Batman Returns (1992)

Batman Returns is Tim Burton’s sequel to his first film featuring the legendary super hero. The story takes an even darker tone as Batman (Michael Keaton) deals with two new villains in the form of the Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). Even though the dark and often disturbing images in this film prevented it from being as appreciated as its predecessor, I find this story to be a bit more interesting and balanced when compared to the first Batman film. It’s true that it lacks the over-the-top fun found in Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker, but the plot's more coherent and the rest of the characters are given deeper and complex relationships; that of Bruce Wayne/Batman and Selina Kyle/Catwoman is a good example, but I’ll get back to that. 

As with the previous film, and all of Tim Burton’s work for that matter, the sets and art direction in this film are incredible and stand up remarkably well today. Gotham City is portrayed as a timeless world, part 1940s noir and part gothic paradise. It's reflected in the fashions of the people as well as the buildings; abstract structures towering over the city, complete with giant statues that seem to support them at their base. The animation and effects have improved greatly since the first film and it shows (particularly with the way that people falling from great heights are filmed). What's probably most remembered from this film, and also over-shadows the marvelous effects of the city, are the villains. There are three central antagonists: first is the corrupt businessman, Max Shreck. He's played by Christopher Walken and he gives another classic performance in his usual (unusual) style. With his wild hair and menacing gaze, he's both threatening as well as humorous. The next villain is the Penguin. He's probably most remembered as one of the sillier villains in Batman’s rogues’ gallery; he's a short, monocle and top hat wearing mob boss who has an obsession with penguins and others creatures of the avian variety. Even more than Catwoman has this character been reinvented for this film. The Penguin now lives up to his name, this time born with various disfigurements that include a large, protruding hooked-nose and flipper-like hands. The opening of the film shows his parents (the father is Paul Reubens) dump him into a river which carries him into the sewers, leading him to a group of penguins. He's a disgusting character in nearly every sense of the word. He’s ruthless, vulgar and spews black fluid from his mouth. His ultimate plan for Gotham is fitting for someone as revolting as this version of the Penguin, though his use of a missile-packing penguin army is delightfully absurd. I believe Aflred (played once again by Michael Gough) describes him best as a “ghastly grotesque.” 

The third antagonist in the film is Catwoman, a character that also receives a significant update from her previous incarnations. Tim Burton presents Selina Kyle as a character that's motivated into her Catwoman persona through a near death (or actual death) experience, which results in her mental instability. This instability is mirrored in her costume: a skin tight leather get-up covered from head to toe in stitches; to say that her mind has been fractured would be an understatement. The costume is now an iconic interpretation of the look of the character. It's difficult to imagine a better version of her outfit and Michelle Pfeiffer certainly looks good in it. That thing is so tight, you can almost believe she sewed the whole thing out of one leather jacket. There's a sort of ambiguity as to whether she has “cat powers” or if all her talents are brought about from an unhinged mind. I prefer to think that it's the latter, though both sides are arguable. The character development for Batman develops mostly through his relationship with Catwoman, and it's one that has very obvious S&M undertones. 

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Wow.

I do find it amusing that there's a concept that this film and Batman Begins share, yet here is shown in a much more subtle fashion. This is the idea that Batman is Bruce Wayne’s true face, and the rich business man is the real mask. In Batman Begins, this is shown first through the act that Bruce Wayne puts on when he's in public, and then explicitly stated towards the end of the film by one of the central characters. In Batman Returns however, this is only implied through a few key scenes, which only makes it more effective. The first shot of Bruce Wayne is him sitting alone in the dark, waiting for the Bat Signal to light up the sky. It's only when it does that life seems to suddenly return to his body and he leaps into action. A better scene comes during a masquerade party he attends where neither he nor Selina Kyle wears a mask over their faces. His relationship with her is a major aspect of the appeal of this film as his interest in her is almost inexplicable. He first encounters her as Batman, having just saved her from an attacker. He has no reaction to her when she was merely a lonely assistant. It's only after her “accident” that he suddenly finds himself drawn to her both in and out of costume, implying that he's only really attracted to a personality as twisted and extreme as his own.

Even though the bulk of the film may focus on the two villains, I would argue that there's still a lot about the character of Batman to find interesting. Overall there are fewer flaws with this sequel than in its predecessor, of which this is superior to in many ways. Though many consider it to be too dark or too adult for a comic book character as famous (and loved by children) as Batman, I think it remains one of his better cinematic interpretations. If it seems too dark for you, just remember that it could be worse: your nose could be gushing blood.

Batman Begins (2005)

Since the end of the Tim Burton Batman films, the iconic character had fallen on hard times (cinematically speaking). First it was Batman Forever, a poor excuse for marketing Batman to a wider audience after the incredibly dark Batman Returns. Batman Forever was Joel Schumacher’s attempt to add his own style to the franchise while also paying homage to the Adam West camp of the 60s. The film butchered a lot of the aspects of the Batman mythos and to this day seems to be forgotten as the garbage it is if only because it doesn’t compare to the mind numbing stupidity of its follow-up, Batman & Robin. The damage done to the famous character in that film is catastrophic and it's notoriously known as one of the worst super hero films of all time. Eight years pass and Christopher Nolan and David Goyer revive the character in Batman Begins, a film which returns the character to his roots and reinvents him as a modern, real world super hero.

The first half of the film is told through two timelines: the first is a young Bruce Wayne in a prison camp (in an unnamed Asian country) who begins to train under R’as Al Ghul with the mysterious group of vigilantes known as the League of Shadows. The other timeline is told via flashback of Bruce’s childhood and young adult life, portraying him as an angry young man and shows what pushed him to end up in the prison. All of it is devoted to establishing his character motivations and turning Bruce Wayne into something more than a man avenging his parent’s death. Much of the film’s events are based on Batman comics, though specifically drawing inspiration from Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One. Christian Bale does an excellent job playing what are essentially three versions of the character: the man, the playboy and the Batman. The complete Batman costume does not show up in the film until roughly 45 minutes in, but it's easy to forget this. The build up to it is terrific, as much of what you see Bruce Wayne go through you know will be used as part of Batman’s arsenal or beliefs. Every gadget and tool, including the Batman costume, is shown to be grounded in real world technology. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is quite good. Michael Cain as Alfred and Gary Oldman as Sergeant Gordon are particularly worth mentioning. Both if these characters are fleshed out into more useful and developed personalities in a way not ever seen before. Alfred is much more of a family member and mentor to Bruce and Gordon plays a significant role in the story as the only cop in Gotham not corrupt. The second half of the film is the super hero story, complete with a large number of villains such as the mob boss, Falcone (wonderfully played by Tom Wilkinson), R’as Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) and The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy). Cillian Murphy turns out to be quite a scene stealer, playing Dr. Crane with a degree of bureaucratic creepiness that only make the mask he wears more effective and disturbing. Liam Neeson plays Henri Ducard, a member of the League of Shadows who personally oversees the training of Bruce Wayne. It's a role that feels a bit familiar to a few of his others such as Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars Episode I and Godfrey in Kingdom of Heaven, but there's a significant twist that makes this character much more compelling than either of the other roles.

Cillian Murphy as The Scarecrow

The visual effects used are impressive and reserved almost exclusively to background images. Gotham City is where the bulk of it lies, but it's never the focus of any shots, making the animation almost invisible. The action scenes and car chases rely instead on good stunt work. A major aspect of the film is the concept of fear and all its uses. The villains use it and Batman himself uses it. It's so central to the plot that the villain’s master plan is dependent on it in a very literal sense. Batman’s first appearance is shown entirely from the mob goons’ point of view, and they see him as a monster; it's a memorable reveal as he strikes from the shadows and is never seen as anything other than a wraith moving in the background. This movie takes everything about the character and his universe incredibly seriously and it's refreshing to see a man dressed up as a bat being treated as a genuine threat. Even the more comic book elements, such as the Batmobile (dubbed “the tumbler” in this film) and Batman summoning an army of bats, seem plausible and realistic.

Despite my own praises, Batman Begins is not without faults. The first comes from the character Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). Katie Holmes is fine and doesn’t really add or take away anything from this character. Instead, I think the problem lies with the way she's written. It's established that she and Bruce used to be linked together romantically, but this is never really shown. This is the one part of Bruce Wayne’s life that's skipped over. I never got the sense that they were as close as they were supposed to be from what happens over the course of the film. Their feelings for each other seem to serve only the plot instead of actual character development. Aside from this, as a character, Rachel seems a bit judgmental and self righteous. In almost every scene she and Bruce share, despite whether or not she's teaching him a lesson of some kind, she usually insults him or looks down on him; it makes her less likeable.

What's probably one of the biggest flaws with this film is the way that the fight scenes are directed. As of this film, Christopher Nolan was not exactly experienced at shooting action scenes. At first glance it might seem like he’s using shaky cam (not unlike Paul Greengrass’s Bourne films), but this is not the case. What he's actually doing is using a lot of short takes combined with frequent close-ups. Close-ups in a fight scene make it very difficult to determine what's taking place. The action is kept very close to the character's faces, making their movements difficult to see. Add to this a lot of rapid cuts and short takes and every fight scene is sort of a mess to watch. It may seem chaotic, and perhaps this was the intention, but it mostly detracts from the action. The score by Hans Zimmer is adequate for the film’s tone, but it will never replace the Danny Elfman theme of the Tim Burton films. Another issue I had with this film (and this is mostly nitpicking) is the way the villain’s grand scheme was handled. The villain’s plan is slowly uncovered as the plot unfolds so that by the time he explains it to Batman, the audience has already pieced it together. The villain’s speech is more of a reinforcement of what we already know. But then, Batman has to explain it to Gordon during conversation. As if to make it worse, some random old guy also gets to explain it (twice actually) in Wayne Tower. It begins to feel like Christopher Nolan and David Goyer thought that the plot was too complicated for their audience of idiots and needed to explain it repeatedly. These complaints aside, Batman Begins is one of the greatest of the Batman films to date and firmly established the character as something to be taken seriously.

Scanners (1981)

Scanners is an early film by David Cronenberg, and one that also brought his films into the public eye with the subtlety of an exploding head. It's a sci-fi action film that follows Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack), who's a being known as a Scanner. A Scanner is a person with certain telepathic and telekinetic abilities ranging from bursting people from the inside out to the more familiar mind control, reminiscent of the old fashioned Jedi mind trick. Cameron is picked up by an organization called ConSec, who provide him with the drug, ephemeral, which allows him to control his powers. The alternative to using the drug is a flood of information (through mind reading) barraging his brain whenever he's near other people. Taught by Dr. Ruth (Patrick McGoohan) to use his powers, his mission becomes to hunt down a rouge Scanner named Darryl Revok (Michael Ironside), who's trying to use his powers for evil.

As with all Cronenberg films, there's a consistent objective view point to the action. While the objective nature of the film may make certain scenes of extreme violence to be a bit easier to stomach, the film is much more reliant on its special effects and plot driven storyline than the emotional complexity of the characters. Take for instance, Cameron. He's the central protagonist and he's almost without a single defining personality characteristic. This isn't the fault of the obviously Canadian actor Stephen Lack, who's fine in the role, but of the way his character was written. When he's first allowed to control his abilities, we learn that he doesn’t really remember anything of his life. In other words, he's a blank slate. Even the obvious conflict inherit in the role of his character never really enters into his frame of thinking. His job is to hunt down others who are exactly like him for an ambiguous weapons corporation. He never questions this or even considers whether it's right or wrong. In fact, by the end of the film, I am still not too sure what was driving him. He's never shown to have a particular belief in protecting others or having hatred of his own kind. He just follows orders. The most interesting character is easily found in Revok, the villain with plans of breeding an army of Scanners into existence. This is mainly due to the performance of Michael Ironside, who plays him with a certain eager intensity, making his every facial expression and gesture seem sinister. The general lack of emotional investment is probably the most obvious flaw of the film. The story is also fairly simple and event driven; for all its gore and horror aspects, Cronenberg has actually made a fairly straightforward action film.

What's most remarkable about this film however, is its use of sound. Seeing as how all the battles are between people using mental abilities, what this boils down to is actors making faces at each other. Howard Shore (a frequent collaborator of Cronenberg) manipulates the sound in a way that makes these action scenes comprehensible to watch. The music drowns out and is replaced with high pitch sound effects that escalate to the breaking point. The training scene is a particularly good scene for breaking down the use of sound in this film. As the scene opens, Cameron is told by Dr. Ruth that he must raise the heart rate of the yoga master by scanning him. While explaining this, he makes it clear that the yoga master can control his own heart beats and if it becomes too dangerous, he will take control of it and lower his heart rate to a normal pace.

vs. The Yoga Master

While the tension of the scene is almost entirely manipulated by the sound effects, editing also plays an important role as it accompanies the sound (or the other way around). After the establishing shots of the attic (showing both Cameron and Dr. Ruth enter and a reverse shot of the yoga master and the doctors behind him), nearly every single shot is a close-up, which emphasizes the enclosed space as well as puts more focus on the characters faces (or heads) to show a psychic battle. Much of the duel is filmed using shot-reverse shots between Cameron, the yoga master, and Dr. Ruth. There are however, many shots of the heart monitor as well. The editing follows closely with the sound as the action continues and the duration of each shot becomes shorter. As cuts become faster in terms of frequency, the tension of the scene rises. This adds to the overall pace of the scene and just as with the sound, when the scanning ends, the pace slows down.

Every battle between Scanners is handled in this way or a similar manner and is interesting both visually and audibly. The other visual effects, mostly being bodily explosions of some kind, are all done quite convincingly and hold up surprisingly well, though none more so than the infamous exploding head scene. It's easy to believe that the quality of the effects in this film were unheard of at the time of its release. This film, as with many of Cronenberg’s horror films, is a testament to the use of good practical special effects. As a sci-fi action film, Scanners is a bit slower paced and often sags when not a lot is happening, though the lack of excitement inherit in the film comes mostly from the objective distance the Cronenberg keeps from the characters; you watch the bizarre events and don't get too attached. The entire appeal of the film is found in the plot and visual effects. While Scanners may not be one of David Cronenberg’s best films, it certainly takes its place in his varied filmography, showing an earlier example of his obsession with the abject body.

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

Written and directed by Sylvain Chomet, The Triplets of Belleville is a truly unique animated film. The story follows Madame Souza, her grandson, Champion, and their dog, Bruno. Champion grows up from a timid and chubby little boy to an athlete training to win the Tour de France. After training with Souza he enters the race. During the race however, he gets kidnapped by the French mafia and so Souza and Bruno set out to rescue him, receiving help from three eccentric elderly vaudeville performers, The Triplets of Belleville.

This film is a melting pot of different styles and influences. The opening is in black and white with a very distinct visual style, drastically different from the bulk of the story. This opening sets the tone for the type of humor and surrealist nature of the film. During the opening segment, a delightfully exaggerated presentation of vaudeville is visualized and the look is very reminiscent of the old black and white cartoons of The Fleischer Bros., matching the insanity and over-the-top zany visual gags. After the opening scene, the rest of the film is in full color and equally as striking. I love the designs of the characters; they are all wonderful caricatures and highly expressive. The grandson begins as a chubby little kid but as an adult bicycle racer, it appears as if all of his upper bodies’ muscles have been forced into his legs. The grandmother has one leg much shorter than the other and has to wear special shoes to hobble around in. The mafia goons all look identical and move about linked together escorting their miniature mob bosses from place to place. The film is also incredibly self aware of its own caricatures (as some of them move about maintaining the same giant toothed expressions even as bugs fly into their faces). One of the best and most obvious examples comes from the depiction of Americans in New York. Aside from the mobsters, the entire population consists of circular masses roaming about. Everyone in the city is hilariously obese, including the Statue of Liberty.

The expressiveness of these characters comes also as a necessity because there's almost no spoken dialogue in the entire film. For all intents and purposes, this is basically a silent film. It's a silent film in terms of the way that characters emote and express themselves using a lot of pantomime. Music also plays a significant role and there are a few very interesting musical numbers throughout, all of which pay homage to the performances of vaudeville. The Triplets themselves provide the main source of diegetic music and almost steal the show when they make their appearance late in the film. I say almost, because the real star and heart of the film is the grandmother, Madame Souza. She's such a likable character from the first instant she appears. She spends Champion’s childhood trying to find something to keep up his spirits and give him a goal in life. When she discovers that he has a passion for bicycling, she supports him instantly and without question. The main plot shows her and Bruno going to any length to save him from his bizarre and twisted fate at the hands of the mafia. She only speaks at the beginning and end of the film, so the rest is just her subtle animations and facial expressions to convey her feelings and personality. It goes a lot farther than you might think.

The Triplets of Belleville effortlessly combines a variety of different animation styles while remaining predominantly 2D. There's a clear use of computer animation as well, and even a handful of live action footage (some of which is seen in Bruno’s colorless dream sequences). It looks remarkably original and in no way resembles either typical American animation or Japanese animation; however, I think that spiritually, it emulates a lot of early (non-Disney) American animation. The Triplets of Belleville is a terrific and imaginative film that stresses endless possibilities to display with animation, be it sailing across the ocean in a paddle boat or fishing for frogs with grenades.

The King's Speech (2010)

I’ll admit that my knowledge of King George VI is fairly limited. Aside from knowing that he was King during World War II, I wasn’t too familiar with who he was or what he did. I didn’t know that he stammered when he spoke and I didn’t know about his speeches during the war. I was always more aware of the actions and speeches of Winston Churchill. I feel as though I can say differently after seeing this film.

The King’s Speech is predominately about the King’s attempt to correct his speech problem during the 30s leading up to Britain’s declaration of war against Germany, with the focus mainly being on the interactions between George VI, who at the time was Prince Albert, The Duke of York, and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). The two develop a close friendship and a lot is learned about King George VI. One of the best qualities of this film is how intimate it feels dealing with the main characters. This is emphasized in both the direction and the mise-en-scène. Director Tom Hooper uses an extensive amount of close-ups throughout the film, especially during the therapy sessions and a lot of emphasis is placed on the characters faces when they speak; this makes you feel surprisingly close to them. One of the many accomplishments of this film is the way it humanizes the Royal Family. Even during the outdoor scenes, where the King is being driven around or he and Lionel are going for a walk, are shroud in fog; as if the world outside these characters is only an afterthought (though granted, it's an ominous one that becomes more and more apparent as the film goes on).

Colin Firth is terrific as King George VI and captures his troubles with speaking perfectly. I can only imagine the difficulty in emulating a convincing stammer, but Colin Firth does it quite naturally. The film plays up the angle that his stammer is a result of a hard childhood and the extreme amount of pressure that's placed on him as a member of the royal family and second in line to the throne after his older brother, who briefly becomes King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce). He's plagued with self doubt and feelings of inadequacy. Tom Hooper uses wide angle lenses to create slightly warped images of the surroundings set against George VI. There are many POV and tracking shots that follow him from behind as he enters different locations that stress the sheer magnitude of his position and what it must feel like to be him. The result is often incredibly intimidating. The reset of the supporting cast is good as well, with Helena Bonham Carter as his wife, Queen Elizabeth, Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill, and Guy Pierce as his scandalous older brother, Edward VIII. Overshadowing these however, is the performance from Geoffrey Rush as the speech therapist and friend, Lionel Logue. This is a memorable part for Geoffrey Rush and he plays him much more understated than you might expect. He feels less eccentric than one of Geoffrey Rush’s usual supporting roles and much more like a real person. He's extremely likable and witty, but not without his own faults. Like everyone else in the film, he feels very carefully developed and written.

Speaking of which, the writing is another of this film’s stronger points. The dialogue is very sharp and realistic, fitting both the times and characters. There are also some very humorous scenes that match the tone of the film. Add to all this, a very melodic and moving score and you have a powerful period piece that feels both smart and personal. The King’s Speech is less about a leader rising to the occasion as it is about one man’s personal triumph over his own limitations. It's one of the best period piece stories since the John Adams miniseries (of which he also directed) and very much worth seeing.