Wednesday, January 10, 2007

The Beginning Of The End

so, poor tim burton. he was involved in batman forever as the executive producer, and joel shumacher came in to direct. they had to replace michael keaton with val kimer, a controversial and daring move. i have a feeling michael keaton took one look at the script and said NO, but i dont actually know the reasons why they changed the casting. im sure a little research could enlighten all of us, but whatever. anyway, the new script and the the new plan was in place, and thus begins my review of batman forever.
batman forever is an abhorrent film, and doubly so for what it has done to the batman mythology. the only thing redeeming the film is jim carrey, who nailed the character of the riddler like no body's business. unfortunately, since he was already cast as the riddler in this flop, i doubt they will be able to recast him as such again if the christopher nolan series lasts long enough to entertain the use of the riddler. anyway, they decided to use big names in an effort to draw audiences to an otherwise ridiculous film. in an effort to make the movie more child friendly, they tried to make things more colourful "like a comic book" . this tactic was used very successfully in dick tracey, and it has its merits, except it is the darksome that is central to the batman mythology. anyway, the plot is thin, and not really what is at issue here. val kimer was a lousy batman. physically, he is an inappropriate choice. he is too thin, too blonde, and too blue eyed. the same argument holds i suppose for michael keaton, but keaton was able to hold it together because of his presence and what he brought to the role. he was quiet and calm, mysterious and serious, and was able to instill fear and respect. val kimer ACTED quiet and calm and mysterious and serious, but he just didnt have what it took. he didnt have the presence or the power that michael keaton did, the audience just cant buy the batman that kimer was selling.
next point: the gratuitous ass shots in the idiotic filler of watching batman getting dressed. this makes a mockery of the whole batman story. it was just an attempt to make the movie more fun. dont get me wrong, i love fun movies, but fun movies are actually supposed to be fun, and this movie was trying to be a fun version of a serious movie, which are two things you cannot reconcile together. they attempted to make adam west like jokes and fun with the piece, while simultaneously pursuing the serious and angst ridden tale of batman. you cannot do both. you are either satirizing a piece or you are not. you cant satirize something at times and not at others. there is a reason the michael keaton batman movie doesnt have scenes of the adam west batman movie spliced into it. the two films are setting out to accomplish two different things. and batman forever accomplishes neither. instead, it left a fluffy, incongruous batman tale that was supposed to be kid friendly but was just idiotic. introducing robin into the story didnt help either, it took away from the seriousness. the sets and props werent believeable either. the whole thing was like watching a cartoon. actually, scratch that, for many cartoons and for all good cartoons, you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe what is going on. in this movie, you cannot.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

*sigh* i love your site. keep writing m'dear.. endless hours of procrastination have been spent here.. always a delight to see new posts : )
love, shay.