Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

1.5/4 stars

Superman IV is one of the most egregious cases of mismanagement of a film’s production in history. Producers Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan, who bought the Superman rights from the Salkinds, made one bad creative decision after another. Their company, the Cannon Group, held onto the rights for only a year before Warner came and bailed them out, purchasing much of their library. In a few words, the Cannon Group blew it.
I suspect that Superman IV’s producers had no faith in the series’ viability after the disgrace that was Supergirl and Superman III. Perhaps they should have watched the first one.

But, without even knowing the production history, a viewer only needs to watch Superman IV to realize that serious budgetary restraints was holding the film back. At a mere 89 minutes in length, the film charges ahead with the pace of a TV movie. One would think that a movie with such a short runtime would not attempt to juggle several subplots, but, alas, there are a total of three. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) and his nephew Lenny (Jon Cryer) create an anti-Superman named Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow) whose sole purpose is to destroy Superman. I suppose this is intended to be the film’s main plot, but the screentime and attention it receives is about the same as the others. We also have The Daily Planet taken over by a sleazy tabloid journalist (Sam Wanamaker) whose only slightly less sleazy daughter (Mariel Hemingway) has an infatuation with Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve). She starts off cynical and manipulative, but Clark’s winsome mannerisms triggers a protective streak in her and her fondness for him grows into something more. And to top everything off Superman declares to the United Nations that he is going to single-handedly rid the world of nuclear weapons. How do the delegates respond? Anger? Threats? Saber-rattling? Not a bit. They give the Man of Steel thunderous applause. We are not that far off from the days of Goldwater – especially in 1987 – and this is all brainlessly naive. I am not against the idea of a superhero coming to earth and tossing all the world’s nuclear arsenal into the sun. Personally, I think that would be fantastic. But, it’s not going to happen and no meaningful commentary can be made resolving them this way in a story. And the warmongering, genocidal, child-killing sociopaths currently residing in the world theater certainly wouldn’t cheer him on. World peace has always been a buzzword for them, primed for lip service and little else. If you don’t agree, watch the news.
It bears mentioning that society would also just rebuild them again. What is Superman going to do? Throw the scientists and piles of textbook research into the sun too?

None of these disparate plots connect with each other, and each is resolved in the same rapid fire succession in which they are introduced. The anti-nuclear message meets no significant conflict or resistance in the narrative, even when there ought to be. And the tabloid journalist nonsense gets tidied up in a bit of dialogue. The only plot thread that gets resolved with any discernible effort from the heroes is Nuclear Man, who is defeated in an uninspired fight sequence shot in small cheaply constructed sets. The whole film looks and feels like one of those edited compilations of episodes from a TV show cobbled together into a movie.

Apparently, Superman IV was supposed to be longer, if not necessarily better. Originally Nuclear Man was to be the second anti-Superman Luthor creates after the first one is shown to be defective and easily defeated. But those scenes ended up on the cutting room floor and Nuclear Man’s entrance is re-edited to suggest a one and only appearance. This would account for the poor pacing of his introduction and the quick manner in which he is later dispatched.

Confidence is key to any creative endeavor, even when the ideas are good, which they are not in this case. Why a production team would actively seek the IP of a franchise they saw no box office potential in is beyond me. The company had dozens of projects all being made at once, putting on a budgetary strain when doling out financing.
But, Superman is not Smokey and the Bandit or Ma and Pa Kettle. The franchise deserved better. The first film on its own demonstrated that Superman thrived and was profitable when given respectful attention.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace – and the series as a whole – only further proves something that I have believed for a long time. Producers are nothing but a necessary evil that often contributes to the death of art.

Director: Sidney J. Furie
Writers: Christopher Reeve, Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal
Producers: Yoram Globus, Menahem Golan, Michael J. Kagan, Graham Easton
Cast: Christopher Reeve (Superman/Clark Kent), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Jon Cryer (Lenny), Sam Wanamaker (David Warfield), Mark Pillow (Nuclear Man), Mariel Hemingway (Lacy Warfield), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane)
Composers: Alexander Courage, John Williams
Cinematographer: Ernest Day
Editor: John Shirley

Supergirl (1984)

1.5/4 stars

Some days I swear Hollywood thinks that women have nothing better to do. They don’t seem to be aware that the calling to fight for truth and justice or the vices of powerlust and ambition are the provinces of women as well as men. But, too often we see that attempts at creating female equivalents to male figures are not equivalent at all. Their priorities are portrayed as smaller and pettier than those of the opposite sex. The male Hollywood writers render feminism to condescension and being patronizing. And the women are not elevated to the same abilities and concerns of characters that are men.
The writer of Supergirl (David Odell) is, as his name suggests, a man. So is the film’s director (Jeannot Szwarc). In fact, looking through the credits on IMDB I have found that aside from casting and the performances there is not a bit of female input that was applied to the film’s making. Strange for a movie called Supergirl.
Had a woman contributed to the film’s writing I feel that the plot’s main villain would have proven a much more serious and existential threat as were men like Lex Luthor (Superman, Superman II) and Ross Webster (Superman III). Instead, in Faye Dunaway – whose talents are wasted here – we get a villain more akin to a Powerpuff Girls baddie than any foe that would have been worthy of Superman.

Both Lex and Ross were hellbent on world domination and had both the intelligence and apparatus to make it happen as long as Superman wasn’t there to stop them. And Superman himself was a man driven by a strong sense of justice and a moral desire to see the world become a safer place for everyone.
But, Selena (Dunaway) – a literal witch in this movie – has a plot that boils down to this: Selena sees a hunk doing yard work with his shirt off and wants him. But, Supergirl likes him too. And there we have the crux of Supergirl’s main conflict.

This is such a slap in the face to all the women and girls who have found inspiration in Superman. And to the boys, too, who surely must have known what Superman’s values are. Selena is presented as a woman obsessed with black magic which she largely uses for just common mischief until she sets her sights on Ethan (Hart Bochner). As a love interest for Supergirl (Helen Slater) he is more of a macguffin than a character. He’s a live action Ken doll, too oblivious of the situation to say or do anything interesting. Lois Lane and Lana Lang in the previous Superman movies were sincere personalities that Clark Kent was able to have meaningful conversations with and relate to. Ethan is just 200 pounds of meat. Besides seducing Ethan, Selena’s motivations in the movie never extend very far. When she gets her hands on a crucial Kryptonian power source she uses it mostly to enhance her powers and achieve the same aims she had before. Instead of ruling the world or obtaining great wealth, the power source – a swirling orb – is used to manipulate people into saying they like her very much.
To entice Ethan, Selena concocts a magical love potion (AKA a date rape drug, let’s be honest) and feeds it to him. The potion follows the rules of Cupid and Narcissus where the first person he sees he will fall madly in love with. Unfortunately for Selena, Ethan wanders off and, giving no quarter to logical consistency, he sees several people all at once with nary a reaction until setting eyes on Supergirl. Predictably he falls in love with Supergirl and alarmingly she goes for it. Remember, he is the one under the influence. Supergirl is not, but takes advantage of his affections even when it is obvious he is having some sort of mental break. This is arguably the first superhero movie with a female lead and also a woman serving as the main villain, and they are both rapists. But, apparently it is okay since when the spell is broken later in the movie his affection for Linda (Supergirl’s alter ego) remains intact. I guess this is to suggest that Supergirl is good enough to not need a love potion to fall in love with.
And this scene gives us one of the most idiotic moments in the history of cinema. Ethan doesn’t recognize Linda when she is wearing the Supergirl costume. I had always thought it silly that a pair of glasses was enough to disguise Clark Kent, but that pales in comparison to this kind of stupidity. Linda wears no glasses and her face is not altered in any way. Am I to believe that when this guy gets married he will become confused when he sees his bride in her wedding dress and ask who the hell she is? I can just picture his future wife walking home wearing a new sweater and this moron calls the police over a stranger entering his house.

Supergirl, herself, is given a much less noble backstory than Superman. He was sent to Earth when his homeworld of Krypton blew up and he was tasked with learning to use his powers for the good of the weaker earthlings. Supergirl – or Kara, which is her Kryptonian name – is said to be Superman’s cousin and prior to coming to Earth she was living in a sixth-dimensional alternate reality called Inner Space. This realm was created by a Krypton survivor named Zaltar who used the same power source that Selena had stolen to keep it running. He stupidly lets Kara play with it and she in turn stupidly drops it and it floats away from Inner Space into our world. Zaltar, like Selena, represents another wasted talent in the movie. He is played by the very talented Peter O’Toole who deserves better. He would have made a good Jor-El, I think.

Kara, as Supergirl, goes after the power source and in the climactic battle to wrest it from Selena we are treated to some of the most woeful special effects featured in this series to date. Much of it is poor use of super-imposures that are grainier than your grandpa’s old TV with matte lines thicker than the Washington Monument. About as bad as the effects are the performances which have not an ounce of sincerity or conviction to them. Slater smiles and frowns as the script dictates and she speaks in a constant carefree lilt. Dunaway and O’Toole phone every line in and I found myself wondering what sort of paycheck the producers enticed them with. Bochner plays his role well enough, assuming that sitting around looking dumbfounded all the time is all that was required of him.
Positively I can say the movie was at least well photographed. The camera work is quite good, actually. The cinematography is much better than Superman III; a shot of Supergirl soaring behind a thick foliage of trees, being just one favorite of mine. But well-photographed garbage is still garbage. And it stinks just as much.

Director: Jeannot Szwarc
Writer: David Odell
Producers: Timothy Burrill, Ilya Salkind
Cast: Faye Dunaway (Selena), Helen Slater (Supergirl/Linda Lee), Peter O’Toole (Zaltar), Mia Farrow (Alura), Branda Vaccaro (Bianca), Peter Cook (Nigel), Simon Ward (Zor-El), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Hart Bochner (Ethan), Maureen Teefy (Lucy Lane)
Composer: Jerry Goldsmith
Cinematographer: Alan Hume
Editor: Malcolm Cooke

Superman III (1983)

2.5/4 stars

Director Richard Lester (Superman II, Superman III) is a talented filmmaker, but he wasn’t right for Superman. There is no denying that he liked the character. But, Richard Donner – the director of the first film – respected him. Superman II, while still a decent movie, was an early sign that something was going wrong with the series’ original vision. Superman III confirms it.
Donner was fired from the production of Superman II with a little under half of its footage, then, complete. Lester, who took over, managed the salvage well enough; and all considering Superman II could have been much worse.
But, Superman III is all Richard Lester and it is clear from its start that he didn’t share Donner’s vision. He has, in fact, practically boasted of this in the past. Lester compared Donner’s style unfavorably with the epics of David Lean. Speaking for himself, he cited his own more lightweight style as his preference. To me, what this boils down to is that Richard Lester apparently thought Donner was making the series too good.
What a strange time the 80’s must have been for cinema! Producers are notoriously out of touch when it comes to understanding what audiences want, but Superman III is just insulting. The producing team, Ilya and Alexander Salkind as well as Pierre Spengler, handled the Superman movies terribly. Superman (1978) was a huge success and a critical darling still heralded as the greatest superhero movie of all time even to this day. It was the most expensive movie made at the time, largely due to director Richard Donner allowing its budget to balloon out of proportion. Obviously, the producers made their money back, but that didn’t stop them from having an acrimonious split with Donner and replacing him with Lester on Superman II.

But enough history. What about the movie itself? Taking 100% of the directing duties this time around, it is amazing how little Richard Lester accomplishes with it. Superman III waters down everything in the first two movies that made them significant. Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is given nothing more than a few small cameos and Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor is missing from the movie entirely. He is replaced with another criminal mastermind named Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) who is nothing but a discount stand-in for Luthor. Webster has an over-convoluted scheme involving a computer hacker named Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) he uses to take control of weather satellites and the world’s oil reserves. Unlike Luthor, Webster merely plots and provides exposition when necessary. But, he has no personality of any kind. Gus, a henchman, is the central focus whenever the villains are on screen. He is introduced as an out of work welfare recipient who is forced to find a real job when the unemployment office declares him ineligible for any more handouts. He gets an entry-level position as a computer programmer for Webster’s corporation (which is implausible bull) and discovers that he has an innate talent as a computer genius (also bull). Computer programming doesn’t work this way. It’s not like discovering you are a fast runner or even that you are good at math. It’s a trained position that requires clear understanding of what one is doing. Gus impresses his boss by accomplishing some programming feat and then sheepishly says he doesn’t know how he did it. Utter nonsense!
After Gus is caught hacking the company’s payroll to increase his wages, Webster recruits him to manage all the necessary computer programming needed to hatch his scheme.
Pryor known for his comedy work is not much fun in this movie. He bumbles about playing at being in over his head, but there is no enthusiasm to his performance. Superman was not an appropriate vehicle for his career and he seems to have discovered that too late once shooting began.

Elsewhere, Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is given a much flimsier story than previously seen. In the first two movies Lois Lane was at the center of his balancing act between being Superman and Clark. With Lois now largely out of the picture the writers clearly struggled to make anything out of Clark’s relationship with Superman and a number of odd choices are made for both.
Clark attends his high school reunion where he becomes reacquainted with his high school crush, Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole). Never having left Smallville and now a single mother, Lana wonders at her past life choices and thinks about moving to Metropolis. In Clark she sees something that she didn’t see in high school and they begin dating. As strange as this subplot is, it is actually the strongest part of the movie. I am of the controversial opinion that the budding romance between him and Lana is much better written and is more convincing than what we saw between him and Lois. Their outings to the bowling alley and on picnics is genuinely charming and pleasant to watch. We see several scenes where Clark is able to bond with Lana’s son, who just happens to be a big fan of Superman. I would have been happier had they shown more of this. The moments, while good, are sporadically paced, giving space way too often to Pryor’s soulless goof-balling and Vaughn’s complete lack of charisma or interesting traits. The villains are simply not strong enough to hold the amount of scenes with them that the movie forces upon us. The scenes with Clark and Lana are well-executed, but poorly balanced.

Later in the second act, Gus gives Superman some tainted Kryptonite that makes him evil. And by evil, I just mean annoying. He leaks oil tankers, blows out the Olympic torch, and straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We also see him get drunk, misbehave around women, and claim that he isn’t in the helping people business anymore. The whole thing is absurd, but to the movie’s credit its resolution is quite well done. His emotions take a jolt when he sees Lana’s son disappointed in him and his spiritual struggle culminates in a literal battle between himself and his alter ego, Clark Kent.
Superman III pushes terrible, braindead premises, but manages to execute them better than I initially would expect. But none of the good moments last long enough before the movie’s idiotic plot commits further outrages. The final fight involves a super-computer that Gus built to kill Superman. It becomes self-aware, creates an evil robot out of Webster’s sister, and uses an interface resembling an Atari arcade game complete with scoreboard and a point counter. The movie feels like a bad Doctor Who episode.

Superman III is a horrendous, dumb movie that constantly teases us with something interesting before pulling the rug from under it to focus on its much less intelligent story. A key example is Webster’s mistress Lorelei (Pamela Stephenson). Like Lex Luthor’s Ms. Teschmacher she is played as a dimwitted floozy, but the film drops hints of something deeper beneath the surface that is never explained. She reads Immanuel Kant when no one is looking and displays a surprising understanding of computers, all of which she hides behind her exterior as a bimbo. It’s suggested that Lorelei may very well be the smartest person in the room, but it’s not developed beyond being a gag.

The movie has a number of good ideas in its brain, but they rattle about like loose marbles and nothing is properly placed. There was a good movie in here somewhere, but the filmmakers did not have the confidence to find it.

Director: Richard Lester
Writers: David Newman, Leslie Newman
Producers: Pierre Spengler, Alexander Salkind, Ilya Salkind, Robert Simmonds
Cast: Christopher Reeve (Superman/Clark Kent), Richard Pryor (Gus Gorman), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Annette O’Toole (Lana Lang), Annie Ross (Vera), Pamela Stephenson (Lorelei), Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Gavan O’Herlihy (Brad)
Composer: Ken Thorne
Cinematographer: Robert Paynter
Editor: John Victor Smith

Superman II (1980)

3/4 stars

Superman II has all the excitement and visual spectacle of the original Superman film, but lacks its wit and plausibility. As a superhero movie it’s about as good as Tim Burton’s Batman or the first Avengers. But there isn’t much here of what made the 1978 Superman movie special.

In the first film it opened with three Kryptonian criminals being charged with sedition. General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O’Halloran) are condemned to dwell inside a floating disc called the Phantom Zone which floats off into space just as baby Superman’s escape pod leaves the planet. Now, in Superman II we find out what happened to them.
The sequel opens with Superman (Christopher Reeve) rushing to Paris after a group of terrorists with a hydrogen bomb take control of the Eiffel Tower. Superman saves the day by rescuing hostages and flying the bomb up into outer space where it explodes harmlessly. Unfortunately, the Phantom Zone just happened to be flying by and the shock waves shatter it, releasing Zod and gang. Ursa murders a couple of astronauts on the moon, and then the trio land in Houston, Texas. Zod wants to rule the planet and be worshiped by its denizens, but upon hearing stories of Superman he realizes that there is one threat to him and his ambitions that must be removed if he is to succeed.
The three villains have only a low kind of cunning and rely mostly on brute strength and their powers to get what they want. As movie bad guys go they have none of Lex Luthor’s (Gene Hackman) charisma and act more like playground bullies than anything else. Much of their scenes consist of wrecking havoc, causing property damage, and making comments about puny earthlings. Lex is regrettably given less to do. He joins forces with the Zod gang in the hopes of getting revenge against Superman, but he is forcibly sidelined by the new villains; his scenes little more than standing in a corner uttering some witticism.

Superman II’s subplot involving Clark Kent’s growing romance with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is slightly more interesting. Lois, who has been growing increasingly suspicious of Kent’s true identity, finally uncovers the truth. Superman is in love with Lois, but he discovers that for the two of them to be together he must sacrifice his powers and immortality. We are not told why and Superman accepts it without question. The time they spend together as a human couple is sweet and hopeful, but is sadly short-lived. Zod and his friends threaten Metropolis and it becomes clear to Clark that the world needs Superman. Clark and Lois’s breakup, however, represents one of several different failings that Superman II has in its writing. The movie does not convincingly establish that Clark Kent and Lois Lane are in love at all. Their interactions throughout the majority of the film is not much different than the simple infatuation they had in the first one. That they are deeply in love is something we are told more than we are shown. Break-ups can take a serious emotional toll on a person, and for a moment in the movie’s final scenes it appears that something poignant will be made of it. Lois tells Clark that he is “a tough act to follow” after he tries to suggest that someday she may meet someone else. I think a lot of people following a break-up feel as Lois does, even when their boyfriend isn’t the Man of Steel. But, the film cops out of any further dramatic tension by Superman implausibly wiping her memories clean with a kiss.
This kiss is just one of several stupid moments in the movie. I cannot abide arbitrary powers being lazily introduced to get the main characters out of a bind, and Superman II is full of moments like this. In the original film, Superman’s powers, while impossible, are at least explicable to the audience. We understand that he has super strength, laser vision, and can fly. We also know why he has these powers, being an alien living on a planet with a different sun and atmosphere. But, in the sequel his powers expand beyond any plausibility. Instead of changing into his costume with super speed he now makes his civie clothes magically vanish as the Superman garb materializes out of thin air. When Non charges at him Superman pulls an S off his chest and throws it at him. The material expands into a sort of plastic wrap that temporarily takes Non out of the fight. These moments are pure dei ex machina, lacking any sort of explanation and occurring from a standpoint of quick convenience.

In the final act, Superman and the Zod gang do battle in the streets of Metropolis and later in the Fortress of Solitude. The Metropolis scenes as action set pieces are not very exciting. There is little energy to them, with most of the fight just smashing things one by one at a slow rate and some petty taunts from Zod. There is a sense of city-wide chaos one would expect that is lacking here. The fight feels more like an elaborate street brawl while the rest of the city remains asleep or dully watches on.
The real purpose of the Metropolis battle seems to be product placement. There is an annoying scene in the first Superman involving Cheerios, but it is brief enough to not detract from that movie’s greatness. In Superman II, though, we are fed a whole marching gallery of products obnoxiously shot to hold the viewer’s attention. In the span of a single minute I counted about four or five products strutting their stuff while Metropolis is under attack. These include, but are not limited to, KFC, Coca-Cola, and even Marlboro cigarettes. I doubt Superman would have approved.

When all is said and done I find Superman II to be a sufficiently entertaining movie. I was not bored by it by any means. And I can get behind its plot and adventure, if not so much its execution. But, as Lois said of Superman himself, the first movie is a tough act to follow.

Directors: Richard Lester, Richard Donner
Writers: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Tom Mankiewicz
Producers: Pierre Spengler, Ilya Salkind, Alexander Salkind
Cast: Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Superman/Clark Kent), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Jack O’Halloran (Non), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Susannah York (Lara), E. G. Marshall (The President), Terence Stamp (General Zod)
Composers: Ken Thorne, John Williams (Superman Theme)
Cinematographers: Robert Paynter, Geoffrey Unsworth
Editor: John Victor Smith

Superman: The Movie (1978)

4/4 stars

Superhero movies tend to have a distinct formula these days. They often open in the middle of the action where the heroes, already familiar to the audience, are on some unrelated mission that goes south. They take a brief break for some funny dialogue before the movie’s main conflict is introduced and they are then whisked away on some adventure. What follows for the next two to three hours is constant action, displays of special effects, and witty banter. The fans are familiar with the characters, and it is that familiarity that carries the movie rather than the plot. It’s akin to seeing a circus performance. You’re there for the clowns and the elephants. No one cares what the ringleader and lion trainers have to say.

But, Superman: The Movie, the film that jump-started the genre, defies that formula. It takes its time establishing its characters and their motivations. It’s also well-performed, artfully photographed, and cleverly written. It is, in fact, what a lot of superhero flicks are not. It’s a movie.

Superman was made in the old Hollywood tradition, playing much like the rousing screen epics that preceded it. Clark Kent’s path to becoming Superman occupies much of the film’s first hour and when he finally does we understand his character completely. Christopher Reeve’s Superman is more than a costume fighting bad guys. He is a personality we get to know and root for. Superman is the classic story of a man born to become something greater. As his adopted father Johnathan Kent (Glenn Ford) puts it, he was put on this Earth for a reason. Clark Kent follows in the tradition of screen epics like Ben-Hur or Gone with the Wind where the situation and conflict serve the characters rather than the other way around. The movie is not a spectacle of human action figures playing out a scenario, but the story of a man growing into his potential.

The film opens on the planet Krypton, a place millions of light years from Earth where crystalline architecture is all the rave and the people wear glowing costumes that anticipate the special effects of Tron. The planet is about to be fatally engulfed in a solar flare, and Superman’s father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando), tries to warn Krypton’s elder council that they need to evacuate. They don’t believe him, so he builds a small spacecraft in secret to send his infant son to Earth where he will be safe.
When he gets there he is found by a childless couple in Kansas, the Kents, who adopt him. It is Johnathan Kent’s values that make Clark Kent the man he becomes. During those years as a teenager on the Kent family farm, Clark learns that his powers are a gift to help others weaker than himself and that selflessness and restraint are the highest obligation of the strong.
Clark Kent’s rearing in Smallville, Kansas make for the strongest scenes in the movie. Everything that Superman believes in and is sent to protect are established there in rural Americana – a setting of open wheat fields and country roads, gorgeously shot in wide-angles.
After Pa Kent dies of a heart attack, Clark learns more about his history and where he comes from. He decides to move to the big city of Metropolis and gets a job as a writer for the Daily Planet. It is here that his persona as Clark Kent fully takes off. Christopher Reeve is a great Superman, but he is an even better Clark Kent. He presents himself as bumbling and clumsy as well as a trifle naive. Clark Kent largely represents the people that Superman is there to protect. Like them, Clark is played as easily taken advantage of, but has something in him that kinder souls want to shelter and keep out of trouble. In a way, the alter ego of Clark Kent is closer to who Superman truly is. He abhors violence and has a love of justice and peace. He is the sort of man who just wants everyone to get along. By contrast Bruce Wayne is more of a mask that hides his true identity as Batman. In Superman the reverse is true, with Clark Kent being the true core of his being, while Superman is his mask.

At the Daily Planet he meets a reporter named Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) who finds Clark affable enough, but cannot abide his apparent lack of spine. When they are mugged in an alleyway, Clark insists in non-resistance, but Lois scoffs and tries to struggle with their assailant. The mugger’s gun goes off which Clark surreptitiously catches with his hand, but then pretends to faint. Lois not seeing the trick and assuming the mugger only missed, is disgusted.
Clark is infatuated with Lois, but she has her eyes on Superman after he rescues her from a near accident in a helicopter. On top of this Superman has already begun to make a reputation for himself stopping heists, apprehending criminals, and rescuing cats stuck in trees. She gets an opportunity to interview Superman for the paper and their sexual chemistry is clear from the start. The interaction is flirtatious and Lois finds herself stumbling into innuendos when she tries to speak. She and everyone else doesn’t see what the audience sees, which is that Superman is just Clark Kent with his glasses off. It’s the sort of logical discrepancy that I would call an elephant in the room if it wasn’t for all of the jokes that have been made of it over the years. It’s more of a dead horse than an elephant really.

But, no good superhero movie is lacking in a good villain. In Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) we get a character who is everything that Superman is not. Luthor is greedy, selfish, indifferent to the suffering of others, and always ready with an insult. His first bit of dialogue is “It’s a wonder that brain can generate enough power to keep those legs moving,” referring to his henchman, Otis (Ned Beatty). Otis follows the old tradition of super-villain henchman. He’s comically dimwitted and so incompetent that Luthor’s continual employment of him raises a lot of questions. I wouldn’t trust this guy to lay down and sleep without screwing it up somehow. Perhaps Otis is a relative or something.
Hackman’s performance as Luthor makes for the greatest super-hero villain of all time. His narcissism and constant sarcasm make him infinitely quotable. Luthor lives in awe of himself while holding everyone else around him in disdain. He is the sort of man who has no idols and heroes more impressive to him than himself. His personality is more of perpetual bemusement than anything threatening. He doesn’t wax philosophical or justify his wickedness with dark monologues. Nor is he governed by hate or revenge. He is more like Jabba the Hutt or Ooogie-Boogie. He is aware of what he is and he doesn’t care.
Lex Luthor has a wild scheme to use navy missiles to target the San Andreas fault line. By destroying much of the West coast he hopes to corner the real estate market in what remains. The only thing standing in his way is Superman who is naturally outraged by the sheer loss of life Luthor’s plan entails. Superman asks, “Is that how you get your kicks? Planning for the death of millions of people?” Luthor responds, “No. Causing the deaths of millions of people.” What a guy!

The climax is satisfying and exciting with an ending that sets the stage for more adventures to come fighting Luthor and worse. Superman’s father, Jor-El, left him with instructions to not interfere with human history. During the final act Superman is faced with the consequences of this command and the decision he makes at the end is decidedly un-Kryptonian, but it is certainly a human one.

Superman is the best of the superhero movies and it is the best-looking. It was the most expensive movie made up to that point, and it was done when CGI was in its infancy. Instead of relying on its special effects (still impressive for the time) it is shot in the classic Hollywood tradition of wide-angle lenses and beautiful natural cinematography sadly missed in blockbuster movies of today. It’s paced like a real movie, focusing on the growth of its main character and performed with convincing dramatic effect.
Superhero movies nowadays are often made with their scripts being the last thing on the filmmakers’ minds. They go into production with little more than a planned set of story beats that get hammered out in the course of their making. When a film of this genre starts life with a tight script, it results in something special. Something not typically seen in superhero movies. It results in an actual movie.

Director: Richard Donner
Writers: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton, Tom Mankiewicz
Cast: Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent/Superman), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Glenn Ford (Pa Kent), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher) Phyllis Thaxter (Ma Kent), Susannah York (Lara), Jeff East (Young Clark Kent), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen)
Producers: Charles Greenlaw, Ilya Salkind, Pierre Spengler, Richard Lester, Alexander Salkind
Composer: John Williams
Cinematographer: Geoffrey Unsworth
Editors: Stuart Baird, Michael Ellis

Batman: The Movie (1966)

3/4 stars

I have heard it said that the 1960’s Batman television series existed in a more innocent time. I suspect that people say this to offer an explanation for the campy, childlike flavor of movies and TV in those days. But, I don’t think this is precisely true. The 60’s were no more innocent a time than the 2020s, but what made them different was the counterweight that superhero stories offered against the world, scary as it was at the time and continues to be today.
The first superheroes came on the scene in the late 30s when Hitler was rising in Europe, and their popularity continued through World War II, the counter-culture revolutions, the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate. Hardly innocent times.
Instead the difference between Batman (1966) and the modern superheroes is not the times, but how they reacted to them. They are more cynical and reflective now, presenting the world as it really is and demonstrating morality as beleaguered and somewhat of a lonely companion. To stand against evil they must be tough, compromising, and angry.
But, in the Silver Age of comics books and comic book movies, people were more ready to accept goodness as an absolute that was capable of enduring scorn. It was a time when presidents and world leaders were respected figures, the police were more trusted, and antiheroes weren’t admired. It was not the times that changed. It was people who did.

The 1966 Batman movie starring Adam West was a product of the earlier time. This Batman (West) gets his moral values from Sesame Street. He is the sort who disapproves of gambling, believes in the potential for good in everyone, helps old ladies cross the street, goes to church on Sunday, and supports the local police. He is all about law and order, and even denies in one scene to being a vigilante. It’s explained that he and Robin, the Boy Wonder (Burt Ward) are formally deputized agents by the Gotham PD.

After narrowly avoiding a mishap involving a fake yacht and an exploding shark (a detailed explanation wouldn’t make it less ridiculous, I promise) he and Robin uncover a sinister plot to take over the entire world. Such a fiendish scheme, of course, could only involve the work of super-criminals and Commissioner Gordon (Neil Hamilton) discovers that not one, but four super-criminals are currently at large. With Batman’s superior detective skills (AKA improbably correct guesses a propos of nothing whatsoever) he realizes that all four of them must be responsible.
The four dastardly villains now working together are The Penguin (Burgess Meredith), The Joker (Cesar Romero), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin), and Catwoman (Lee Meriwether, replacing TV actress Julie Newmar who was recovering from a back injury at the time).
The movie juggles the four villains remarkably well during the 105-minute length, by simply keeping them together in the same room most of the time. They spend the majority of the movie bickering, laughing together, scheming excitedly, and then laughing some more. Singly on television or all together as in here, these characters are always a ton of fun. Meredith and Gorshin are my favorite actors to play Penguin and Riddler and I think a lot of it is due to the sheer level of enjoyment they have playing their roles. Riddler is constantly excited and laughing in high-pitched giggles. He is the most physical of the four, moving about like he has extreme ADHD. Penguin is laughably mean, squawking about and full of pure malice as he barks orders and complains on a regular basis. Meredith completely throws himself into the role and it is clear watching him on TV and in the movie that he absolutely loves playing it.
Joker contributes the least of all of them, generally going along with the plans and offering a funny comment here and there. Romero plays Joker like he is just happy to be here for the simple mischief of the whole thing, and to me that fits the character just fine; but he sadly gets a bit sidelined by the Riddler’s riddling and the Penguin’s masterminding.
Catwoman, however, plays a more central role this time around. She seduces Bruce Wayne by pretending to be a Russian journalist named Kitka in order to set him up for kidnapping. The wily scheme works and the evildoers wait for Batman to arrive to rescue him in order to trap and kill him. For obvious reasons this doesn’t work out very well and Wayne ends up escaping on his own. Meriwether’s role is fairly straightforward. She struts about in the catsuit all lithesome and seductive while moaning on occasion like a cat in heat. When she is playing Kitka it’s only a matter of silky tones in a fake accent and looking pretty. Catwoman’s eventual rise as a feminist icon is still a generation away.
Still, the combination of all four of them in one film pays off, and it shows that having multiple villains in a superhero movie can be done effectively if done right. A lot of other superhero flicks have struggled with this despite longer runtimes and less characters to juggle.

The super-criminals’ super-scheme to take over the world ultimately leads them to the United World Headquarters (an obvious stand-in for the UN) where representatives of several countries argue about world peace. The Penguin uses a diabolical machine to turn them into dust and it is up to the Dynamic Duo to reclaim the dust and restore the representatives to their original state.
The members of the United World Headquarters are only vaguely characterized. The hows and whys of world peace are not articulated, but is only spoken of in worshipful idealistic tones. There is a sense of moral naivete that is deliberate. Batman lives in a world where the buck stops at right and wrong and any thought of costs and necessary compromises are wholly alien to his philosophy. To him a spade is a spade. But, the Joker is wild and so are his companions. The nefarious villains are similarly single-minded in their badness. Without a touch of ambiguity they seem to be fully aware that they are bad people. The motivations of greed are only secondary to their childish desire to be a foil to Batman who is every bit as outlandish as they are. Without Batman these people would likely just go get desk jobs and give up on crime altogether because it wasn’t fun anymore. The 60s Batman show and the movie play more like an elaborate game of cops and robbers with each playing their respective roles with gusto.

Batman: The Movie is a highly innocent kind of film built up on the values of Dick and Jane and Mr. Rogers. As a straight-up adaptation of the TV series rather than an interpretation of the comics, it may very well be the most true to form Batman movie of all time. The comical tongue-in-cheek style adds to its charm and it is flawless in its intentions. It’s message of unambiguous morality is free and clear while it persistently goofs off. The gadgets are absurdly specific and convenient, the clue-finding is brainlessly non-sequitur, the characters are larger than life and costumed to match, and the action scenes are straight out of cartoons. The movie does more than capture the innocent moralizing of the Silver Age comic books. It also captures the fun.

Director: Leslie H. Martinson
Writers: Lorenzo Semple, Jr; Bob Kane, William Dozier
Cast: Adam West (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Burt Ward (Robin/Dick Grayson), Lee Meriwether (The Catwoman/Kitka), Cesar Romero (The Joker), Burgess Meredith (The Penguin), Frank Gorshin (The Riddler), Alan Napier (Alfred), Neil Hamilton (Commissioner Gordon), Stafford Repp (Chief O’Hara), Madge Blake (Aunt Harriet Cooper), Reginald Denny (Commodore Schmidlapp)
Producers: William Dozier, Charles B. Fitzsimons
Composer: Nelson Riddle
Cinematography: Howard Schwartz
Editor: Harry Gerstad

Batman & Robin (1997)

1.5/4 stars

Reportedly, before every shoot while filming Batman & Robin, director Joel Schumacher would remind the cast and crew to “remember, this is a cartoon.” Perhaps he should have said toy commercial. It is certainly with toys in mind that we see throughout the movie’s two hour runtime frequent costume changes, new gadgets, vehicles, and no less than three new villains. Even the characters seem to know they are in a two-hour toy commercial. Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) mentions her own action figure in a scene where Batman tries to take her on only to find himself in the grips of Bane (sold separately).
This is a shameless picture with only one clear goal behind its making, and it is not to tell a story. Selling toys has always been an important consideration when making movies like this, but none are as cynical about it. The movie is practically a convention, every shot serving to show off the latest products at your local Toys-R-Us. In the climactic battle during the final act, Batman (George Clooney), Robin (Chris O’Donnell), and newcomer Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) manage one last costume change before appearing to save the day. There is a sense of urgency in the previous scene that fails to justify this. But, remember, this is a toy commercial.

Schumacher’s claim that Batman & Robin is a cartoon is not entirely unjustified. It certainly explains the movie’s tone. The comical villains, slapstick violence, and gaudy visuals of Batman Forever are taken to the max here with even the gothic undertones from before now a thing of the past. Clooney brings none of the broodiness of Bruce Wayne to the character, instead playing the part like an older brother or someone’s cool uncle. As Batman, he is hardly intimidating. The role is written more like Adam West; falling into one obvious trap after another, making improbable public appearances for charity events, and never without the right gadget to get out of any mess.
Also reminiscent of the 60’s Batman show is the film’s set design. They are shot with the same slanted angles and the same neon shades of lighting that only highlight their fakeness. The only thing missing are all the BIFFs, POPs, and POWs splashing the screen during the many fight scenes in the movie.

Batman & Robin’s story is really just an after thought. Surely, it is enough to say that the new villains are up to something villainous and Batman must stop them. Knowing that the evil Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) wants to freeze the entire world with a ray gun or that Poison Ivy wants to reseed the planet with man-eating plants is not that important. You could watch this movie on mute and lose nothing. There’s a simple formula of baddies making an appearance and Batman and friends fighting them that requires no introduction. Even the movie’s subplot about Alfred (Michael Gough) being ill and needing a treatment is sufficiently told through visual cues that would make a lack of sound no challenge to understand.
While Alfred is suffering from a seemingly terminal ailment a new character is brought to Wayne Manor through Alfred’s niece, Barbara. The movie’s dialogue tells us she has come all the way from England to visit her uncle and that she is a bit of a rebel. I’ll have to just take the film’s word for it. Alicia Silverstone makes no attempt to affect an English dialect and she is shown to ride motorbikes fairly well. She is otherwise played with no personality at all and I suspect that somewhere in the movie’s development she was intended to recall Robin’s youthfulness in Batman Forever. But these themes, had they ever been present at all, must have found themselves on the cutting room floor.
Chris O’Donnell, in the meantime, brings no maturity to the Robin character at all; but spends the majority of the movie arguing and whining to Batman about how he feels like he isn’t being treated like an equal. To me, this presents a missed opportunity for Robin to take Batgirl under his wing and counter her brashness with memories of his own. But, Barbara is left by herself throughout most of the movie, while Robin and Batman bicker in a directionless subplot that ends abruptly when they realize their movie is reaching its climax.
Poison Ivy creates a sort of love triangle between them thanks to powerful pheromones she blows around like a magical pixie dust. Robin becomes convinced that Batman is jealous of him because she is in love with him instead of Batman. Batman, reasonably tries to remind him that Ivy is in league with Mr. Freeze and that her manipulative behavior is obvious, but Robin refuses to listen.
Mr. Freeze, another potential action figure, is slightly more interesting. Like Penguin in Batman Returns, he is presented as a tragic figure; but this time he is much more sympathetic, where Penguin was merely repulsive. The movie explains that Freeze’s wife is kept perpetually frozen to halt the progress of an incurable disease. This is said to be the same disease affecting Alfred, but far more advanced. Freeze needs special gems to power the machinery he uses to research and hopefully discover a cure. After an accident leaves him unable to live outside of sub-zero temperatures, he builds himself a special suit to keep himself cold and turns to a live of crime to steal more gems. By the end, Mr. Freeze is given more empathy than Penguin who was treated as irredeemable. It’s a not a deep story by any means, and all the schemings and rushings to save the day are just a thin veil to disguise the movie’s real agenda. Remember, this is a toy commercial.

Turning a beloved franchise into a big toy commercial is unforgivable, and as such, I had low expectations for the movie to have much of a story. But, as a marketing gimmick, I would have hoped for a better display of special effects. Instead, Warner Brothers, sells its toys with one of the worst looking Batman movies of all time. The sets are garish and cheap with even icicles appearing to be made of rubber at times. Outside of the sets, blue screen is used unconvincingly. The Batmobile and Robin’s bike ride against CG backgrounds, thick matte lines and all, like images poorly pasted over on Photoshop.
Batman & Robin has all the appearances of a movie that was cobbled together quickly with little thought. The story and characters play like Saturday morning cartoons with acting and special effects too shoddy to even properly enjoy it as mindless popcorn entertainment. Maybe the film would have been easier to stomach had it actually been a cartoon. Perhaps, collecting the toys is a better investment. I wonder how much they are going for on Ebay nowadays.

Director: Joel Schumacher
Writers: Bob Kane, Akiva Goldsman
Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger (Mr. Freeze/Dr. Victor Fries), George Clooney (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Chris O’Donnell (Robin/Dick Grayson), Uma Thurman (Poison Ivy/Dr. Pamela Isley), Alicia Silverstone (Batgirl/Barbara Wilson), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon)
Producers: Mitchell Dauterive, William M. Elvin, Peter Macgregor-Scott, Benjamin Melniker, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Elliot Goldenthal
Cinematographer: Stephen Goldblatt
Editors: Mark Stevens, Dennis Virkler

Batman Forever (1995)

2/4 stars

There are three kinds of Batman. Gothic Batman is the subject of the classic comic books and we see him stoically doing what he does best in the Tim Burton movies and the animated TV series from the 90s. The more introspective Edgelord Batman made popular in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy has been a favorite of comic writer Frank Miller, but largely exists elsewhere in memes. Campy Batman is best represented by Adam West back in the 1960s. Campy Batman’s Gotham City is a colorful world of colorful people where villains prance in clownish costumes and laugh maniacally. They are the sort of baddies who twirl their mustaches, tie damsels to railroad tracks, and scheme to poison the city’s water supply.
Director Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever is a return to the old tradition of campy Batman, slanted camera angles and all. When Schumacher, taking over for Tim Burton, approached the material he aimed to make a live-action cartoon. For better or worse, he succeeded. As stupid and ridiculous as the movie is, it is everything it intended to be; its flaws by design and really a matter of taste.

A common complaint leveled at it is that it is too campy and too cartoonish. I hold to the opposite view. I believe it isn’t campy and cartoonish enough, and therein lies Batman Forever’s downfall. The heroes, given what they are up against, are too sullen for their own good. Val Kilmer, replacing Michael Keaton, in the role of Bruce Wayne commands no presence, adding nothing interesting to the part. As Batman he is stale, watering the character down to a fighting costume.
Robin, the Boy Wonder is brought in this time around, and if the fans had been waiting patiently through two movies for Batman’s trusted sidekick to finally appear they must have been sadly disappointed. Chris O’Donnell as Dick Grayson (Robin’s alter ego) has none of Burt Ward’s original energy and passion. O’Donnell plays the role as standoffish and angry. His character development is nothing more than a skin-deep paint-by-numbers expression of the old saw “revenge won’t make the pain go away” and “taking a life leads to a dark path.” There is nothing wrong with such messages of course, but no sincere effort is made to convince the audience of their truthfulness. It’s merely said and Robin comes to these conclusions only when the script finally says so.
Batman and Robin generate no charisma whatsoever, all of their energy being sucked into the two lead villains.

The movie opens with the dastardly Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) robbing a bank to lure Batman into a trap. He giggles and jumps up and down like a clown, firing machine guns at nothing in particular as police helicopters swarm above. The burnt side of his face is improbably symmetrical in relation to the other side: a purple bit of prosthetic rubber that appears more like a cartoon’s idea of a deformity than anything seen on a real burn victim. His suit is split in a similar fashion; formal and proper on one side and gaudy and colorful on the other. When we see his evil lair later in the film the interior decoration keeps to this pattern. One side looks like the very throne room of hell and the other is pure white and fit for a fairy tea party. His two sexy girlfriends, Sugar and Spice (Drew Barrymore and Debi Mazar) are bedecked to match.
When Batman arrives at the bank robbery, he is joined by Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) and Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman). Meridian is a professional parapsychologist who specializes in super-criminals and caped crusaders alike. She doesn’t look much like a psychologist. She stands next to Batman looking like a blonde bombshell, speaking in silky tones and saying nothing more insightful than what can be gleaned from a copy of Psychology Today. She is about as convincing a psychologist as Denise Richards was as a physicist in The World Is Not Enough. Kidman plays the role like a Bond girl. She feigns a professional interest in Batman that masks something more fetishistic.
We later see a love triangle develop between her, Batman, and his secret identity Bruce Wayne. The movie posits a theme where Dr. Meridian’s infatuation with Batman is something girlish and rebellious; her eventual favoring of Wayne being a moment of maturity. She directs her husky-toned flirtations toward both equally, however, and the point is not hammered home that deeply.

After Two-Face escapes he joins forces with The Riddler (Jim Carrey) whose wild performance is the front and center of the whole show. Carrey plays Riddler with no restraint at all. His acting reaches over the top and then goes only higher. He moves like he is cursed to dance forever and he never stops talking. The performance is loud and obnoxious; Carrey mugs the camera, making bizarre faces and dropping pop culture references and bizarre jokes whenever he is on screen, which ends up being a great deal. Jim Carrey has this way of punctuating his words with sharp turns of his head. He does it so much you could make a drinking game out of it. After Batman Forever I’d be fairly plastered. Try doing it while watching The Mask and you would need a new liver.
When we first meet him he is an excitable and neurotic employee of Wayne Enterprises named Edward Nygma who idolizes Bruce Wayne and wants to impress him with a new mind-control device he invented. Wayne’s predictable rejection crushes the already unhinged Nygma’s spirit and he becomes enraged and bitter. It’s probably the lamest super-villain origin story to date, but it fits the material Schumacher presents.
As Riddler he uses his mind control device to read the minds of everyone in Gotham so he can steal their credit card numbers and financial records. It’s a shockingly short-sighted plot. One man having access to everyone’s money would only crash the economy and more than likely the existence of his machine would force the world to adapt its methods of bookkeeping to counter-act it. But maybe I am overthinking the logistics of a villain scheme obviously reminiscent of a Saturday morning cartoon.

When the movie sticks to Joel Schumacher’s vision it works remarkably well even if Carrey could afford to tone it down a little. Gotham looks better than ever keeping the same Gothic Dr. Seussian aesthetic from before, but more lively and animated. The camera rides through the city like a roller-coaster, allowing the viewer to soak in the details. It reminds me of a professional haunted house made with money as no object.
Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey’s antics are constantly energetic and off the wall. Reminding myself that this is supposed to be a live-action cartoon I can accept them, if not love them overmuch.
Where it fails is with its hero characters. Pat Hingle phones in his performance as Gordon, seeming to be painfully aware of what had become of the series. Kilmer is dry as a bone and O’Donnell is over-serious and undercooked as a character. Nicole Kidman brings to the movie the sort of character we should have had in Catwoman back in Batman Returns. Bond girls and Batman vixens alike are supposed to be somewhat innocent and prepubescent in their sensuality. They entice the man hidden behind the mask, but the boy that the mask represents ultimately wins out and keeps them untouchable. Kidman brings this to Chase Meridian well enough, but still never quite reaches the comic tone that the movie needs more of.

In Batman Forever Schumacher tries too hard to meld the 1960s era camp with the more mature themes of the Burton movies, and the result is an inconsistent mess. In the end I appreciated what the director has tried to do more than what he has done.

Director: Joel Schumacher
Writers: Bob Kane, Lee Batchler, Janet Scott Batchler, Akiva Goldsman
Cast: Val Kilmer (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Tommy Lee Jones (Two-Face/Harvey Dent), Jim Carret (Edward Nygma/Riddler), Nicole Kidman (Dr. Chase Meridian), Chris O’Donnell (Dick Grayson/Robin), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon), Drew Barrymore (Sugar) Debi Mazar (Spice)
Producers: Tim Burton, Mitchell E. Dauterive, Peter Macgregor-Scott, Benjamin Melniker, Kevin J. Messick, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Elliot Goldenthal
Cinematographer: Stephen Goldblatt
Editors: Mark Stevens, Dennis Virkler

Batman Returns (1992)

1.5/4 stars

Batman Returns is an ugly, unpleasant, and meanspirited film. There is something sick beneath its surface of gross-out grotesquerie, bondage-inspired sensuality, and gratuitous violence. Watching it, I felt there must have been a lot of anger behind its making. It’s the sort of movie that after viewing it I wanted to ask the filmmakers, “Who hurt you?”

Taking place a few years after the much superior Batman (1989), the film sees the Caped Crusader springing back into action after a group of rogue circus performers kidnap industrialist Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) during a public ceremony. He is blackmailed by the sewer-dwelling Penguin (Danny DeVito) who knows of Shreck’s illegal toxic waste dumping. Unlike the more balanced previous movie, the villains in Batman Returns take center stage leaving Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) more time to brood in front of his TV, I guess. The Penguin, far removed from the boyish aristocratic charm of Burgess Meredith, is a repulsive figure. He waddles in disgusting soiled long underwear, chows on raw fish with ill-manners that Gollum would have objected to, and lecherously leers at any woman he meets. His pasty, balding, hook-nosed visage only further elicits disgust in the viewer. In one of the films most disgusting scenes he chews on a raw fish, flesh dribbling from his mouth, right before biting a man on the nose causing it to gush blood. He then turns his attention to a female assistant and confides in Shreck his sexual fantasies featuring her. He flaps his deformed hands saying he wants to show her his “French flipper trick.” The scene’s comic tone only accentuates the rotten spirit that could have gone into writing it.
Added to the new rogues’ gallery is Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who starts out as a mistreated assistant to Max Shreck who pushes her out of a window when she discovers too much about his illegal activities. As Selina Kyle, Catwoman’s alter ego, she is a depressing figure. Selina is a misogynistic caricature of a sexually frustrated working woman living in a man’s world. The attempted murder causes her to snap and she returns to her apartment smashes it to bits and then makes herself a shiny black catsuit. As one does.
The character transformation is sudden and without much explanation. She adopts a sultry voice saying to herself, “Now I feel a lot yummier.” Her performance is sexually charged and out of place in a film made to cater to kids. When she allies herself with the Penguin he continually bombards her with unwanted sexual attention, his language vulgar and graphic. The game she plays with him is one of flirtation, innuendo, and rebuff (in that order). Her action scenes play out like a dance where suggestive comments contextualize a connection between sex and fighting. This sort of thing has been done before, but its application here in a movie for young people is disturbing. Catwoman as an archetype has always represented something prepubescent. She represents the growing confused feelings in young boys still overcoming their “girls are icky” phase. But that element is not here. In Batman Returns Catwoman fully embraces a dominatrix persona rife with explicit sexual dialogue. Every time she defeats a male opponent in a fight I kept waiting for them to take a quiet break for a cigarette.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is my favorite Catwoman. She encapsulates the seductiveness of the character and my reasons for favoring her are undeniably male ones. But the writing’s on the wall when put in the movie’s context. This movie is neither The Batman (2022) or The Dark Knight Rises. There is an offset of cartoonish comic book action and storytelling that makes her raw sensuality inappropriate. I have objections to her representation here in a kids movie as both a man and a father, if not so much as a male. To put it more succinctly, a movie that has been marketed with Happy Meal toys really ought not to have elements of BDSM and sexualized violence in its plot.
If I had any sympathy for the movie it was completely lost when we get to the part where Penguin murders a beauty queen. To frame Batman she is kidnapped and pushed off of a tall building with a flock of bats. The woman’s skimpy costume remains well-photographed throughout the ordeal and when she lands she is in surprisingly good shape, if still dead. There is something I find inherently sick about scantily clad women being killed on film that is especially egregious in a movie like this one.
Further adding to my distaste for the film is Penguin’s plot in the final act to kidnap Gotham’s firstborn and drown them in the toxic waste in his sewer. I had hoped that this would remain discussed and that the movie wouldn’t bother with scenes of scared screaming babies being loaded into cages, but alas, no dice; and the film goes there. Of course, Batman comes to the rescue and nothing horrible happens, but still…

This is among some of the most unpleasant superhero movies ever made. I wish I knew what Tim Burton (a very talented director) was going through when he made it. It is definitely the most Burton-esque of his Batman films. Danny Elfman’s score is highly reminiscent of the style heard in Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands and the same Dr. Seussian sense of model design under a winter blue color palette that characterizes Burton’s films is present here. His movies look a lot like the inside of a snow globe.
But, there is a lot of anger and resentment in the film’s writing. Any and every opportunity to be gross, exploitative, and crass is taken throughout. The Joel Schumacher Batman movies that followed are notoriously stupid in their idiotic writing and cartoonish visuals, but Schumacher never juxtaposed the lightweight content with half-naked women being murdered, bondage-geared dominatrices saying “Don’t be too rough with me it’s my first time” before a fight, or vile depictions of gross-out violence. The movie is rated PG-13, but much of the sexual dialogue is more fitting for an R-rated picture. The ugly tone and foul attitudes that fill every scene contains no meaningful commentary, but simply exist for their own sake.
It’s a film where sex is firmly connected to violence, Batman kills people, and the downtrodden and discarded poor folk are, we are told, monstrosities of nature. Batman Returns is the most hate-filled superhero flick ever made, and if I was not clear, I didn’t like it much.

Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Bob Kane, Daniel Waters, Sam Hamm
Cast: Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle/Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred), Michael Murphy (Mayor), Cristi Conaway (Ice Princess), Andrew Bryniarski (Chip), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon)
Producers: Ian Bryce, Tim Burton, Denise Di Novi, Larry Franco, Peter Guber, Benjamin Melniker, Jon Peters, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Danny Elfman
Cinematographer: Stefan Czapsky
Editors: Bob Badami, Chris Lebenzon

Batman (1989)

3/4 stars

Tim Burton’s Batman opens and it’s night in Gotham City. A family of three are mugged by two strung-out thugs and they sit on a rooftop counting their stolen money. But this is Gotham City and Gotham City has a protector who rules the night. Looming above them in silhouette like a ghoulish reincarnation of Dracula is a figure in the form of a bat. It swoops down upon the two terrified goons and beats them within an inch of their lives. One of them asks, “Who are you?” Gotham’s hero says, “I’m Batman”, and a legend is born.
All this happens in the first ten minutes. There are no forty-minute prologues of Bruce Wayne’s origins. There is little time given to studying his feelings and character. And there are no grounded explanations for where he gets his gear. When Batman uses a grappling hook to escape, the Joker says, “Where does he get those wonderful toys?” He gets no answer and we don’t need one.

This is the perfect Batman movie. It checks all the necessary boxes that define who Batman is, what his world is, and what a story featuring him should be about. The filmmakers understand that the audience knows who Batman is and that he needs no introduction. Batman doesn’t require an explanation. All he needs is to be properly represented.

Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) is already Batman when the film begins. We are not told for how long, but the sudden introduction of The Joker suggests it takes place during what the fans of the DC comics call Year One.
Keaton plays Bruce Wayne as good-natured and mannered, but a bit shy and antisocial. His loner tendencies reflect the consequence of being Batman at night. As Batman he recalls the Phantom of the Opera. He is reclusive and silent, staying in the shadows lest someone sees too much of him and discovers his secret identity.
Michael Keaton is my favorite of all the Batmans (Batmen?) who have attempted the role. He doesn’t stifle the performance with melodrama, but lets the physicality and look of the character dominate the screen. Batman is an icon and a symbol; and Keaton allows the iconography to define what we see. He is a costume and a chin. And that is Batman as we like him.
The costume is fairly traditional. It’s neither the explicable body armor worn by Christian Bale or the gaudy grey cloth of Adam West. The black bulletproof rubber worn by Keaton fits the gothic tone of the character while retaining our quintessential expectations of a Batman costume. The Bat logo stands out in yellow on the chest. The costume is fundamental and perfect.
The Batmobile is even better. It appropriates the mood and style of Batman better than any other Batmobile, in my opinion. It’s long, dark, angular, and the sort of car Count Dracula would have driven had motor vehicles existed in his day. Toy Biz must have made a killing on the market with this thing. It’s one of the coolest fictional movie cars since James Bond’s Aston Martin.
Tim Burton’s Batman also has the best rendition of Gotham City of all time. The gothic architecture brings to mind the German Expressionist images seen in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, but augmented in technicolor with dark matte paintings and its smoky and steaming set design.
Further setting the mood is Danny Elfman’s iconic score which to this day contains the definitive Batman theme for a lot of fans, myself included. Unlike the more optimistic and rousing Superman theme by John Williams, Elfman’s Batman theme puts itself in the midst of the action, punctuating Batman’s fighting spirit with just a dash of mischievous fun. Like the Williams score it creates its own genre of superhero themes. Sadly it’s becoming a lost art. Does anyone remember the music in the Marvel movies recently? Because I don’t.

But all of these elements add up to beans without a story. The film’s plot manages in its 2 hour runtime to give Batman, Bruce Wayne, and the Joker enough to do in perfect balance. Bruce Wayne juggles his obligations as Batman with his budding infatuation with journalist Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger) while the Joker (Jack Nicholson) has his own eyes on her while he plots to overthrow and take over the criminal underworld.
Nicholson portrays the Joker part with surprising restraint given the madcap lunacy of the character and his plans. He laughs, jokes, and plots morbid absurdities as any good Joker would, but never seems out of control. His madness is more of an attitude he brings to his offbeat behavior. Nicholson plays Joker like his descent into madness wasn’t out of tragedy or untreated mental illness. He chooses madness because he simply got annoyed with sanity and enough was enough. His most wildest actions still manage to reflect this attitude. He punches out a TV with a mechanical glove and murders his own henchmen where other men would just roll their eyes.

Controversially, Nicholson’s Joker, is given a backstory whereas the Joker is traditionally portrayed as anonymous and of ambiguous origins. Here he is introduced as Jack Napier, a right hand man to a mob boss (Jack Palance). After Palance discovers that Jack is sleeping with one of his molls he sets Jack up to be killed in a sting operation. But, when Batman makes an appearance, Jack fights him only to fall into a vat of acid. He survives, but is disfigured with chalk-white skin, green hair, and a permanent grin fixed on his face.
The decision to give Joker an identity and origin is still controversial among fans of the comics, but I have grown to accept the change. Nicholson is by far the most charismatic figure in the movie and the motivations his backstory gives him serve the plot perfectly fine. The Batman mythos is interpretive in adaptation, and the changes made to the established lore here doesn’t denigrate the film in the slightest. A Joker with an origin story is, after all, still more tolerable than a moody and angry Superman that the fans of Man of Steel didn’t seem to mind.
Joker gets revenge by killing his former boss and goes on to bend the remaining mob bosses under his rule, removing (quite dramatically) anyone who opposes him. He plots to poison the citizens of Gotham with infected hair care products, before moving onto bigger game with a parade show with floating balloons full of fatal laughing gas that he wants to unleash upon the city.
In the meantime, Batman broods and investigates Jack’s latest schemes, and his alter ego Bruce Wayne begins to suspect that there is an old personal connection between him and the Joker. Between them is Vicky Vale. Joker desires her, Bruce is falling in love with her, and it is Batman who must save her.

This is not a very thoughtful plot, naturally. But as a superhero movie, the story weaves all of the required elements that make the genre appealing. Christopher Nolan’s brilliant Dark Knight trilogy was made for a different sort of audience in mind. There the characters are ideologues for real-world issues that more sophisticated internet-bred audiences post-9/11 have found meaning and expression in. But, none of that is needed here. This movie was made for the boys and girls who love Batman and the Generation X adults who had grown up on him. During my childhood in the 90s, the grown-ups who were pop-culture conscious seemed to be preoccupied by two things: Star Wars and Batman. They coexisted on the same walls on posters, shared shelf space as action figures, filled boxes with comics, and every respectable nerd had both on VHS and their clothes. And in those happy days it was Burton’s image of Batman that dominated.

Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Bob Kane, Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren
Cast: Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Jack Nicholson (The Joker, Jack Napier), Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Alexander Knox), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon), Billy Dee Williams (Harvey Dent), Michael Gough (Alfred), Jack Palance (Grissom), Jerry Hall (Alicia), Tracey Walker (Bob the Goon), Lee Wallace (Mayor), William Hootkins (Eckhardt)
Producers: Peter Guber, Barbara Kalish, Chris Kenny, Benjamin Melniker, Jon Peters, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Danny Elfman
Cinematographer: Roger Pratt
Editor: Ray Lovejoy