a mediocre movie like Amelie, but The Da Vinci Code doesn't allow her to show off any of her charms or likability. Tautou would enter a scene, say everything that must be said with a pout, and her presence slowly evaporates. In the film, Sophie is a boring character and the way she reacts to serious situations is just by being more serious doesn't give enough of an emotional or dramatic punch.

The supporting cast doesn't do the film any favors either. Bettany and McKellan seem to be suited for their roles, but they bring little to the film. Bettany doesn't have a lot of good material to work with so his character just kind of tears through the film like a benign villain. McKellan starts off by taking the material as seriously as Hanks and Tautou, but later on decides to joke around. McKellan's later attempt to make the film a little more brighter is simply too little, too late. Molina and Reno act like backdrop, contributing nothing that could ever serve as an impact.

Being able to film a thriller in Paris should be any American director's dream, but Howard doesn't take advantage of the opportunity. Instead, he paints a gloomy portrait of dark streets with sloppy close-up of car chases complete with blank character reaction shots. Even when he gets to film in a seemingly gorgeous church, Howard directs the scenes with such laziness and visual incompetence that it is saddening to witness. The scenes in London also lacks beauty. Everything results in a lot of chasing around but there is no adrenaline pumping at all. Unfortunately, not even Hans Zimmer's score, which sounds like the recycled bits from Batman Begins, adds anything to those cat-and-mouse chase scenes.

The film seems to assume that everyone in the audience has read the book, which makes the general feel of the film a tad incoherent. Goldman's script is a fine example of blatant storytelling convenience whose main goal is move the plot forward without developing the characters at all. At least Brown, as silly as his novel was, knew how to get his readers emotionally invested into the characters and because the reader cared about the characters, they cared about the mystery they were trying to solve as well. But it seems like Brown's tale is defunct on film and only the pages seem to function well.

The film has a big budget, but it has no substance or any entertainment value. In fact, watching all 2 hours and 25 minutes of this film is equivalent to exhausting yourself. If you want to see a movie with a lot of clues that fit nicely together, go rent National Treasure or National Treasure: Book of Secrets for a far more entertaining adventure. At least with those movies, you will find a cast that is smart enough to know that their film is logically doomed and doesn't bother to take the material seriously--not even for a second. The Da Vinci Code is simply a boring blockbuster that makes everyone involved look bad.

Rating: 4.5/10

She's soaring.

Kiki's Delivery Service (Majo no Takkyūbin) | rel. 1989/Disney re-rel. 1998 | dir. Hayao Miyazaki

I think I may be in love. After seeing Kiki's Delivery Service, it left a goofy smile on my face and that smile just won't go away.

Short Review

Hayao Miyazaki's gorgeously animated masterpiece, Kiki's Delivery Service is about a young witch-in-training, Kiki, who must leave her tiny village at thirteen to pursue an independent life as a witch. Kiki, along with her broomstick and wise-cracking black cat, Jiji, finds a lovely seaside city to reside in. With the help of Osono, a local and very pregnant baker, she discovers a cozy place to settle. Kiki cooks up an idea to run a local delivery service and befriends several eccentric characters in the city. In her various adventures, Kiki catches the eye of a teenage aviation nerd who takes an interest in Kiki's flying abilities (and later Kiki herself) and Ursula, a young artist.

I love pretty much everything about this film. From beginning to end, it is a lighthearted feel-good fest with a bunch of enchantingly lovable characters. Without being too blatantly preachy, the film is about fitting in, growing up, finding yourself, and utilizing your abilities for the greater good. Many of the things Kiki experiences what most people (like myself) go through in their lives, especially during their teenage years. Miyazaki's creation of the seaside city is full of vivid details and crackling energy. Kiki's Delivery Service is often touching and completely hilarious on a very human level. Kiki may be a witch, but the fact that she doesn't have a ridiculous amount of magical powers make the coming-of-age journey all the more magical.

The Disney re-release (which my entire review is based on) has some terrific voice work by Kirsten Dunst, Matthew Lawrence, Phil Hartman, Janeane Garofalo, Tress MacNeille, and Debbie Reynolds.

Rating: 9.5/10

"I am Catwoman. Hear me roar."

Batman Returns | rel. 1992 | dir. Tim Burton

Isn't that poster one of the most effortlessly awesome creations ever? I sure think so!

Everyone I know just loves Tim Burton and I'm not too sure why. I once told someone that I did not like any of Burton's films, and the person immediately questioned if I ever watched a Burton film. The person probably believed that if I have indeed seen one of Burton's films, I would instantly know what a visual artist and fantastical director he really is. There is no question that Burton exhibits an interesting creative vision for each of his films, but he is a lesser fantasy storyteller when compared to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis. Burton never fails to bore me slightly when he presents one of his Gothic tales or morbid bursts of imagination. Strangely and unexpectedly, I was thoroughly entertained in my second viewing of Batman Returns.

The Dark Knight's first two blockbuster cinematic outings in 1989 and 1992 were both directed by Burton. I will say rather boldly and daringly that I believe those two movies are the worst Batman movies of the modern bunch. While the Joel Schumacher movies are a combination of an illegal drug and rainbow-colored lava lamps, they are far more entertaining than Burton's gloomy, dull, and lifeless illustration of Gotham City.

1989's Batman will always be a classic, not because it is a particularly wonderful film, but it is the Batman film that most people of my generation watched on television or on video. I've seen it several times on television over the years and admittedly enjoyed it, but after seeing it on DVD just last year, I formed a new opinion on the original Batman: I don't like it.

No matter how charismatic and colorful Jack Nicholson's Joker is, he is never frightening and simply just lives up to his name: he jokes around--that's it. Now that mostly everyone has seen Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, Nicholson's Joker will be merely a figment of childhood memories. Considering The Joker is surely the star, I already forgotten about Batman/Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale. There is not one moment in the film that Batman/Bruce or Vicki are compelling or interesting at all. It is all about The Joker in Batman, and perhaps rightfully so.

Thankfully, Batman still remained more of a Batman film than a Burton film. But gee, was it boring to watch as a teenager.

Three years later after the glowing success of Batman, the WB gave Burton nearly free reign to fulfill his vision for the sequel, Batman Returns. With all the eccentric characters and chaotic skeletons on motorcycles, the film magnified all of Burton's sloppy fingerprints. The film continues on being more Burton than Batman and has absolutely no respect for the Batman mythos. But as someone who isn't crazy about those mythos, I don't exactly mind the origin stories of the two star villains in Batman Returns, but I don't exactly dig the stories either.

The film opens to the birth of a disfigured child around Christmastime (a strange time setting for a summer release, I must say). The child's parents react with horror and dump him Moses-style into a stream of Gotham and down he floats, into those murky sewers. Thirty-three years later, he becomes The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and mysteriously controls the Red Circus Gang to stir havoc and violence with a vengeance in Gotham City. Personally, I'd rather have the gentlemanly criminal mastermind originally depicted in the comics and later in the cartoons, but if this was the way Burton wanted it to work, I really don't mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

To detach the film farther away from the mythos, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a mousy secretary of some huge businessman by the name of Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). When Selina discovers a secret of Schreck's, she is pushed out of a window and left to die--until several stray cats come to the rescue and lick her back to life. So Selina comes back to life to her lonely apartment and at first, she appears to be somewhat of a zombie. Suddenly, she goes psychotic, starts spraying black paint all over her apartment, finds a rubber costume, sews it into a cool suit, and tries to avenge for her death with a sudden burst of confidence and ninja skills as Catwoman. Again, I would have preferred the dark-haired cat burgular from the comics and cartoons, but hey, this isn't too bad, right? No, I'm just lying to myself.

As far as I know, that Schreck guy Selina works for serves no purpose to the story at all other than the fact that he's a terrible, nasty businessman whose big secret is that he wants to suck all of Gotham's power source. If Burton and Co. found this idea interesting, they definitely got the wrong idea of what is interesting. And even if the idea just totally sucks--which it does--at least try to let it contribute to the story some way or another, but it never does. Casting a big name like Walken just shows how much filmmakers can waste great talents.

With Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck in the picture, they almost forgot about Batman. I mean, he is only the title character. The problem with the Burton films (and Schumacher films, to some extent) is that the villains always overshadowed Batman. Batman Returns is a fine example of that, but Batman definitely has a stronger presence this time around. In the original Batman film, the character had more screen time, but he was just "there" most of the time, mainly because of obvious obligations. I did not like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne or Batman in the original, but he gave a great performance as Bruce Wayne in his second go-around.

Keaton's performance as Bruce Wayne is full of charisma and charm, ingredients that were absent from his performance in the first movie. The scene where Bruce meets Schreck's character and throws the files across the table to Schreck is excellently done and captured Bruce's careless playboy persona perfectly. Keaton's Bruce also has electrifying chemistry with Pfeiffer's Selina and the scene where they masquerade at Schreck's ball only to realize that they are really nemesis in the nighttime streets is a wonderfully executed scene. Batman Returns is probably the only Batman movie that delivers an interesting romance that doesn't feel like idiocy or studio obligations just hit the screen.

So Keaton nailed his performance as Bruce Wayne, but what about his Batman? The problem with his Batman is that the character acts as a catalyst for the villains. Keaton's Batman delivers his words with this collected calmness, but his Batman always seem very separated from the guy behind the mask. There is this detachment about Bruce and Batman. Keaton never seems to form a connection between the two personas, while Christian Bale successfully does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Keaton's Batman is also far from heroic. Say all you want, but Batman is widely considered to be a superhero. I don't think Batman enjoying some S&M that apparent to the average eight-year-old, but superheroes just don't set people on fire or blow people up and then smile about it afterwards. Keaton is not at fault here, but the people behind this film certainly are. For a film that had merchandise geared towards children, this is disappointing. Recently, The Dark Knight has been criticized for its PG-13 rating and advertisement toward children, but at least the film has an non-killing machine for a hero at the center of it all.

As for the controversy back in its release in 1992, Batman Returns is actually more puke-inducing than nightmare-inducing. There are just several very nasty scenes in this film that adds nothing to the plot or the characters in any way. Penguin bites a guy's nose and in result, blood splatters everywhere. Catwoman grabs Penguin's bird from its birdcage and puts it in her mouth and appears to be enjoying the taste of it--until Penguin threatens to kill her pet cat. Another scene that I found particularly stupid and also kind of awkwardly sick was when Catwoman gives herself a bath by licking her arms and rubbing the saliva onto her head. Oh yeah, Penguin is also unbelievably horny and I'm pretty sure that's apparent to the average eight-year-old.

So about the plot...well, I'm not sure if there is one. Penguin kidnaps Schreck and wants Schreck to turn him into Gotham's hero. They set up this silly plan to get one of his circus people to take the mayor's kid into the sewers just so Penguin can save him. Penguin becomes a huge Gotham celebrity, albeit Bruce's suspisions, and Schreck wants to get Penguin to run for mayor, a plotline that is laughably stupid. Catwoman's plotline sort of forms on the sidelines as she blows up Schreck's mall as part of her revenge plan. Then Catwoman gets terribly pissed when Batman hits her so she asks Penguin to join forces with her so they can destroy Batman together. I noticed that teaming up to destroy Batman has become sort of a tradition since Batman Returns.

The flaw with Penguin and Catwoman teaming up is that they are both so completely aimless about destroying Batman. Honestly, they don't even make that much of an effort because there is just so much going on in the film that their goal in destroying Batman kind of gets pushed to the side. I would have enjoyed some kind of reasonable, coherent plan brewing between the two, but sadly, they don't work too well together. It would have been interesting to see some conflict between the two villains other than more references towards Penguin's repressed sexuality, but like I noted so many times before, I didn't exactly get everything I wanted from this film.

This film had so much potential but almost everything goes to waste. Style is constantly chosen over substance. But I enjoyed myself, or more than I did while watching Burton's Planet of the Apes, Mars Attack!, Edward Scissorhands, and Big Fish. I guess on the Burton scale, I like Batman Returns as much as I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can't deny the fact that I was entertained by what I saw on screen.

So a part of me thinks the film is complete junk. No die-hard Batman fan can possibly love (like--maybe) this movie, especially after how much the people behind this film screwed up the origin stories of the film's two main villains for the worse and created a killer Batman. But another part of me kind of likes it because it is pure entertainment. The origin stories are ridiculous and unnecessary, but they possess sort of this admirable originality. I like the relationship between Bruce/Batman and Selina/Catwoman. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce. Michael Gough always gives a reliable performance as Bruce's trusty butler, Alfred Pennysworth. Pfeffier and DeVito are surprisingly solid, considering the material they had to work with. Danny Elfman's score brings a certain liveliness to the film. The screenplay by Daniel Waters and Wesley Strick is full of stupid one-liners, but they are funny while they last.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I like the Batman Returns for what it is. This is Burton's insane vision and I am finally getting the hang of that man's explosively weird and somewhat campy fantasy landscape. Burton's second installment is far from the best Batman movie, but it is a good movie--if not a good Batman movie--or at least, better than its predecessor.

Rating: 7/10