DCEU - Action Figure Insider Forums

Batman vs Bateman (extended cut)

Jim_Abell — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 20:23:01 +0000

ht tps : / / w ww.you tube.c om/watch?v=ykyvHVqKHQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykyvHVqKHQg

Supergirl (1984)

Matt Zimmer — Sat, 01 Mar 2025 06:36:57 +0000

Supergirl (1984)

I have an interesting view of bad movies, differing from most film buffs.

I don't like bad movies.

Okay, I know. You aren't supposed to. But for MANY people, shutting off one's brain and laughing at a bad movie is a guilty pleasure. If a movie is dumb enough and badly written enough, many people find the film entertaining and worth MST3K-ing.

Not me. I can count on one hand the bad movies I've seen that I've liked. For instance, "UHF", and.... Nope, "UHF" is it. If you are a bad movie and aren't as enjoyable as "UHF", then I don't like you.

I remember seeing Plan 9 From Outer Space back in the day, and while I acknowledge it's an important piece of cinema and cultural document, I don't find it either funny or entertaining, no matter how much Siskel and Ebert insisted it was. Do I simply not have a sense of humor?

No, it's because I'm a writer, I know for a fact a decent story is NOT fucking hard to come by. And the fact that Hollywood has coasted on shit like this for years, and few people actually respond in ANGER (the appropriate response) to sitting through Supergirl 1984 means I don't see the giddy fun of Bad Movie Night. Surprise! Matt Zimmer resents being talked down to like a total fucking idiot. The idea that people actually find that kind of thing endearing is why I don't understand people and why I don't actually want to.

That SUUUUCKED...

Once I saw that Faye Dunaway was billed over Helen Slater in the opening credits, I knew I wasn't gonna like this movie. It was literally all downhill from there.

Out of all of the reasons for a world-ending apocalypse I've seen on film, this is easily the stupidest.

The space visual effects at the beginning are trippy. No lie.

Who is this Selina chick and why would I remotely believe she's a worthy supervillain for Supergirl?

Also why does Supergirl show up on Earth suddenly wearing her costume? That makes no fucking sense!

Jerry Goldsmith's Supergirl Theme is a weak soundalike to John Williams' Superman Theme.

Oh, God that scene with the leering rednecks was SUPER gross! God, I fucking HATED the 1980's! Shit!

Also, how does she even know who Superman is or that she's his cousin? This movie is so dumb.

Also how does she know his name is Clark Kent? Or for that matter, how to use a typewriter?

I like the scene of Supergirl and the bunny. Cute.

You know what? The fact that she can magically change her appearance into a secret identity makes no goddam sense.

Also, ooh, different hair color! That'll fool people!

I don't know what's weirder. That the principle can walk into a girl's dorm while they are all in their underwear and somehow NOT be chastised for it. Or the idea that the girls of this school hang around the dorm in their underwear to begin with. This movie is weird.

I take note that they weren't allowed to use Christopher Reeve's likeness on the Superman poster. I take REAL note of that.

Oh, God, Lucy's excuse for Kara knowing the answer in class was SO fucking dumb. This whole movie is SO fucking dumb.

She tells "Linda" not to show her intelligence off because people won't like her. Remember me mentioning the 1980's were fucking terrible? That! That!

Aaaand the R-word. If by the time I finish writing this review this film gets a single star it will be a minor miracle. It sucks.

Ick. high school shower scene. If you don't hate the 1980's, you weren't there.

The mean girl bullies are a couple of twits, even for this era.

When Selina is chasing Ethan the gardener vicariously through a psychic-powered bulldozer (don't ask) I'm like "What the fuck IS this movie? What the hell is happening? Is this real? Did an actual studio send this movie out with THAT scene in it out to theaters? This isn't an Ed Wood outtake (who famously NEVER did outtakes)? For real?"

How do you even make fun of that? The stupidest thing about it is it should NOT be happening in a movie with this big of a budget. The fact that it did is outright shameful. The studio should be ashamed.

What the FUCK is happening?!?! What is this?!

I have mixed feelings about Marc McClure appearing as Jimmy Olsen. The film feels like a lesser unofficial knock-off of the Superman franchise in every other respect. McClure's appearance is the only real thing that ties it to the rest of the movie canon. Which is good for the movie. The problem is the movie is so bad it being tied to the Superman films in such a way hurts THEM. And believe me, the Superman films were already plenty bad. This just makes things even worse.

The more I kept watching the hot mess Selina, the angrier I got Faye Dunaway was billed before Helen Slater. And I was already plenty mad!

"Venturing where fools rush in and Angels fear to dread"? How dumb are the writers of this movie? What. Is. HAPPENING?!?!?

Just for the record, I checked. The mistaken line from Bianca's actress is SO egregious, the close captioning "fixed" it, pretending she said "tread", and as if the audience hasn't been deaf for 40 years. Nice try, but that damage control is a few decades too late.

I'll tell you something interesting (and not ALL bad). Although the gardener Ethan is essentially under a rape spell, the way he treats Kara and the way she treats him is utterly sweet. It actually makes the love spell even more distasteful than it already is for that reason.

Seriously, it's alarming to me how sweet this romance actually is. I think it's the one thing in this abominably shitty movie that I actually like.

Which is why it's totally on brand the shitty movie wrecks it in the climax. If there is something nice in a shitty movie, the shitty movie makes sure it doesn't stay that way.

Ugh. That slime / mud Kara has to crawl through? So degrading for her actress. It reminds of Levar Burton's reaction to Jonathan Frakes having to do a similar gross and humiliating stunt on the terrible first season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation "Skin Of Evil". He looked at him and said, "They'd never get ME to do that, Frakes." I wish Helen Slater had a Levar Burton in this moment.

Peter Griffin reminded me of a fun fact about Peter O'Toole. Both his first and last name are slang words for "penis". Zaltar is not a completely shitty character. O'Toole is kind of charming in the role. "Come with me!" "I AM with you!" I like that.

His death immediately following that is both ineffective and lame. Because shitty movies do not allow us nice things.

I haven't seen a TON of Faye Dunaway movies. Bonnie And Clyde was decades ago. I've never seen Chinatown. Has anybody mentioned before that she is a completely shitty actress? Because I cannot fathom how somebody this legit bad at acting actually had a career. I mentioned I'm pissed she was billed first? That! That!

The visual effects in the climax were legit terrible. Trippy spaceship rides? Good. Fighting fake looking puppet demons while the screen goes wonky? Bad.

It has the same backwards credits the Superman movies did, which isn't bad.

Honestly, I have not disliked a movie this much in awhile. I seem to have said that a lot recently, but with bad movies, there doesn't appear to be a bottom. That was legit shitty, and I'm legit mad I sat through it. Like this review? Not worth it to me. 0.

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

Matt Zimmer — Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:45:01 +0000

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

I'm not going to give that a good review. But after the abomination that was Superman III, I'm not gonna give it a bad one either. It's lame, but I'll take that over offensive.

Honestly, I liked it better than Superman II as well. It's earnest, hokey, well-meaning, and weirdly feels like the first Superman film sort of exploring a bit of a Post-Crisis sensibility. The scene of Clark on the farm wearing a flannel shirt and no glasses is VERY familiar to viewers of both Smallville and Superman & Lois. And I see it here for the first time in live-action and I'm like, "Aha!" The first three films felt like old movies. This one although definitely an 80's film, has a bit more of a modern pace to it. Not much, but it's not as slow.

Nuclear Man is a pretty ridiculous villain, but frankly, at this point so is Lex Luthor. The thing that kills me about Hackman's Lex is how utterly ineffective he is at every one of his goals. And I get this was the age of cinema where effective villains didn't exist, but you compare this Lex to the ones from Justice League Unlimited, Smallville, and Superman & Lois, and he's utterly lacking. Pretty much the only Lex Luthor worse than Gene Hackman is Jon Cryer on Supergirl. And I always said I could never imagine Jon Cryer in any worse role in a DC project. Here though? Lenny Luthor is a fucking contender. Maybe it wasn't entirely bad writing that made me hate Cryer's Lex. Maybe he's also a shitty actor it turns out I cannot stand. That seems plausible after seeing this film.

I do like that his name is pronounced Lu-THOR instead of LU-ther. That's how I prefer it. And this is the continuity that mispronounced "Krypton" several times in the first two movies.

I hate Superman revealing himself to Lois because I knew they'd buy it back, and it's the same damn forgetting kiss. As shaky as the movie, that bit is the only part I find outright objectionable.

Question: A single strand of Superman's hair can hold up a thousand ton weight. And yet Luthor can cut it with some pliers. Do I have that right? Also how does Clark Kent shave and get a haircut? It's a bad gag because it raises those questions and those aren't questions that should EVER be raised. Because there is no good answer for them.

I thought Clark juggling the double date as himself and Superman with Lois and Lacy was BEYOND charming. This was the value of Christopher Reeve. Also love that he's finally billed ahead of Gene Hackman.

The bit with the American flag on the moon is cool because the truth is Superman is a hard character to fuck up. It doesn't take much to make everything he does memorable and iconic.

This film and Superman III are considered the Black Sheep of the Reeve canon. Honestly, this is nowhere NEAR III's level of suck. I also think it's better than II. I will also go out on a bit of a limb and confess I liked it more than both Superman Returns AND Man Of Steel. Come and get me, Snyder cultists. 2 1/2 stars.

Superman III

Matt Zimmer — Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:36:59 +0000

Superman III

That was alarming. I was a bit shocked. That was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. I laugh at the idea of a superhero movie actually being so bad it's offensive. Batman & Robin was awful, but harmless. Elektra was simply boring. And Fantastic 4 2015 may have sucked, but really, what Fantastic Four movie DIDN'T? Outside of Spawn I had yet to see a superhero movie so bad it challenged me in that way.

When there was a half hour left in this I seriously considered shutting it off. I NEVER feel that way for movies. Ultimately I kept going because I knew I needed to write the review, and I won't review ANYTHING I haven't seen the entire thing of. That's a rule for me. And the movie was so bad I needed to vent.

Here is the interesting thing, and the probably the real reason I was shocked. The first half of the movie is lame, but I don't think it's any worse than Superman II. You can be outraged by me saying that, but both films are dumb and if the first half was dumber it was only by a matter of degree.

The real problem with the film is it gets worse and worse as it goes along. And its 2 hour runtime is pure torture. The Evil Superman thing is just skeevy and disgusting on every level.

I'm not going to say Richard Pryor was wasted, but he didn't really fit into any part of the movie easily, either as a hero or villain. What I will say is as terrible as the movie is, I think it's probably a more appropriate sequel to Superman II than Superman Returns. Superman Returns is a better film than this, but I think Superman Returns doesn't really get the Reeve stuff.

For one thing, Bryan Singer notably cast no Black actors in it. Sort of as a tribute to the old-school nature of the 1980's stuff.

Except Superman III had Richard Pryor and the previous two films had Black actors too. Singer was making an homage to an era of Superman films that never existed. So instead of being consistent with the tone, it's comes off as racist as it actually is. Say what you will about Gus' role in the film not being well-defined, he's Black, and he fucking exists. As terrible as the film is, it makes a better piece of the Reeve canon than Superman Returns for that reason.

But I can't stress enough how bad the movie is. Spawn is still worse, but the shocking thing to me is even if this is NOT a close second in the worst superhero film I've ever seen, it's also not a DISTANT second. It's not in Spawn territory. But it's far closer than anything else I've sat through.

I hated the evil Superman thing and I thought that the film having him sleep with the woman was absolutely gross.

And the worst thing about the movie is how stupid it is. Yes, 1980's movies are pretty much all dumb, but this specific movie decided to take a new trend of the era (computers) and design an entire movie around the concept. The problem is that the writers are so fucking stupid they have no idea what computers can and cannot do or even how they work. The general public didn't either, so audiences might have been able to shut off their brains and let the stupidity slide, but the truth is, if the writers were GONNA make computers the central hook of the film, they could have done some basic fucking research. And damn it, that is NOT an unreasonable ask for ANY film exploring a new trend in society. The fact that computers were actually here to stay just makes this film's ignorance and laziness seem all the worse decades later.

Christopher Reeve is finally billed first in the credits (although the end credits are weirdly shown backwards) and Margot Kidder gets an "And Margot Kidder as Lois Lane" credit despite her role amounting to cameos at the beginning and end. Smallville's Annette O'Toole plays Lana Lang. Gene Hackman is entirely absent.

I've heard nothing but bad things about the film. But bad genre rolls off my back. This was bad enough I found it quite offensive. That is not remotely usual. This was a special level of terrible for that reason. Not as bad as Spawn (or the TV show Titans for that matter). But closer to that level of horribleness than any superhero project ever should be. 0.

Superman II

Matt Zimmer — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:35:38 +0000

Superman II

This was the first superhero movie I ever saw as a little kid. It was on TV at night, and I absolutely freaking hated it. Maybe if I didn't, I would have gotten into the genre 5-10 years before I did. I steered clear of capes and tights directly because of Superman II.

To be honest, I don't hate this as much as I did when I was a kid. Because the TV version back then had Non killing a kid by throwing a siren at him long distance (which disturbed me) which was not present in this theatrical cut here. And I will admit my tastes as a kid were shitty on my best day. But that fucked me up righteously.

Do you know the MOST fucked up thing about that? Despite it not being in the theatrical version, that specific death was memorable enough to be parodied several times in other cartoons and comedy projects. And that's one of the things I hated about it.

But I was right to hate this, especially for the reasons I did. Most of the movie simply involves Zod and his friends walking around, killing innocent people, and that's the extent of the "nuance" of Zod. The thing with the siren and the kid back when I saw this on TV was so fucked up because it was entirely unnecessary. It's just horrible shit happening for the sake of horrible shit happening. There isn't even dramatic tension or a horror motif attached. I would have still hated it as a kid, but as an adult I would have appreciated some cinematic horror merit in hindsight. There is none whatsoever. It's an ineptly made piece of cinema.

I was wary of talking shit about the first film, not just because it had a ton of fans, but because it was so inoffensive and hard to hate. This piece of shit? I feel no need to be an apologist over.

Do you know what pisses me off the most about the horrific violence? The climax is fucking played for laughs and as if this is some sort of huge romp after all. Yeah, no. You don't get to kill off an entire group of astronauts (and in the TV version a kid) and then do a parody of Singin' In The Rain at the end. It's weird that you think you do.

Why is Lex Luthor even in the movie? He doesn't help (or even hinder) either the heroes of the villains even once. He's just completely ineffective at everything he attempts. Hackman getting top billing over Reeve AGAIN grates, as does the fact that Margot Kidder is so far down the supporting cast list instead of being billed as the second lead (which she actually is). And the truth about Lex is they COULD have done something interesting with him. When Superman reverses the power-sapping beam to effect people OUTSIDE of the chamber, a better project than this would have had that Lex's doing all along. It's shocks me it wasn't. God, superhero shit used to suck ass back in the day. How did fans stand this shit?

While I'm talking shit about the villains, isn't General Zod supposed to be some sort of military genius? His master strategy here involves "Give me the planet or I'll kill you." He doesn't even know the name of the planet or how it works. Why does he even want it? It's so fucking stupid.

We're supposed to believe Superman's "forgetting kiss" to Lois at the end is some kind of gift, but the reality is, it's a violation. Worse, because it happens, it feels like nothing those characters went through in the film actually mattered. Because it didn't.

Beside the forgetting kiss, the annoying thing about this iteration is it gives Superman and the Kryptonians powers they should not have. Family Guy has made fun of the cellophane S before, but when the fuck did Kryptonians learn to perform telekinesis with their fingers?

I don't think this film had a much smaller budget than the first film, but they tried to do a LOT more ambitious stuff, so their failings are more noticeable. We don't actually see the wires holding the characters up. But this time out it's easier to tell they're there.

That film just sucked on every level. As a kid I pretty much hated sucky things happening for the sake of sucky things happening. I see why I hated the film, and think I had its number as a little kid. 1 star.

Superman: The Movie

Matt Zimmer — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 23:14:57 +0000

Superman: The Movie

Can I be real? I HATE seeing and reviewing old movies for the first time, especially if they are considered classics by both the public and the critics. I always feel like I simply don't like the movie as much as I'm supposed to. Old movies are slower-paced, the dialogue tends to be arch, and the characters and situations are not all too believable. And I HATE it when I feel that way and have to talk about it in the review of the beloved project. I am not a troll. I am a real person. I want to be liked. And it would be a lot easier for me if I was willing to go along with the pop culture crowd to not make waves. But I can't do it. For whatever reason, I can't bring myself to be dishonest about what I just saw.

The good news for THIS review is as uncomfortable as I feel writing it, the movie was kind enough to have a few genuinely good things in it that I could rave about. That main title is probably the best opening credit sequence I have EVER seen in a movie. And it's not even close. And I adore "You've got me? Who's got you?"

I also thought the fact that the flying effects looked so unrealistic compared to modern Superman projects actually had its own charm. The idea that he can fly with Lois out at arm's length suggests this IS a fairytale like Peter Pan, and there is magic involved here, not yellow sun technical mumbo-jumbo. For modern Superman projects, the flight sequences always have a realistic amount of weight to them to show the exact horsepower needed for a man to defy gravity.

The flying effects here have an elegance instead because it feels like an actual ABSENSE of gravity. There is a beauty and Peter Pan magic attached, and what it lacks in realism it makes up for in fancy.

Christopher Reeve is also the only Superman actor I have ever seen who believably plays Clark and Superman as entirely different people. The idea that they are the same person is crazy. They don't even look alike, and the glasses have little to do with that.

That specific gift however is double-edged sword. Superman claims several times he never lies, but the deliberate dumbshows Clark acts out to throw off suspicion seem fundamentally dishonest after that specific vow. You Will Believe A Man Can Lie.

I found the first hour of the movie a total slog, and I was waiting for him to turn into Christopher Reeve. I am not okay with the fact that both Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman are billed in the credits before he is. That is not right and the problem with Hollywood in a nutshell.

As I was watching the film, particularly the stuff with Lex Luthor, I came to the unpleasant realization that it was dumb. The screenplay may be from the guy who wrote The Godfather, but Lex is so open about his crimes, and never once bothers covering his tracks, like say, a competent criminal would. Even dumber is him walking out as Superman is drowning with the Kryptonite necklace but before he's actually dead. Whether that is a common comic book trope or not (and it was at the time) it doesn't stop it from being stupid and shitty.

I also cringed at the army guys getting into a fight over who gets to do chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth with Miss Tessmacher. The movie is treating CPR as something dirty and I don't like it. It feels gross and like I need to take a shower.

I remember Siskel and Ebert used to make fun of this movie because of Lois Lane's gigantic and fancy apartment on a print reporter's salary. After seeing the film, I was like "THAT'S the part of the flick you find unbelievable?" How about when Clark Kent falls out a window and magically appears in his Superman costume a split second later, just because? Or how about Superman being given the ridiculous power to spin the Earth on its axis backwards and turn back time? Not sure your science math works out there, Chief. And then we have Lois going on after the fact about all the things she suffered in the erased timeline which she for some dumb reason both remembers and can't reconcile the memories with the fact that they never happened to her.

Those main titles had me jazzed and I hoped I could give the movie a rave. Alas, it's pretty much as slow and dumb as other popcorn flicks of the era, despite at least having many good points. 3 stars.

Batman & Robin

Matt Zimmer — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 17:53:52 +0000

Batman & Robin

First time seeing this. People have told me this is the worst superhero film of all time and I found that VERY hard to believe. I promised myself if it was NOT the worst superhero film ever I'd be relatively lenient on it.

I was right and wrong. It's not the worst superhero film ever. Not even close. But I also feel absolutely no need to be lenient.

We'll do this review in two parts. The first part will be me discussing in broader terms why the movie not only failed to be good, but failed to connect with viewers. The second part of the review will be me detailing everything I can remember was wrong with the film.

First off, I mentioned this is NOT the worst superhero film of all time. Spawn is. And it's not even close. Why is this movie better than Spawn? Well, Spawn was so incompetently written and directed, and the special effects were so terrible, those things actually made the movie hard to follow and incomprehensible. This is the worst Batman film. But there was no part of it I was confused by. It's relative dumbness and obvious nature automatically makes it better than Spawn.

But the movie is terrible. But I wonder where exactly all the vitriol is coming from. "Matt, it's terrible. Isn't that enough?" No. It really does not explain that level of hate. Plenty of movies exactly as terrible as this (or worse) have become very successful. What was the specific thing that stopped this terrible movie from finding an audience?

Here is my best guess. The movie is not made for a single person who would ever like it.

Scripts this bad, with performances this bad, and every other failing this movie has routinely find followings. Specifically I'm think of the live-action TV shows and movies on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. You want to tell me Descendants is not as painfully cringe as this? You are either lying to me, or lying to yourself. The thing is, Descendants may be pure trash (and it is). But it's geared towards little kids who eat up pure trash with a spoon as if it were an ice cream Sundae. There is plenty of quality children's television and movies out there. But although most of that shit is well-regarded by kids, the REALLY popular stuff, that sells merch and starts fads is ALL garbage. Without exception. Some preschool stuff like Bluey and Sesame Street don't fit that mold, but once preteens graduate from toddler shows, the best loved stuff is always dreck. Without fail.

If this movie had been released with a PG rating, was a reboot unrelated to the previous films, and was hyped to death on kiddie networks, it would have done well. And all they'd need to do is take out those ridiculous molded S&M costumes, and gross Poison Ivy perviness. I will argue with my dying breath the script and performances to The Goonies are exactly this bad, dumb, and obvious. And that movie has a HUGE fandom. Why? Because it knew its audience and knew what they liked.

This movie has the intelligence of a Disney Channel kidcom and it's marketed as an PG-13 summer blockbuster. Anybody who WOULD like something this dumb and trashy is too young to see a movie this inappropriate. The film being terrible is almost besides the point. The actual problem is the film did not market itself to a specific demographic, and by not doing that, it alienated ALL of them. It's such an obvious mistake. But in fairness, out of all the shots I've seen taken at this movie, this idea of mine is not something I've previously read. Probably because for most people, terrible films are unacceptable, period, no ifs, ands, or buts. But terrible films exist. And many of the kiddie variety find major success. If this dumb script had been aimed at 7 year olds in appropriateness instead of just intelligence, it would have been a smash. Adults would hate it but adults hate ALL dumb crap kids love. Not because they don't understand it. But because it's crap. The movie did not need to be any better than it was to not have bombed. It needed to get rid of the S&M bondage stuff. This exact movie with a PG movie rating and sensibility would have been a trashy smash.

Let's get to as many of the things the film did wrong as I can remember. This were SO much bad stuff I will invariably miss a ton of stuff.

Arnold Schwarzenegger being billed first in the main titles automatically turned me against the film. And damn it Batman 89 did the same thing. If you bill an actor playing a Batman villain before the actor playing Batman, you don't actually give a shit about the project. You are just trying to sell movie tickets. And this is DC's entire problem, and the reason they cast Ben Affleck as Batman to begin with. But no. I'm not going to ever pretend Batman being billed as the second most important character after Mr. Freeze is anything but a failing.

The movie next transitions into a disturbing rubber fetish snap-on scene. The bat-nipples are gross enough. Has anyone ever pointed out how messed up the molded ass-cheeks are? What the hell is wrong with Joel Schumacher anyways?

The performances are all terrible. It's hard to believe Uma Thurman was ever in quality Oscar-nominated stuff like Pulp Fiction she is so bad here. Ah-nuld is bad as Mr. Freeze too, but what REALLY frustrates me is I kept asking myself, "Why isn't he playing BANE, and why isn't Bane the main villain in that scenario?" Arnie would have KILLED that role.

Robin is a completely annoying emo twerp. He's so freaking stupid it's outright damaging at this point. Chris O'Donnell is not as bad in the role as Titans' Brendan Thwaites. But he's the only other Dick Grayson actor who is close.

Vivica A Fox's career was quite humiliating in this time period. Like the stripper she played in Independence Day, I felt sorry for her.

It doesn't just bother me that Barbara gets into the entire secret Batfile by guessing a password. But that Alfred chose a password for THAT sensitive intel with just three letters. Worse, how was Uncle Wilfred supposed to open it if Barbara couldn't? Alfred never sent along the password himself, which you think he would have done for somebody he wanted to read that.

I love that somehow makes her a "computer expert" later in the film. I'd laugh but none of the jokes in the film are actually funny.

This next gripe goes for the Burton crap too, but I am very aware I am watching a production on a soundstage. I am not a person who demands realism in films in that way. But every single bit of footage looks like it was shot on a movie set. Because it was. There are no actual outdoor scenes and even the more "grounded" sets like Wayne Manor were clearly built on a stage because no location in real life actually looks like that.

Robin's rubber lips made me groan because it's stupider than the film needed to be. They could have just said Batman injected him with an antitoxin before his and Ivy's rendezvous and I'd not only buy it, I wouldn't think the movie is totally freaking dumb.

The screenplay is written by Akiva Goldsman. Goldsman co-created one of my favorite recent shows, Star Trek: Picard, but after this, I'm wondering why anyone ever bothered to hire him again. And yes, I see MUCH of the TV show Titans (which he also co-created and had a big hand in) in this movie's dumb dialogue, unlikable characters, and bad acting.

I thought Bruce's scenes with Alfred were kind of sweet and were a rare thing in the movie I liked.

But Alfred coincidentally has the same made-up disease as Nora Fries? A cynic would call that beyond unlikely. I just call it stupid.

Jason Woodrue (the Floronic Man in the comics) is in the movie, badly played by John Glover. It's weird I've never heard that pointed out before.

A lot of dance numbers and colorful choreographed fight sequences. I mentioned the film looks like a soundstage. A lot of the visuals look like the freaking Ice Capades.

So that's my review. In short, NOT the worst superhero film ever made. And the fact that it's terrible isn't its actual problem. It could have been a hit anyways if they had geared it towards little kids. They'd barely need to even change the script if they did that. 0.

Batman Forever

Matt Zimmer — Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:46:26 +0000

Batman Forever

That was poorly written, badly acted, unfunny, obvious, overly campy, stupid, and annoying. But I will dispute it is any more-so than Batman Returns. Joel Schumacher did NOT ruin this franchise. It was already in tatters from Tim Burton. Schumacher is just taking his lead.

The Holy Rusted Metal thing was supposed to be fan-service, which shows how inept the movie is. Because it means nothing, it's stupid, and makes me cringe instead of smile.

The Bat-nipples are freaking weird. Also bizarre is Batman has a full ass-crack molded into the suit. What the actual fuck?

Chris O'Donnell was too old to play Robin. Bad casting.

I don't feel like doing a deep-dive into this one because the waters DO feel a lot more shallow than Burton's films. Burton's Batman films may have sucked, but they certainly gave me plenty to talk about. I think the major thing I want to address, and thing that bugged me most, will stand-in for everything else I was annoyed about.

But Chase Meridian calling first the stalker and the the Riddler "a wacko"? It grates. Not as much as say, the r-word. But I feel like the subtext is far darker and more manipulative than that. People distrusted psychiatrists for a LONG time, because mental illness was dirty embarrassing secret for most people who suffered it. So psychiatrists in films of this era were usually portrayed as ignorant or outright hostile to reality. The producers reasoned here an easy way to get the audience on Chase's side and like her is for her to utter a slur against a mentally ill person no professional would ever say. The writers suggest we are only allowed to like the film's shrink if she essentially disowns her entire professional and moral code about it. And shit like this is constant and soul-crushing and fucking infuriating. And it's SO obnoxious and damaging I don't really feel the need to spend fuck-all time telling you everything this movie did wrong. I'm just kind of done with it. 1 1/2 stars.

Batman Returns

Matt Zimmer — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 20:32:08 +0000

Batman Returns

Before we talk shop, I want to address the elephant in the room. Let's take this card off the table immediately, so we can get down to business. But if Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie, despite being released in the summer, because it is SET at Christmas, and those are the freaky-ass pop culture rules we abiding, that means Batman Returns is a Christmas movie. Right?

I'll accept that ridiculous premise. Just stop calling "Linus And Lucy" a Christmas song. Meet me halfway here.

All right. Clear? No hurt feelings? Good.

How was the movie? I treated Batman 1989 respectfully, not only because I was mindful of its many fans, but also of its place in history in how it reset how society at large saw the character of Batman. I liked the first half of that movie anyways, so I didn't beat it up too badly for the second half sucking ass. Maybe I should have. But it didn't feel worth having that fight.

Batman Returns is VERY much the experience I remembered from 1992, so I have absolutely no problems totally dunking on this unmitigated piece of shit. This IS a very much a Tim Burton film. In every way I recognize and loathe his career.

And you know what? Batman 1989 will probably be caught in some fire here too. Too fucking bad.

Batman Returns was a very instructive film for my 17-year-old self in the theater. I knew about Ed Wood. I knew about film bloopers. But Batman Returns was the first film I ever noticed mistakes in as I was watching it for the first time. I learned this didn't just fuck up B movies from the 1950's. Big name film directors are as lazy and sloppy as Ed Wood. The irony? Tim Burton directed Wood's biopic! Which by the way is one of the ONLY Tim Burton films I would describe as unambiguously great. I think maybe the reason Burton sympathizes with the shittiest director who ever lived is because deep down Burton's standards are that low too.

How else to explain everyone at Penguin's riot chucking heads of lettuce and tomatoes at him? My naive 17-year-old self said to myself at the time, "Why are all these people CARRYING massive amounts of produce to a political rally?" If they were rabble-rousers, that might make sense. But these are Penguin's SUPPORTERS who only turn on him upon hearing that recording. Which by the way modern politics tells us would not actually move the needle in real life. While we're complaining about mistakes.

The second huge fuck-up is when Batman removes his mask at the end. There are MANY reasons NOT to do it. For instance Selina already KNOWS his identity so there is no emotional beat to actually be had there, other than telling a criminal like Shreck his actual identity. Or how about the fact that the mask is so immovable the dude literally has to tear it off his neck and destroy a clearly expensive costume that is technically worth shit because you can't remove it quickly without ripping it in half, and you also can't turn your fucking neck in it? Jesus Christ.

No, my biggest objection to this idiocy in 1992 is when Bruce removes it, for some astounding continuity-defying reason, the guyliner Batman wears under the mask is miraculous gone when we see Bruce's full mug. They didn't even CALL it guyliner in 1992, but I knew it was missing instantly, and I knew it was bullshit.

You want to talk shit about modern superhero fare? This movie had penguins wearing rockets on their backs. Yeah, no. There is NO modern Marvel or DC Movie as fucked up as that. Okay, MAYBE Thor: Love And Thunder. But that's it.

We're circing back to Batman 1989 next, and getting to the complaints I had that I generously overlooked because that film was miraculously NOT the irredeemable piece of shit I remembered it to be, and the sequel actually was. But I remember the hype surrounding Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. For many fans of genre pictures, sci-fi stuff, superhero stuff, fantasy, ALL that, that film being, well, SHITTY, caused fandom a "Loss Of Innocence". It caught everybody off-guard. After Steven Spielberg raved about the private screening he had being amazing, when Star Wars fans finally saw it they were like, "Whaaat?" Let's be clear about this. Phantom Menace sucks, but it's not actually as bad as people say it is. What it was was the let-down of a lifetime for people who had waited over 15 years for the latest project in a flawed franchise that almost ALL of its fans regarded as flawless up to that point, at least. It felt like a betrayal.

For most people. I was actually quite nonplussed and didn't give a fuck. Not because I didn't like Star Wars. I did. Not because I didn't think the movie sucked. It did. But because I went through this EXACT same shit with Batman 1989. And people don't remember how badly that movie was hyped and merched, and how absolutely pedestrian it was compared to similarly hyped Blockbusters. Arguably Batman 1989 inaugurated the idea of a completely mediocre movie becoming enormously successful and making a ton of money. Batman: The Animated Series' Bruce Timm claims he owes his entire career to Tim Burton's Batman. Good for Tim Burton's Batman, right? Ever think that Michael Bay owes his entire career to that flick too, but for no-so-flattering reasons? Because I think he does.

I have no idea why Tim Burton's Batman films are beloved in hindsight. Have any of you older grumps been annoyed at the fact that The Phantom Menace has been partially rehabilitated in the public's mind, especially among the younger fans? That's the same level of disgust I feel about people speaking warmly about Tim Burton's Batman films.

Batman sets a guy on fire and blows up another with dynamite here. How the FUCK is this considered a good interpretation of the character?

The sex jokes and puns between Catwoman and Penguin were fucking disgusting, and just when I can't think any less of Tim Burton, I see he has Michelle Pfeiffer licking her own rubber arm. Back in the Beforetimes when I reviewed the Batman '66 Blu-Ray, I lamented the humiliating scene of the producers of that show forcing Julie Newmar to lap up a bowl of milk. After this I was like, "Julie Newmar got off easy."

Also how does waking up half-dead around cats make Selina automatically good at backflips and Kung Fu? It's stupid, is what it is.

Am I the only person who has a HUGE problem with Penguin's 300 pound body being dragged into the drink by six Emperor Penguins, leading him by one flipper each?

Everybody loves Batman: Mask Of Phantasm. If that exact screenplay was made in live-action, that movie would have made four times the bank both Burton Batman films did. Put together.

Also should point out that the ONE thing about Mask Of The Phantasm everybody hates is the end credits song "I Never Even Told You." Tell me ONE single way it is remotely worse than "Face To Face" here, whose awfulness fans of this film just seem to excuse as a matter of course. Maybe the difference is fans of Mask Of The Phantasm had some level of standards at the time. I think that must be it.

I find Bruce's initial sympathy for Oswald understandable. But how the FUCK does he not seem to have ANY clue how dirty Max Shreck actually is? Not only is Batman supposed to be the World's Greatest Detective, but Bruce Wayne LITERALLY runs around in the exact same business and social circles, so he'd see this shit up close and personal, and should have been gunning for him long before this. Another reason I don't understand why people love these films.

Let me tell you about what I think about Tim Burton's career. I think Tim Burton has had a FAR more damaging film career than Michael Bay ever did. Yes, Michael Bay fucked up Transformers and Ninja Turtles. But neither of those franchises actually had decent film or TV adaptations at the time (although if you want to argument TMNT 2003 was good, I'll stipulate that). But Tim Burton didn't just ruin Batman. He DESTROYED Dark Shadows. And made a MOCKERY of Planet Of The Apes.

You want to say Burton is a better technical filmmaker than Bay. Go right ahead. It doesn't matter. His hands regarding destroying beloved pop-culture icons are MUCH dirtier. Batman, for Christ's sake! No franchise Bay has ever ruined has ONCE come close to what Burton has done dirty. None.

I hear Batman And Robin is the very worst superhero film of all time. You know, considering how beloved this shit movie is, I DON'T think I'm just gonna take the fans' word for that. We'll see when I see it for the first time and review it in a couple of days. But I think I have very different ideas about what makes a terrible film. And yes, I expect Batman And Robin to be terrible. But MUCH worse than this? I have my fucking doubts there, thank you very much. 1 star.

Batman (1989)

Matt Zimmer — Sun, 24 Nov 2024 02:55:42 +0000

Batman (1989)

It's been decades since I've seen this and I remembered little about it. I remembered I didn't like it but not much else.

Surprisingly, I liked the first half of the movie this time out. But the climax is both a mess and freaking slog. It's overlong, it's just Batman climbing a tower, and it's boring.

The quips are surprisingly good. My favorite WAS in the climax where Batman tells the Joker, "I made you? You made me first." I also love the Joker telling his goons to leave one of the paintings alone because he liked it. I thought that was perfect. I also love his girlfriend telling Jack he looked good and he's like "I didn't ask."

LOTS of firsts. This WAS the debut of "I'm Batman. Tell all your friends about me." The bit with the Joker asking for mirror was also iconic, as well as "Where doesn't he get those wonderful toys?" and "What kind of world do we live in where a man dressed up as a bat gets all of my press?" How about "You want to get nuts? Let's get nuts!" "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" Usually only amazing films are this quotable, and superhero films usually aren't at all.

Having the Joker being behind the Waynes' murders was a controversial choice at the time, but honestly, it's something I'm surprised never occurred to the comics. It seems perfectly in line with these mythic characters.

The Batsuit is not my favorite thing, if only because he can't turn his neck. Michael Keaton is surprisingly good as Bruce Wayne, and rocks the glasses. His Bruce is better than his Batman. But in fairness his Batman isn't seen much and the cowl doesn't let him emote much either.

I loved the boss Batmobile, and thought its shields were awesome, but the Batwing seems a little too small. Its silhouette in the full moon was pure fanbait. But it firing bullets and missiles doesn't sit right. Batman shouldn't use guns.

Jack Nicholson is great as the Joker. A little more subdued compared to Mark Hamill, but the make-up is truly terrifying and his unpredictable scary violence earns the movie its PG-13 rating.

The Danny Elfman theme is amazing too, although I don't dig the Prince songs. Which is weird because Prince was usually great.

Knox talking about having to use a wide-angle lens to photograph naked reminds me this film was probably Robert Wuhl's career high point. That's partly why he's so funny poking fun of himself on American Dad. And don't forget the potato salad.

It never hit me right that Jack Nicholson got top billing over Michael Keaton. It still doesn't.

I don't much like Vicki Vale but Kim Basinger did a better job in the role than critics at the time said she did. Alfred revealing the identity shows him and Bruce have a different sort of relationship in this continuity. The fact that Bruce isn't mad says everything.

I was never a fan, but some of it is better than I remember. But the climax is a freaking mess and I can't quite recommend the film. 3 stars.