Although most of us would consider ourselves law abiding citizens, there is that little part inside that bucks authority. We have all had to deal with that asshole cop that gave us a ticket, or was rude to us for no reason. We have felt frustrated by some city official or government office that doesn't do their job, or even pretend to care about doing the job.
Normally, we just have to bottle these feelings and take it out in more socially appropriate ways. Film, however, provides us with a unique outlet for those frustrations. In that spirit, I present to you five films that fought the law.
Bucktown (1975)
The 1970's was a radical time for America, both in current events and in film. The love fest of the sixties had crashed and burned, leaving behind the fires of discontent. Nowhere was this more obvious in movies than in the Blaxploitation genre. During the late 60's and 70's, African Americans became a larger part of the cinematic landscape. Tired of the stereotypical roles they had been limited to, such as maids and bumbling idiots, black filmmakers decided to offer their own version of the action star to their audience. These heroes were just as suave, tough, and good looking as their white counterparts, even if their budgets were significantly less. In these films, African Americans expressed their rage against a corrupt system of government and a racist society. Bucktown confronts the issues of police brutality and corruption head on, and is very enjoyable while doing so.
This film tells the story of Duke Johnson (played by Fred Williamson), a small town hero who returns for his brother's funeral. He has moved on to the big city, where he enjoys a relative life of luxury. He is far removed from the small town racism that permeates this small southern town. Almost immediately, Johnson runs into trouble with the local sheriff's deputies. He is harassed and threatened by the cops, and extorted by the local government. Johnson plans to leave as soon as his brother's estate is handled; however, he learns that it will take two months to do so. He is eventually talked into reopening his brother's bar while he waits for the settlement. His brother's former girlfriend Aretha, portrayed by the always wonderful Pam Grier, begins to warm to Johnson, especially when he kicks the crap out of the deputies looking for protection money. Duke storms into the sheriff's office and lays down his own law. Unfortunately for him, the sheriff doesn't take kindly to threats and has his officers barrage Johnson's house in an all out hail of bullets.
Having had enough of the racist cops, Johnson calls up some old friends to help him take care of the situation. Roy, played by Thalmus Rasulala, comes to town with his posse in tow. The men clean up the town and eventually take over as the police force. After seeing the amount of money that can be made, Roy decides to stay in Bucktown. He and his crew take to the streets and become more brutal than the original cops. Despite his loyalty to his friend, Duke decides to step in to stop them.
Bucktown is a blaxploitation gem from the 70's. The characters here are all highly entertaining. Sure, the production is a little low budget. The dialogue is occasionally mumbled and hard to understand. However, its the film's spirit that elevates it above the standard action film of the time period. You feel Duke's anger towards the police, and his contempt for the town as a whole. Grier's performance is sexy, sassy, and even a little moving. It wouldn't take much for us to believe that she could have cleaned up the town herself. Rasulala is brilliant here as the close friend you love and are heartbroken to see become the bad guy.
The real strength of the film is that it transcends the race boundary. This isn't just a film about white cops fighting the black heroes. This is a film about absolute power corrupting absolutely. You root for these guys for so long, and then are horrified to see them become the thing they fought against. This theme elevates the movie from standard exploitation to low budget Shakespeare. Bucktown demonstrates that you must rise above the law in order to fight it.
A couple of contributors to the blog here are about to start shooting their own film, "I Filmed Your Death." I have read the script, and it is going to be provocative, to say the least. They need help getting the film to its goal budget of $10,000. They have just 8 more days to hit that goal. If you are able, please help them out.
Here is more about the film:
"I Filmed Your Death" is a horror movie about a tragedy in a small town. Pierce Lyndale, the main character of the film, decides to make a film about the event to show it on the public access channel a year later. He tries to bring all of his childhood friends together to see the movie, but what he doesn't know is that the friends and family of the killer don't want it to be shown.
Its a movie that works on several different levels. Firstly, it looks at exploitation in the media and violence in our society in general. It also contains several characters that you will really care about. Much like "Dazed & Confused" or "Clerks", we get to know these characters by hanging out with them throughout the movie. Finally it is just a classic horror movie. It doesn't rely on jumps or loud noises, the terror in this movie is built up steadily for the first half and then delivered upon in the second. Its a horror movie that looks at today's society and what we decide to ignore.
I will admit it: I was a Trekker. When I was about 12 or so, I discovered Star Trek: The Next Generation. Sure, I had seen a few of the original series episodes (I thought they were too slow and cheesy) and a couple of the original cast movies (which were better.) For whatever reason, I really got into TNG. I wasn't even a huge sci-fi fan; but I responded to the characters and the ideas behind the series. The special effects looked pretty cool, too.
Over the years, I had amassed tons of VHS tapes of TNG episodes recorded from television. The quality was generally pretty poor and the episodes scattered across tapes in no particular order. By the time I was in my twenties, I had stowed the tapes away and practically forgotten about the show. Then, one day, it was announced that they would be coming to DVD. Still skeptical, I tuned into a marathon of episodes on cable. I was instantly hooked again. I had forgotten just how much fun this show was.
The DVDs, released over a period of a couple of years (if memory serves) were huge, bulky boxes containing six or seven discs. They had a number of special features, and each episode was presented in the highest quality of the day. Being released during the early days of TV on DVD, the box sets usually ran around $200 a piece. Back then, I had roommates and few bills, so I collected them all. After a while, I lost interest in the series again and the box sets collected dust. I loaned a few of them out and never got them back. I wasn't that heartbroken, as there were plenty of other shows to keep my interest.
Rumors about the Blu Ray release began about a year before the first sampler disc was released. Not wanting to spend the money for 3 episodes, I declined to buy the sampler. However, I kept watching the online videos on the restoration of the series and my interest was eventually piqued. I clicked on Amazon just before the Blu Ray's release, and saw the first season was on sale for the preorder price of $59.99. I decided to take a leap of faith.
So, how is it?
Video Quality
To be fair, I don't have my first season DVDs anymore to directly compare the video quality of the two. However, the video appears to be simply fantastic. Colors are rich and vibrant, detail is sharp. Having been recorded on film, and then transferred to video for special effects work, the first two seasons of TNG have a strange VHS quality to them. Or, I suppose I should say "had." These discs present the original film for the first time. Each episode has been rescanned from the original film elements and the special effects rebuilt from the ground up. That weird video tone to this season is completely gone. That's not to say that the images are perfect. The first two seasons also featured unusually dark lighting in some scenes, and the video occasionally suffers during these. All of the standard lit scenes look brilliant.
The special effects work here must also be commended. Instead of upconverting the video images, the team at CBS has completely rescanned and re edited the material. (The episodes are edited exactly as they were initially, so nothing has been "changed" ala Lucas.) The ships have simply never looked more beautiful. They are not digitally rendered; each element has been recomposited from the original film at HD quality. These effects shots look as good as anything in the films that followed the series.
Sound Quality
For this release, the sound has been remixed in DTS 7.1. The original stereo mix is also included. Once again, the series has never sounded so good. Each ship rumbles by; each warp will make you jump. Occasionally, the dialogue is slightly weak in the mix but that is due to the way it was recorded at the time. There are also reports of dialogue being mixed into additional channels (instead of just the center) on certain episodes. Honestly, I didn't notice it at all.
Extras
This set includes all the original DVD extras plus more. The promos for each episode are included and can be viewed separately or before the episode. They are presented in SD, and don't look that great, but are fun to have. The two most anticipated features are new documentaries filmed for this release. The first is a demonstration on the remastering effort that was undertaken for the Blu Rays. If you are a bit of a film nerd, like me, you will be especially happy by this feature. The other documentary is a 90 minuted look at the origins of the series. Interviews with living cast and crew members, as well as archival footage, presents the story of the birth of TNG. There is a lot of fascinating stuff here. Things were not always as rosy as you would think on the set or behind the scenes. Overall, the documentary is interesting, though I still feel that it glosses over certain aspects. It seems to me, that there are more stories to unearth and other details to discover.
Actual Show Content
I placed this one last, because those that are interested in the Blu Rays have seen the show. You know what you are getting into when you buy the discs. The first season of TNG is undoubtedly its weakest. (Though season two gives it a run for its money.) It is the season that I watch the least of; I haven't seen most of these episodes in nearly 10 years. Being presented in HD, there are many flaws that struck me for the first time. The higher quality of this video clearly reveals the stunt doubles and edges of the aliens' make up. The contrast between the new CGI planet exteriors and the pitiful soundstages of the interiors is striking. I know that the producers were staying true to the original feel and vision of the show, but I would have liked some enhancements here and there. I don't think anyone would mind if an actual sky or horizon was added to the planet sets. (Didn't they do this for the The Original Series Blu Ray release?)
The storylines of the first season are also pretty bland. Most of the episodes feature the crew getting in to some sort of high brow pickle that only Wesley Crusher can solve. Never being a favorite of mine, I was particularly annoyed by Crusher during this viewing. These are the most highly trained officers in Starfleet and they are constantly outwitted by a 12 year old? I can't wait for him to leave during the third season.
Much of the acting here is grandiose and over the top. There are so many cringe worthy moments that they are hard to pin down. The reactions of Picard and Riker, in particular, are truly bizarre many times. They seem annoyed and alarmed over simple questions and situations. The actors eventually find their groove, and become less dramatic over time. (The amount of one liners also decreases. If I hear one more character repeat slang in a question, I'll put a phaser to my head. "Yankee trader?")
Bottom Line
Despite the flaws of TNG's first season, it is still enjoyable and the presentation here is nothing short of breathtaking. As a fan, I am simply blown away by the care CBS has taken with the series. No one in their right mind could have anticipated such a massive undertaking on a 25 year old series. I feel like this set is more a taste of what is to come. Initially disinterested, I am now eagerly awaiting future releases. I can't wait to see Best of Both Worlds in HD. I hope the discs are successful enough to continue through TNG's run, and hopefully into DS9 as well. Those Dominion battles would look pretty cool on Blu Ray!
It's taken me awhile to get a review of the highly anticipated THE DARK KNIGHT RISES up because I wanted to make sure I could give it a fair evaluation. My anticipation of seeing it and my excitement on the day of the midnight premiere might have swayed my view. I read some reviews after I got home that night and was surprised to see some people literally calling the movie garbage, and not worth watching at all. A big letdown was the first sentence of another review I skimmed when my Batman high was kicking in after I got home from the 2 hour and 45 minute long film. Perhaps I only liked the movie because I had looked forward to it for nearly 4 years? I knew I loved a lot of things about the film, but there were a lot of potential plot holes that didn't really make sense to me. So I went and saw it again that same day.
The second viewing of the film was much more enjoyable to me. This movie has a lot of things happening throughout it constantly and it’s easy to get lost in all of the characters and plotlines going on. Anyone who is not intimately familiar with the basic plotlines of both BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT runs a high risk of becoming lost in this movie’s nonstop sequences of suspense, drama and action. But that is something that I particularly liked about it, since it was clearly meant to be the final chapter in this trilogy. I knew that after I saw it for my third time, I could safely say this film secured itself in my mind as a great film and an epic conclusion to the Christopher Nolan directed series of Batman films that began with BEGINS in 2005 and was notably brought to most people’s attention by the 2008 blockbuster THE DARK KNIGHT. This movie is very different from its predecessor and I think that is a good thing.
Some of the realism that was created in the previous two films is lost to a certain extent in this Batman tale. But not to a great enough degree where I feel like it detracts that much from the story. I know many people have complained that Batman is not in this film enough. I understand this, I could have used a little more of the character myself. But did the storyline warrant anymore Batman appearances than what it gave us? I don’t want to spoil anything major for someone who hasn’t yet seen the film but suffice it to say, Bruce Wayne is not up to the task of putting on the cape and cowl for several portions of the movie. Every Batman scene is a great, well directed and memorable portion of the film and even in BATMAN BEGINS, Batman didn’t make an appearance until an hour into the movie. And it makes sense because from the very beginning, this trilogy has really been the story of Bruce Wayne, not Batman. Christian Bale has such a great take on the character that I almost enjoy any Bruce Wayne scene just as much as any action scene.
Almost all of the characters from the previous films return in this, and even though everyone seemed to have more fun in THE DARK KNIGHT, all of the actors really step it up a notch in terms of dramatic acting. The entire cast is giving it their all and it pays off in a big way. The conclusion of the series is pretty perfect for me but that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t change a few things if I could. Hardly any movie is going to seem perfect, but when something is as enjoyable as I found this one to be, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to just sit back and relax and enjoy the movie. One of the best things about the movie is newcomer Tom Hardy as the villain Bane. Fans of Bane in the comics will know where the plotline is heading before the rest of the moviegoing audience will, and perhaps that makes some of the film’s brutality easier to swallow if you’re familiar with the Batman comic lore. Anne Hathaway is also a standout as the infamous Catwoman. Her take on the character left my mouth drooling.
Would this film be my favorite in the series? I couldn’t really say at this point, and it probably wouldn’t be. Buy why would that even matter? How many people would say that their least favorite original STAR WARS film is RETURN OF THE JEDI but that they still love that movie? Sequels are hard to do, and this one manages to surpass or at least come close to the high bars that were set by its two excellent predecessors. I would highly recommend this film and say that for anyone who is a fan of sequels and trilogies, they definitely have to check this one out. There’s not too many great trilogies in film, there’s always at least one bad or mediocre film in the mix. BACK TO THE FUTURE and STAR WARS are both pretty perfect trilogies in my opinion and I’ve gotta say that THE DARK KNIGHT RISES secures Nolan’s Batman Trilogy into my very exclusive list of perfect film series that come in threes. I really could say a hundred more positive things about this movie but I’ll let you decide for yourself when you see it. Just remember that making a grand scale movie like this isn’t easy and just because it isn’t exactly what you wanted or seems a little unrealistic to you at times, doesn’t warrant treating the film like it’s your typical summer garden variety crap. If you want a recent superhero film that only goes through the motions and does have glaring plotholes throughout the entire film, then go see THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and leave THE DARK KNIGHT RISES to us that actually appreciate the film for what it succeeds in being-a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy of films about a man named Bruce Wayne.
If there is one thing that an actor hates, it's being typecast. Daniel Radcliffe, having made his name as Harry Potter, has repeatedly tried to break free from the role with a series of dissimilar films. He has had various degrees of success in doing so.
In his latest film, The Woman in Black, Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps. Kipps is a young 19th century lawyer from London who is assigned the tedious task of handling a rural woman's estate after she dies. Kipps is a widower with a young child, and is unhappy to be away from him for so long. Over the course of a week, Kipps pours over the old woman's files in her creepy old house. Oh yeah, all the locals have tried to convince him to leave and a bunch of kids around town start dying. Though it takes it attempts to replicate the British haunted house genre of the last sixties, Woman in Black takes too many of its cues from sub-par modern day horror films. There are lots of quiet slow moving scenes that are suddenly jolted by a loud noise that has nothing to do with the supernatural, (i.e. a kitchen faucet spouting water.)
The film attempts to establish an unnerving tone, and succeeds to a small end. There are a few scenes that cause the viewer to become uncomfortable; however, they always seemed forced into the film. The scenes of children's deaths are haunting, although you see them coming a mile away. The even lighting and cinematography also work against the film. There is no room for hidden terrors when you can see every corner of the house, or are riding through daylight.
Most of the film relies on the "jump," rather than actual scares. Radcliffe, believing to be alone, turns to face someone else (cue orchestra hit!) Radcliffe falls asleep in a chair and a hand reaches out to grab him (cue orchestra hit!) The film rehashes almost all of the conventions of PG-13 horror established over the past ten years or so. They even go so far as to pull a Ring or Drag Me To Hell ending.
While I can understand the appeal that Radcliffe would have in doing a smaller film outside of the genre that made him famous, this film really breaks no new ground. His character is stodgy and British; he is polite and quiet. It's not far enough away from his Potter character for audiences to gauge him any differently. Perhaps, he is trying to ween his image away slowly, rather than immediately jumping the wizard ship. In any case, I believe there had to have been a more effective horror film for him to have tried out.
After the debacle that was Batman & Robin, both fans and the studio decided it was time to give the Dark Knight a rest. It seemed that audiences were tired of tights and capes, as the superhero genre began to wane. Movies like Daredevil, Elektra, and the Batman spinoff Catwoman, just weren't pulling the numbers the way they used to. Comic books appeared to have lost their appeal.
Then, a funny thing happened. It was called The X-Men. After a number of failed attempts (including one by future Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon) to bring the Marvel gang to the screen, a respected filmmaker by the name of Bryan Singer stepped in. He brought in a new screenwriter and delved head first into the material. The X-Men had always balanced a serious idea upon a sort of ridiculous premise. Singer was able to take the books and bring verisimilitude to their world. He made the stories a little darker and recruited a stellar cast (with several Oscar nominees and winners.) His film was a big success, and studios took notice.
Warner Brothers decided to reinvent their Batman franchise under the direction of a independent director with a talent for telling bizarre stories. His name was Darren Aronoskfy. The idea was to bring the graphic novel "Batman: Year One" to the screen. Unfortunately (?), the script did not take the story in a direction the studio wanted to go and the project was shelved again. Luckily, the execs had enough sense to try once more; this time under the direction of Christopher Nolan.
Batman Begins (2005)
Nolan's films, up to this point, had been small indie dramas that were based more on concept than story. Pictures like Memento and the remake of Insomnia proved that the filmmaker knew how to handle the tension and darkness the franchise desperately needed. Still, it was a big gamble for Warner Brothers.
So, did it work? (As if you don't know...)
Casting:The cast of this film is pitch perfect. (Well, if you don't count Katie Holmes.) Christian Bale, who had made a name for himself in smaller films up until this point,isthe Bruce Wayne for the next generation. He conveys the brooding and anguish of his character without completely giving way to the ridiculous. Whereas Michael Keaton played the role as a crazy man that could come unhinged at any moment, Bale acts as if he is compressing a devastating anger that he has finally learned to control. Micheal Cane brings a gravitas to the role of Alfred that few other actors could have dared to. Morgan Freeman is always good to lend weight to a film, and Rutger Hauer is the perfect slimy businessman.Gary Oldman has always been one of my favorite actors, and it's a delight to have him as Gordon. Cillian Murphy is another favorite of mine. I was very happy to see him as the deranged psychiatrist who becomes the Scarecrow.
Script:Christopher Nolan decided to keep the theme of Batman's origin from the previous attempts at a reboot, though he went with his own ideas rather than directly adapting one of the comics. In doing so, he broke all ties to previous incarnations and freed himself to begin his own story that would carry Bruce Wayne from childhood to his destiny throughout three films.
Batman Begins, as the film was eventually titled, starts by telling the story of a young man who is locked in a Chinese prison for petty theft. Through a series of flashbacks, we learn that the man is, indeed, Bruce Wayne: the heir to a grand company and a vast fortune. We see his parents' deaths, and learn of their connections to the mob that infests the city of Gotham. Instead of a tragic accident, Nolan sets the elder Wayne's death as an intentional attempt to cause the city's implosion.
After his release from prison, Wayne joins "The League of Shadows" where his mentor, Liam Neeson, teaches him the survival and combat skills that will serve him as The Dark Knight. Wayne eventually returns to Gotham to avenge his parents' death the only way he knows how to do: by ridding the city of crime.
With this film, Nolan brings his unique vision to a well tread story. He doesn't just rehash the character's origin; he explores the reasons and consequences of doing so. Batman Begins is not so much an action film (although, there is plenty of it) as a psychological profile. We see just as much, if not more, of Bruce Wayne as we do the mask that he wears. Nolan is not interested in just showing us the toys in this film, he wants us to understand (and believe) the transformation of this character.
Set Design/Cinematography: Nolan further sets his film apart from the others by filming in actual locations. The previous versions all took place on soundstages in England. Though some of them were impressive, none could compete with the rough and rugged look of a real city. This Gotham was not a circus tent full of colorful clowns; it was a real town that struggled with problems that are faced by real cities.
Bottom Line: Batman Begins is a triumphant return to form, as well as a groundbreaker. It delivers the serious take that Burton first provided, and gives us a much welcomed shot of realism. The film provides us with a more believable version of the character's backstory while making it seem fresh and new. It potently envisions the world that this new version of the Caped Crusader inhabits.
If there is any flaw with the film, then perhaps it's that the movie does feel like a first chapter on occasion. Much of the plot in the final two acts seems more of a means to establish the tone and ground rules of this Batman, than an actual plot. This complaint is a very minor one, however. This film is far and above the best of the franchise since the 1989 version. It paints the picture of a new hero for a new generation. And it boldly takes us to the next chapter in our hero's story.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Three years after he reinvigorated the Batman franchise, Christopher Nolan released what most fans would consider the definitive installment. Having established the ground rules of Gotham in the previous film, Nolan unleashed Batman's most beloved villain: The Joker. Critics and audiences were dazzled by the film, and it became one of the top grossing of all time.
So, why so successful?
Casting: Nearly all of the previous cast is carried over from Begins, with one exception. Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Many fans disliked Holmes in the first film, and it appears, she decided not to return. Gyllenhaal brings a more mature level of acting to the role.Holmes still seemed like the little girl from Dawson's Creek, whereas Gyllenhaal easily holds her own against the rest of the cast. In this film, Dawes is torn between two men: the obsessive Bruce Wayne, and the ambitious Harvey Dent. Aaron Eckhart joins the cast as Dent. He is exactly what the role requires: charming, driven, and a bit egotistical. Eckhart handles the cushy ride of Dent's success, as well as his downfall, with ease.
Of course, the most important addition, if not the most important role period, is Heath Ledger as the Joker. Ledger absolutely steals the film from Christian Bale. Every second Ledger is on screen is mesmerizing. He takes a villain that has been reinvented dozens of times and pushes him into a completely new direction. Even after a number of viewings, it still seems difficult to predict the Joker's next move. Ledger brought an edge to the character that not even Jack Nicholson could touch. The word tragedy is often tossed around with little meaning these days. The death of Heath Ledger was truly a tragedy for the acting world. It seems so ridiculous now to have ever been concerned with his casting, as many fans were. (Seems like that is a recurrent situation with the franchise.
Script: If Batman Begins is an exploration of the reasons a man becomes a super hero, The Dark Knight is a psychological profile of a man who becomes the villain. The script begins shortly after the previous film. Batman's efforts on the streets are getting mixed reviews. Some cops hate him. Others fear him. One or two, believe in him. The mob, however, is sick of him. After a particularly damaging bust, they turn "to a man they don't fully understand." In Nolan's world, the Joker is no mere criminal. He is a force of nature. He is chaos. This incarnation is not interested in crime for crime's sake. He just wants to watch the world burn. But, he'll do it for a price. Once the Joker's antics results in the deaths of several public officials, the public rallies against Batman. They demand that he give himself over to the police. Meanwhile, Dent hatches a plan to capture the Joker before he kills again. Little does Dent know, he is playing right into The Joker's hands.
This film is Batman at his grittiest. It takes its cues from legitimate crime thrillers like Donnie Brasco. The bank heist scene that opens the movie stands up against anything without a masked villain. There is also a slowness to the film that allows it to breathe. Events are played out in a natural order without having a lot of flash to keep them going. Thus, the action sequences seem much more organic to the story, rather than just an excuse to have the batmobile race up a wall.
One of the many strengths with this take, is that it is surprising and moving. There are deaths here that no one expects. There are real emotional consequences for those deaths. Every event in this film is a cause or reaction to the decisions made by the main characters. That is why the ending is so tragic. They have become the cause of their own peril. By the end, Batman has been knocked from his throne, and left bleeding on the ground.
My only complaint with the film is that it seems a little long. The scene with the Joker and the ferries full of passengers seemed a little unnecessary to me. It could have just as easily been worked into the hospital sequence and been just as effective. As it is, it produces a lull in the pacing before Two Face's rampage. It may be a minor complaint, but one worth mentioning.
Set Design/Cinematography: Like Batman Begins, TDK feels like it takes place in a real city. Actually, this one feels more real than the previous film. (With no CGI train system running throughout the city.) It helps that most of the action is filmed in real locations. Given that there are many different cities that make up Gotham, the scenery never looks boring or repetitive.
Some of the sets on this film are quite surprising. With the rebuilding of Wayne Manor continuing, Bruce and Alfred are forced to live in a luxury penthouse. At first, one feels a little betrayed by the mansion's exclusion. However, you soon realize how freeing it is to lose the staple. The design of the batcave here was initially jaw dropping. Instead of the dark caverns present in EVERY other version, we get something left over from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both the floor and ceiling are covered by fluorescent panels. Under Nolan's expert guidance, the set works. It is amazing what the director can get away with and make everyone the happier about it.
The costumes here, are one of the strong points. When the first pictures of Ledger were released, fans complained and threw their arms up. What the hell was going on with his face? Was this make up, or was his skin deformed? For months, fans were up in arms about Nolan's direction. Once they saw the trailer, everyone's fears became awe. It was instantly clear that Nolan knew just what he was doing.
Two Face's make up job often gets overlooked given Ledger's appearance. It is unfortunate, because it is spectacular. This doesn't look like some ridiculous purple paint on his face. His face truly looks destroyed. The make up design is so graphic, that I firmly believe that it would have earned any other film an "R" rating.
Director: It would be impossible to overestimate Christopher Nolan's importance to the Batman franchise. Not only did he resurrect the character, he reinvented the comic film genre. He proved that a capable director could tell a story much deeper than one about a guy in a cape. His films have balanced the action with the psychology; they give you the explosions, but also the heartache. Nolan understands the conventions of film inside and out; so much so that he knows how to unravel them. He is one of the few directors that has never made a film that I didn't like.
Bottom Line: If you are reading this article, no one needs to tell you how good The Dark Knight is. The film had the rare distinction of being able to please die hard fans and broader audiences as well. It set the standard for all other superhero and action films to follow. With this film, Nolan showed Hollywood that people want strong characters and depth of story to go along with their popcorn. On July 20th, Nolan's trilogy will come to a conclusion with The Dark Knight Rises.
Of course, a reboot of the franchise is already in the works. I pity the director who is chosen to follow Nolan, though have faith in the character's longevity. Over the past 70 years, The Dark Knight has graced the screen nearly a dozen times. Some adaptions have proven more adept than others. A few have done their best to kill interest in the Batman. And then there are those that remind us of why we keep coming back. More than any other character, Batman reminds us of why we fall: to get back up again.
After the disappointing Return of Batman, Warner Brothers decided to switch directions. Seeing the previous film as too dark, they decided to add a dose of "fun" to the franchise. They chose none other than Joel Schumacher to do just that. Up to this point, Schumacher had made a few successful films, mainly in the drama and horror genres. In his defense, his previous works were fairly down to earth, and betrayed none of the garishness that was to become of the franchise.
Batman Forever (1995)
For his first film, Schumacher chose to stick with the two villain formula established by Returns. He also felt it was time to bring in Batman's side kick: Robin. This version of Batman is a little "cooler" and a lot flashier. It is an absolute 180 from Burton's films.
So, that'd go?
Casting: Nearly every major role has been recast for this film. Keaton bowed out with the change of directors. Val Kilmer was brought in to replace him, though he only stayed for this one. Chris O'Donnel. makes his first appearance as Robin. Tommy Lee Jones replaced Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent. Here, he plays his evil alter ego: Two Face. Jim Carrey portrays the Riddler, and Nicole Kidman rounds out the cast as Wayne's love interest. I have to admit that I have a lot of problems with both the characters and the casting of this film.
For starters, the characters here are flat and one dimensional. Bruce Wayne harps about repressed memories and his sympathy for Grayson's loss. The event has triggered painful emotions and shattered the wall of control he has spent his life building around his feelings. Unfortunately, Kilmer is given little room to play any of this. His dialogue is poorly written and the direction is plain boring. Scenes that could have resonated are shrugged off as filler between action sequences. Similarly, the villains' transformations are hurried and ridiculous. (I'm no expert in Batman comics, but I'm pretty sure The Riddler never stole brainwaves in the books.) Schumacher provides no compelling reasons for either man to become criminals (or where they get their money to do so). He just assumes that no one really cares (he doesn't) and just pushes through to show them in their big budget costumes.
This version of The Riddler is especially disappointing. Throughout the series, the characters have become more and more exaggerated (constantly trying to top Nicholson's performance as The Joker.) Jim Carrey's casting ensures the Riddler's outlandishness. The comedian brings nothing original to the role whatsoever. He is not even playing the Riddler; he is playing Jim Carrey in a green suit. Carrey's performance here is exactly like every other film he has ever made. Whether its Ace Ventura or Edward Nygma, all you get is Carrey jumping around, making stupid jokes, and yelling in a funny voice. This version of the character is just barely even concerned with riddles. The inclusion of the packages he leaves for Wayne seem unnecessary; almost an afterthought when the screenwriter realized what the villain did in the books.
Script: The film begins with the typical "Batman called to action" sequence that had become a staple. In this scenario, the Caped Crusader is called to deal with Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face. Face has taken hostages in a bank, which is ultimately a plot to capture and kill Batman. (This ploy also begins the next film, with Mr. Freeze doing almost exactly the same thing.) After escaping, Batman returns home and Two Face begins his next episode of terror. Meanwhile, Jim Carrey hatches a plan to steal Gotham's brainwaves, which transform him into super villain The Riddler. Bruce Wayne spends most of his time dating Nicole Kidman, who plays psychologist Chace Meridian. He takes her to the circus (because that's where most billionaires go on dates) where they witness the unfortunate death of trapeze artists at the hands of Two Face. The youngest of the clan, Dick Grayson, is adopted by Wayne, stumbles upon the Batcave, and becomes Robin. The rest of the film is filled with Jones and Carrey laughing a lot and a final showdown between them, Batman, and Robin in a rave or something. Set Design/Cinematography: While Batman Returns may not have been my favorite of the series, I still believe it was closer to the original Burton film. It strayed over the fantastic boundary more than once, but kept everything reasonably grounded. Batman Forever took the franchise into left field; having no interest in presenting any sort of realism at all. Schumacher established a vision of Gotham that was more anime and Saturday morning cartoons than anything Burton would have created. Although it was more restrained than his next effort, Forever clearly eschews the sensibilities that made the first films so successful.
Everything here is lit in bright colors; the make up is exaggerated and too playful. I'm sure the idea behind the design of this film was to make it look like a comic book. Everything here certainly resembles one. The problem with that idea is that cinema is a totally different form of art. Fans are attracted to Batman films to see the character brought to life in a world similar to their own. They want to see him swoop down onto criminals from buildings that are familiar. They want to see the batmobile blowing up cars that they might own. Once you stray into something as fantastic as the design of this film, everything just becomes nonsensical. "Oh, the batmobile can climb walls. Ok......"
Director: I understand why the studio went with a different director for this film. Had the franchise kept going the way it was with Burton at the helm, I'm not sure it would have succeeded any more than it did with Schumacher. Audiences were caught off guard by the look and tone of Returns, and I believe it was fair to try to change it for this one. The film was even a big success when it was released. It just hasn't stood against time so well.
I believe that Schumacher was the wrong guy to do these films for a reason: his whole perception of the character came from the television shows and the pre 1980's campy books. Just as Burton's filmmaking instincts were too much for Returns, Schumacher's vision was ill fitting of the material. I believe the studio should have found someone who was simply more interested in the characters and in keeping the style of the original.
Bottom Line: The main problem with this film is just how overblown everything is. The actor's performances are too big and grate on the audience's nerves by the end of the film. Scenes that could be played with subtly and accentuate the subtext are bludgeoned with Schumacher's inept direction. The city of Gotham is full of strange passageways and giant Atlas statues. Even the batcave and the vehicles have been redesigned to be more flashy. Batman Forever is less a story than it is an explosion of fireworks caught on film.
Despite its flaws, the film made tons of money. The sequel was inevitably going to follow with Schumacher unfortunately at the helm. The next installment, however, would take everything that was terrible about Batman Forever and crank it to 11.
Batman & Robin (1997)
Alright, we all know that Batman & Robin sucked. Like REALLY sucked. It killed the franchise and nearly put a permanent end to Batman on film. It would be really easy to just say "shit sandwich" and go on to the next one. However, as a conscientious blogger, I feel the need to break the film down and really examine what's wrong with it. So, here we go.
Plot: This is really the only area that I can give the film a break. It does have a linear plot that follows a logic and flows from A to B. It's not a mash up of several drafts filled with fits and starts. I would even have to say that, on paper, the plot is not much more outlandish than the previous films. The follow through may be totally hammed up, but the story is not as bad as it could have been. So, it's got that going for it.
Casting: The cast of this film, on many levels, is an abomination. First of all, Clooney brings absolutely nothing to the role of Batman. He conveys none of the darkness that the hero is supposed to harbor. He just plays a typical millionaire with a boyish grin and a supermodel on his arm. Chris O'Donnell as Robin is serviceable, I suppose. Again, he is pretty generic, but the role isn't that demanding. Uma Thurman is actually pretty well cast here. Her lines and delivery are over the top, but that's more the director's fault than her's. She is super sexy here, as her character should be. Alicia Sylverstone as Batgirl probably made sense when the idea was batted around the exec's office during a casting meeting. The problem is that she just couldn't pull the role off. She notoriously gained weight during production, but she doesn't actually look fat here. She just can't really do the physical part of the role. Her fight scenes are awkward and stiff. Even her more dramatic scenes don't really work, either. I don't know if she was bored or turned off by the film, but it comes across that way. (Not that I could blame her.) The worst decision in the entire production of this film was casting the role of Mr. Freeze with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Let's face it. The guy can't act. He can run around and lift heavy shit, but he can't sell a line of dialogue to save his life. The fact that his lines are so poorly written (just a jumble of lame catchphrases) doesn't help at all, either.
Script: As I said before, the plot is structured and isn't entirely off base. The actual writing of the film, however, is dreadful. There is absolutely no character development in this film whatsoever. Sure, they thrown in a meaningless rivalry between Batman and Robin, and an unnecessary subplot involving Alfred's death bed; neither of which actually furthers the characters in any way. Batman in this film isn't the Dark Knight avenging his parent's murder. He's a playboy with a cool car who dresses like a bat and shows up in some fight scenes every few minutes. Ditto with Robin and Batgirl. Poison Ivy barely even has an agenda here and Bane is a cartoon cameo, rather than an actual person. The filmmakers did try to humanize Mr. Freeze with images of him crying ice tears for his cryogenically frozen wife. Perhaps a better director, and a better actor, could have actually made these scenes work. Once again, Schwarzenegger can't act.
Set Design/Cinematography: I was going to split these two, but their sins are similar. The original Burton film walked a very fine line between the real and comic worlds. Gotham looks like a real, albeit slightly heightened version of, crime ridden city. In this film, Gotham looks like an Escher inspired circus where buildings end in midair, streets are laid out as motorcycle race tracks, and everyone of the citizens is dressed like a freakish clown. None of the sets look remotely real here. At no point do you believe the characters are actually wherever they are supposed to be. With the stylized lighting (mostly red, purple, and blue swirls), it is painfully obvious that everything is filmed on soundstages.
The camerawork is equally hideous. Everything is filmed in either tight closeups of the actor's faces (so that you can't tell exactly what they are doing) or in wide shots that are just too wide. During the fight scenes, the camera is all over the place. It rarely captures anything clear or telling. I had no idea that there was a huge dinosaur in the middle of the museum until Freeze dropped a corny one-liner about it. With the similarities between all of the sets, and the shoddy camerawork, it's difficult to even tell where the hell anyone is half the time. The worst offense of all, however, is the broken-tripod-slanted-angle. It is one of the most annoying, over used shots, that keeps turning up in every scene. I wanted to lift the edge of my TV up every time it happened just so I could see what was going on.
Director: I have to admit, I hate Joel Schumacher as a director. The only two films of his that I like are Lost Boys and Flatliners. (Though, it's been years since I've seen Flatliners.) His films are usually visually "loud" with an outlandish style and almost no substance. (Much like Baz Lurhmann.) The problem with his Batman films is that he doesn't understand the character or the world he is set in. With this film, especially, he relies on gimmicks rather than story. He's not interested in doing anything more than showing you pretty lights and guys in tight costumes. He obviously had no idea that the elements audiences responded to in the original Burton film were the darkness of the character and the seriousness given the material. Instead of continuing Burton's vision, he delivers a high budgeted version of the television show. He would have done just as well to have cast Adam West and Burt Ward for this film. At least the audience would have known just what they were in for.
Batman & Robin is a terrible film. There's no two ways about it. It's not even one of those "so bad, it's good" films. Maybe a few beers will get you through your initial viewing, however, you're not gonna wanna sit through it ever again. Audience backlash was so fierce with this film that Warner Bros scrapped the fifth installment. Featuring a darker script, and a return of the Joker, the film could have made up for this pile of excrement. Although it may have been an interesting experiment, I believe the film world to be better off with the Caped Crusader's hiatus.
After twenty years of enduring the bumbling crime fighter image endowed by Adam West and the makers of the old television shows, Warner Brothers decided it was time to take a more serious approach to the Caped Crusader. The studio, in a rather ballsy move, handed the material over to a young filmmaker named Tim Burton. Burton would take on The Dark Knight twice. First, with the revolutionary Batman, and again with the disappointing Batman Returns.
Batman (1989)
Unsatisfied with the direction the studio was going with the original screenplay, Burton wrote his own treatment and hired his own screenwriters. During the three year development process of the film, Burton had success with his film Beetlejuice (starring Michael Keaton). Happy with the results of that film, WB finally green lit the film and work began in earnest.
So, how did it turn out? Let's look at each part:
Casting: Much like the casting of the original Superman film, the studio set about casting a name for the villain. What Hollywood actor had the energy and pizzazz to bring The Joker to the big screen without turning him into a caricature? Enter Jack Nicholson. With an A list actor attached, the filmmakers sent a message to the world. They were serious about Batman and were determined to make a legitimate film.
Nicholson took the role to heart, and clearly enjoyed every moment. He begins the film as a sort of jaded gangster who longs to move up the chain of command. Once his transformation is complete, Nicholson is free to let loose and fill the screen with his antics. As one of the Hollywood greats, he makes the most of his character. This Joker is not the bumbling laughing fool from the television series. He is a man who was once bored with the killing. Now, reborn, he has rediscovered (and reinvented) his thirst for mayhem.
The choice for Bruce Wayne caused a fair amount of controversy. Fans protested the choice of Michael Keaton for the Dark Knight. He was too small for the suit, too scrawny to kick anyone's ass. What was Burton thinking? Many fans feared that the filmmakers were returning to the camp they so desperately wanted to escape. Keaton, after all, had been known as a comedic actor.
What's interesting about the choice is that it was so against type. Burton's idea was that Bruce Wayne would be an average man, not a barbarian or weight lifter. He used his mind rather than his muscles to capture criminals. He would, therefore, need the batsuit to strike fear into his enemies.
Keaton also brought an edge to the character that hadn't been there before. This was a man who regularly fought his own memories. This Wayne was isolated from the world around him; he is even awkward in his own house. Keaton is able to balance the fear that lurks just beneath Wayne's surface with the dark humor that shadows the character. One gets the feeling that Wayne himself realizes how ridiculous it can all be, but is powerless to stop it.
Burton also introduced us to Robert Wuhl as Alexander Knox and Kim Bassinger as Vicki Vale. The inclusion of these characters really added a depth to the film that allowed it to cross multiple genres. Wuhl functions as both the rapid wisecracker from the 1930's and 40's who provides most of the film's humor, as well as the audience's everyman. He has our view on the world and frequently warns Vale against her actions. Vale, in turn, proves to be the most rounded of all the love interests in the films. (At least until Nolan's.) She is a smart woman who becomes intrigued with Wayne and his alter ego. Using her skills as a journalist, she delves into their dark beginnings and eventually wins his heart. (Um...at least until the next film, I guess.)
Script: After ten years in developmental hell, the script for Batman was finally completed and filmed. During that time, writers struggled to find the right tone for an updated version of the character. They also had to decide exactly what kind of story to tell. Would it be an adaptation of one of the comics? Would it combine several of the graphic novels? Would it be something original? Ultimately, the script chose to take it's own path while borrowing the look and feel of the latter books.
The film tells the beginning of the Joker and shows how he and Batman have a mutual hand in creating the other. In this story, Batman is not the loveable deputy of Commissioner Gordon. Instead, he is a rumor that is whispered in hush tones. He is a masked vigilante that appears to be on the opposite side of the law. He is not trusted, nor does he trust anyone else. He truly is The Dark Knight.
The strengths of this script are many. The most obvious is the seriousness given to the material. From the first scene, we know that this is not going to be a Saturday morning cartoon. The film gradually takes us into a fantastic world; revealing each step in a way that allows us to accept this heightened reality. We get to know Bruce Wayne in a way that we hadn't before. We also see his origin and feel the pain that caused his transformation.
The film is not all psychology and drama. The action sequences here are abundant and extremely well done. Each piece is designed to reveal something about Batman and his abilities, rather than just to fill screen time with explosions. Each gets us from point A to point B; there are no unnecessary fights or car chases here.
There are a couple of problems. Many fans were outraged that Alfred the butler allowed Vicki Vale to enter the batcave without Wayne's permission. I have to admit that I never thought this was the case. I always assumed Bruce had told Alfred to let her in. Even if he hadn't, the film clearly establishes Alfred's love for Wayne and shows that he knows Bruce better than Bruce knows himself.
The other problem takes place at the end of the film. The characters climb a bell tower of an old cathedral. Somehow, there is an army of henchmen there, ready to strike at Batman. I was never sure of how they got there or why they were climbing the tower in the first place.
In the end, though, the script is a triumph. When the film opened on June 23, 1989 fans and critics alike were bowled over. This was a Batman they had never seen before. This was a city overrun by crime and an antihero who didn't get stuck in giant teacups or put under dancing spells.
Set Design/Cinematography: Although it would seem an obvious necessity, Burton chose to set most of this film at night. The previous movie had taken place mostly during the day. (As did the television show.) Although it may have been easier to film under the sun, the setting completely disagrees with the character. This film presents the Dark Knight in his natural environment.
Burton's Gotham has a wonderfully timeless look to it in this movie. The architecture is a blend of modern and 1930's. The characters' clothes are even a mix of these styles. The effect is that it sets everything just out of time. This could be the present or the past. A major benefit of doing this is that the film won't seem to age as fast as other versions.
Even with this specific style, the sets seem very real. I completely believe that these criminals exist in the dirty city and watch over their shoulders for "the bat." The scale seems large but appropriate. Unlike later movies, the sets are interesting while being slightly restrained. There are no laser lights and disco balls hanging from the batcave. (It's a movie, after all, not a music video.)
Director: Burton's vision for Batman was one the audience had been craving for years. He took the material seriously and walked the fine line between realism and the comics. This was a film that allowed the audience to have fun without lowering itself to parody. These were characters that had back stories and motivations. They were unhinged and blurred the line between hero and villain. This Batman looked badass and had cool vehicles and gadgets.
Bottom Line: Given all of the preconceptions of what Batman was, it's nothing short of a miracle that Burton and company were able to deliver a film of this quality. The film has its flaws to be sure. However, it hit almost all of the right buttons. I would dare say that Nolan took many of his own cues from this version of the story. If you rewatch his films, you are sure to see similarities. Nolan, however, chose to eschew nearly all comic styling and go for heavy handed realism.
Personally, this is my favorite Batman film. I remember being a kid when this one was released. I followed all of the publicity during the filming. I had the trading cards and had my parents scour the toy stores for the elusive action figures. I was looking forward to it so much, that I can't believe I wasn't disappointed by the actual film when it opened.
Unfortunately, it would be a long time before I got excited by a Batman film again. (Sixteen years to be exact.) For the next several years, the films devolved into a bigger mess with every new outing.
Batman Returns (1992)
After the resounding success of the first Batman film, a sequel was inevitable. Studio executives were sure to be planning on an entire series of installments for years down the line. The first problem, however, was convincing Burton to move on the next one. Exhausted from the long shoot of the 1989 film, Burton chose to work on a smaller project: Edward Scissorhands. The studio continued pressing the director to begin on the sequel, however, he was unsure whether to return or not. The studio's offer would shape the resulting film in a way that I believe ultimately hurt it. They encouraged the director to make the next Batman installment a "Tim Burton Film."
So, how did it go?
Casting: Michael Keaton returns as the Dark Knight for a final time. Initially a controversial choice, his return now prompted optimism for the direction of the sequel. Keaton, here, plays the Caped Crusader much as he did in the original. He is just as dark and mysterious as he was previously. As Bruce Wayne, Keaton is given a new opponent to deal with: the dating scene. The subject could have actually provided more insight into Wayne's mind if it had been developed a little more. (More on that subject in just a moment.) The usual criticism concerning Keaton and this film is that he is barely in it. The film spends the majority of its time dealing with the villain, most notably Danny Devito's The Penguin.
Nicholson's take on the Joker provided incalculable positives to the franchise. Unfortunately, it also provided the franchise's death knell: Each villain tries to top the last in their outrageous performances. Many of the actors that were cast in the subsequent films eschew their own ideas in favor of recreating Nicholson's energy. Danny Devito's Penguin is no exception. In this version, he is an abandoned circus freak who is hell bent on exacting revenge against Gotham. Kudos must be given to the filmmakers for attempting to revitalize a villain who had been, up to this point, essentially nondescript. (Aside from his trick umbrellas, could anyone really describe any personal details about the character?) As the grotesque mad man, DeVito is perfect. He plays rotten to the T. Even his larger than life performance isn't necessarily wrong; it just sets the precedent for all the villains to follow.
The sequel also established a staple that would continue even to this day: each film would have two villains. Michelle Pfieffer portrays the criminal love interest known as The Catwoman. Pfieffer is one of the genuine highlights of the film, as well as the franchise. She easily transforms herself from the meek secretary into a dangerous sexpot. Her performance, unlike most villains, is sleek and slightly reserved.Whereas DeVito is allowed to revel in being the bad guy, Pfieffer must make the audience feel both empathy and hate for her. She is definitely one of the most interesting characters in the entire series.
Rounding out the cast is Christopher Walken as Max Shreck. Shreck is an unscrupulous businessman who becomes the Penguins unlikely ally. Walken is enjoyable as usual in the film, even if he doesn't really seem to be giving his all.
The characters of Alexander Knox and Vicki Vale are notably absent here. With such grandiose events taking place in this film, it could have benefited by Knox's grounded humor. There is even a reporter character that could have easily been beefed for Robert Whul. I'm not sure exactly why they didn't. Vale's absence is more understandable since the Catwoman provides Wayne's female lead.
Script: The character of Bruce Wayne is defined by the duality of his persona. Batman Returns is similarly constructed. This script is the most unusual of the franchise; it never seems to really find a consistent tone. One minute, it is a fairy tale come to life (a Burton specialty.) The next finds it in true sequel form. The film shifts from playful joy to truly dark malaise. (Many viewers were caught unaware by this shift, and were no doubt turned off by it.)
The majority of the story here focuses on the Penguin and his attempt to abduct Gotham's first born. The film spends most of its time dealing with DeVito searching for his parents and running for mayor. It spends so little time on Catwoman's arc, that she is nearly relegated to cameo. For me, the Penguin's story is just not that interesting. It especially pales when compared with the complex relationship between Selena Kyle and Bruce Wayne. The few scenes that do exist only entice the audience's appetite for more. Instead, we suffer through Penguin's disgusting sexual innuendos and Christopher Walken's ridiculous hair.
Set Design/Cinematography: At first glance, Returns seems to be just as rich and interesting as the original. Upon closer inspection, however, it is easy to see the differences between the two. The sets of the first are expansive. They easily convince you that the action is taking place in a real town. The sets of Returns are noticeably smaller; they consist mainly of a street corner and a small square. Gotham feels claustrophobic this time around. With so little room to film, the scenery gets a little repetitive. The blocking seems a little constricted, and occasionally forced.
The filmmaker's decision to place this film during the winter also hinders the look. The snow adds to the claustrophobic effect; the Christmas holiday limits the film's appeal. By referencing a specific time of year, the movie seems to feel out of place if watched outside of that period.
Depending on your point of view of the direction the film takes the characters, the costuming and make up designs are either brilliant or flamboyant. Most fans approve of the catwoman's outfit and design. It's sexy, and yet practical. The Penguin's make up is absolutely surreal. He is disgusting and bizarre. Whether you like him or not, DeVito's appearance is truly unforgettable. (Christopher Walken's hair is terrible, though.)
Director: Having Tim Burton back for this sequel was a no brainer. His vision of the Caped Crusader established the character as a viable property for years to come. Unfortunately, his mind was elsewhere during the making of this film. It is obvious from all the pieces here that Burton wasn't as invested in making Batman so much as another of his offbeat fairy tales. When talks came around for the third installment, he and the studio mutually agreed that he should be replaced.
Perhaps if Burton had waited longer to take on the Dark Knight, he could have made a film closer to the first. Or, maybe the studio should have replaced him sooner. In either case, Burton was not the right choice to bring Batman back to the screen.
Bottom Line: Batman Returns is the strangest entry into the franchise. It doesn't strike the same fun, dark chords of the first. It isn't even the spectacle that the latter films become. It is both fantastic and vulgar; too broad and yet, bottled. Audience reaction turned out to be quite negative, necessitating the addition of a new director and vision. After such a disappointing turn, it's easy to see why Warner Brothers chose Joel Schumacher's bright eye for the next round of movies. Unfortunately, he would do even more to destroy the series than Burton ever could have.
Posts
10:18 PM
Henry Spencer
Bucktown (1975)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
