Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2019)

Director: Jake Castorena

Cast: Troy Baker, Eric Bauza, Darren Criss, Kyle Mooney

Have I Seen it Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: I’ve been on the record about not liking many of the string of DC animated films. The more essential the Batman story, the more epic in scope, the more disappointing the film ends up being*.

That’s kind of the beauty part of this film. The crossover comic putting the Dark Knight and the Heroes in the Half Shell barely meant much of anything, and the film has little to live up to, and passes those expectations.

First of all, the movie opens with Barbara Gordon (Rachel Bloom) handling things in the way only she can. I submit that there is no other character in the popular culture who is more mistreated than Babs. Warner Bros. cancels whole-ass movies starring her**. Birds of Prey (2020) flat-out forgets that she ever existed. And don’t get me started on Batman: The Killing Joke (2016). Let’s just say that sometimes I feel something less than ambivalent about the animated adaptations of beloved Batman stories.

The Turtles here are well-drawn, feeling modern but occasionally hearkening back to some of their well-known adventures. Better still, they’re all in awe of Batman (Baker, pulling double duty as Wayne and the Joker, and somehow evoking an essence of Conroy and Hamill in the process), and that feels incredibly relatable. I also think Donatello (Baron Vaughn) has a all-vibes crush on Barbara Gordon, which is almost too relatable.

The mashing of these two worlds may not feel like they would go together, but there’s something very nice about putting Batman in a state of discomfort. The re-worked comic covers over the ends credits replace the Outsiders of the 1980s with the Turtles, and that feels like an incisive parallel. We don’t get enough Batman stories that put him as the unlikely center of mismatched a team. There should be more.

The whole film becomes sort of charming, in the end. It’s no Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), but it may just end up being my second favorite Batman animated film. The things I will do if Barbara Gordon is given her fair shot to shine.

How did I get through this whole review without complaining about how adding “vs.” to a movie title obscures the fact that it inevitably amounts to “this set of characters and this other set of characters initially have a disagreement and then decide that they must band together to combat a common foe.”

Well, I guess I just did.

*You can look forward to my inevitably less-than-enthused review of Batman: Knightfall sometime next year.

**When will I get over that? The answer is never.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Director: Todd Phillips

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener

Have I Seen it Before: I can’t say I’ve ever even heard of a film like this one. Which, I suppose, with that sentence taken on its own truly counts as something of a course correction for the original Joker (2019), which can’t help but recommend better, more original films at its core.

Did I Like It: Now the question really remains: should this film exist? As I type this there seems to be a growing consensus around single answer to that question, with a seemingly infinite number of reasonings to get to the answer that this film should not have been made.

None of those reasonings matter, really. Nor would mine, except for my inescapable conclusion that the filmmakers themselves really would have preferred that the film wasn’t made in the first place. I have never seen a film try desperately to be some many different types of films, and yet somehow be desperately ashamed of each attempt.

In its opening minutes, it tries to be an anarchic sequel, almost calling to mind Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) with an animated opening. This is abandoned as rapidly as possible.

As the film progresses, it occasionally—and under protest—does some things that one might expect from a sequel to the original film. We get a layer or two more awareness of the characters from the original film, both those that survived and otherwise.

It understands—or at least acknowledges—that there is a DC logo at the top of the film and continues to try to give us a take on Gotham City, and an origin story for characters we’ve already seen have their origins displayed on film. Harley Quinn (Gaga) is here, and their deeply unwell romance might light up a movie—and have a fair shot at reclaiming what went wrong with Suicide Squad (2016)—but when the runtime gets a little long, even she anxiously waits for the next train out of the film. We also get Harvey Dent here, and sure enough half of his face is blown off by film’s end, but how can we care when the film is desperate not to dwell on the fact?

It tries to be a commentary on serial killer celebrity in the 1980s (I get notes of the Gacy capture and trial). That’s probably where the film is it’s most interesting, but guess what? It’s barely about that.

Yes, Virginia. Despite what you might have seen in the film’s trailers, what you have heard is correct: This film is a musical. Sort of. It flails at attempting to be a musical, before quickly giving way to the film(s) Warner Bros. probably thought they ordered. Following up the Taxi Driver (1976) and The King of Comedy (1982) of it all with a little bit of New York, New York (1977) might have been the exact thing that the glassy-eyed fans of the first film deserved for their trouble. But that didn’t happen. They lacked the gumption here.

It is a court drama. A psychological drama. A dark comedy. A prison movie. All of these it tries, but abandons before we the viewer can decide if Phillips succeeded or not.

What else is left? Can the film just be about the Joker? Who he is and how he came to be? Maybe, and maybe that film might be released one day, but not to spoil the ending of the film, but as a “rise of the Clown Prince of Crime” film, it almost forgets to be that, and rushes that note in at the last moment. We wouldn’t have a hope to assess (to say nothing of enjoy) a film like that if it adds things like that in the last minute.

Batman: The Long Halloween - Deluxe Edition (2021)

Director: Chris Palmer

Cast: Jensen Ackles, Josh Duhamel, Naya Rivera, Billy Burke

Have I Seen it Before: So, it’s an odd thing. Where to begin? I’ve seen <Batman: The Long Halloween - Part I (2021)>, but never watched the second part. Cut to a year later, and I picked up the deluxe edition—containing both parts 1 and 2–so it’s an unusual situation to answer the question which starts all of these reviews with a resounding “sort of.” Oddly enough, ever since <The Flash (2023)>, I’ve been on a semi-unintentional sabbatical from all Bat-media. Couldn’t even quantify why this is the thing that broke the logjam, but here we are.

Did I Like It: I’ve been resoundingly on the record largely not caring for the recent spate of DC animated movies trying to adapt some of the longer runs from the comic books. Ultimately, the experience is left wanting and in the interest of not belaboring the point, these films have often led me to think that the adventures of the Caped Crusader were inherently more suited to the funny books than any other format. I remember liking both part of the Batman - The Dark Knight Returns (2013) because that gave the story at hand more time to breathe.

And such is the case here, spreading The Long Halloween—arguably my favorite Bat-story—over two parts allows it to not cut anything crucial out of the story. It tells the long-form story of Batman against the madness of his city, with the typical Rogue’s Gallery only playing supporting roles. The problem there is my first reaction to reading the graphic novel years ago: This would make a great movie. And it has. A couple of times. <The Dark Knight (2008)> gives a gritty realism to the downfall of Harvey Dent. Any leftover material with the Falcones and a legitimate serial killer story was taken up by <The Batman (2022)>. Do we really need another adaptation of the story? I wonder…

And that’s largely where I landed in my review of just the first half of the story, so I’m sad to say the second half doesn’t elevate the material like one might have hoped.

Batman: Year One (2011)

Director: Sam Liu, Lauren Montgomery

Cast: Bryan Cranston, Ben McKenzie, Eliza Dushku, Jon Polito

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah… I mean, I know that I’ve read the source material a couple of times, and I’m, like, 75% sure I watched the movie at some point.

Did I Like It: This really should have worked. Other animated DC films have attempted the unenviable task of translating—that should probably read jamming—stories of epic scope into runtimes which can only be feebly called a feature-length runtime. Here, a four issue miniseries seems apt for the adaptation. One could conceivably read the entirety of the series in the time it would take to watch a movie.

And yet, this one doesn’t work for me. Maybe I’m just fundamentally underwhelmed by the level of animation available for a direct-to-DVD release. Maybe I blanche at the idea of fully going along with anything Frank Miller does anymore, after he wrapped himself up in fascism and rationalizing it away as libertarianism, and the book itself wouldn’t hit the same way any more (to say nothing of revisiting The Dark Knight Returns or any other Miller-Bat-book). Miller might have chilled out a bit again in recent years. The jury is still out on that assessment, but in any event, damage to his reputation has already been done.

No, the real flaw is the casting. McKenzie never feels like Batman, which is probably right on the money as the first line of his obituary is likely going to be his portrayal of Jim Gordon in Gotham*. Miscasting the central role is bad enough, but even the casting decisions which are right on the money feel like they are poorly served. Both Cranston as Gordon to Dushku as Selina Kyle could have easily played their roles in a live action production, but instead feel like they are phoning in their performances. I honestly don’t blame them. The only performer who manages to pull off anything resembling magic is Polito in the relatively small role Commissioner Loeb. While watching, I would have sworn Ed Asner was actually playing the role, much to the late Polito’s credit.

*Which, even as of this typing is a show for which I have tried desperately, but continued failing, to amass any affinity.

Batman vs. Two-Face (2017)

Director: Rick Morales

Cast: Adam West, Burt Ward, William Shatner, Julie Newmar

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. I was right on top of getting this when it came out on disc.

Did I Like It: The one missing element of 1966 Batman TV series was its treatment of that singular villain in the Rogue’s Gallery, Two-Face. Harlan Ellison wrote a treatment for an eventual episode to feature the great bifurcated one*, and the name bandied about for the role was none other than a famous-but-not-quite-that-famous Clint Eastwood. Had NBC picked up the show, we might very well have seen that come to pass.

But forget all that. Eastwood’s not the man to play the role against West and Ward. If nothing else, putting James T. Kirk in his prime against the Caped Crusader was the best possible casting move in any direct-to-DVD animated film I could ever imagine.

…as I type that, it feels like damning the film with faint praise, but I assure you, it isn’t.

This film extends everything that worked (and a few of the things that didn’t work out so hot; sorry, Burt Ward) about Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders (2016). It also manages to make more extensive use of Jeff Bergman’s narrator, doing his best impression of the late producer William Dozier. The manic humor may be diminished ever so slightly as the regular rogue’s gallery becoming supporting characters and the story desperately tries to give Harvey (Shatner) some pathos to play.

But these are extraordinarily minor complaints for a film which easily clears its modest goals. There was no reason to expect any more time spent with Adam West as Batman, to say nothing of seeing that version of the character venturing into previously untouched material. Were Mr. West still with us, I would have been up for a new bright, campy adventure with those two every year or so.

*It was produced as a comic book, that I had to spend a minute search for and plan on re-reading as soon as possible. It’s pretty unrelated to the story presented in this film, otherwise Ellison. just might have sued the production into oblivion.

Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders (2016)

Director: Rick Morales

Cast: Adam West, Burt Ward, Julie Newmar, Steven Weber

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, man. I was there with bells on when the movie had a limited run with Fathom. I was 100% the audience for this film.

Did I Like It: And it mostly meets expectations. The animation style is by and large fine, but I do think there was some unnecessary liberties taken with some of the locations. It would have been far more enjoyable to have the backgrounds look exactly like Bruce Wayne’s den, the Batcave, and Commissioner Gordon’s office, than the slightly more expansive environments we’re treated to here. I also didn’t need even an oblique exploration of just what occurs to get Bruce Wayne (West) and Dick Grayson (Ward) into costume as they slide down the bat-poles.

I’d hate to get entirely nitpicky about the whole affair, but the voicework is occasionally great, an occasionally not-so-great. West certainly sounds much older than he did in the 60s, but as I am currently older now than Bruce Wayne is traditionally depicted, there was a certain simple pleasure in being able to look upon the Dark Knight as a grown-up again. Julie Newmar doesn’t sound as if she’s aged a day since she last meow-ed her way through an episode of the TV show, which is worth the price of viewing the film itself. Burt Ward is… well, he’s playing a 16-year-old boy, and there’s never a moment where I wasn’t aware he was a man in his 70s. To have a man in his 70s play a 16-year-old boy is probably an unfair expectation for someone. Then again, it wasn’t like we bought him as a teenager in the 60s, either…

Filling in for deceased cast members, things get a bit brighter. Jeff Bergman channels both Cesar Romero’s Joker and narrator William Dozier nearly perfectly, although the narrator is tragically underused. Steven Weber and Lynne Marie Stewart are so perfect as Alfred and Aunt Harriet that it’s downright spooky. Wally Wingert intermittently imitates Frank Gorshin quite well, but unfortunately only illuminates just what a simmering explosion of crazy Gorshin was.

But why no Batgirl? Yes, Yvonne Craig had passed away, but everybody else is here? Why does Barbara Gordon always get the short shrift in DC movies? I just don’t get it.

The plot is epic enough to justify the runtime, but isn’t quite the comic scenario they cooked up for Batman (1966).

I might have some minor quibbles with the film, but any time spent with the Bright Knight is time well spent, especially because we aren’t going to get any more.

Batman: The Long Halloween (Part 1) (2021)

Director: Chris Palmer

Cast: Jensen Ackles, Josh Duhamel, Naya Rivera, Billy Burke

Have I Seen it Before: Na… It’s new. I’ve read the book probably half a dozen times over the last twenty years.

Did I Like It: I’ve always been a little down on the DC animated movies. Their attempts to condense the great comic arcs into a movie less than an hour and a half always left me just wanting to read the books themselves. The Dark Knight Returns Part One and Two (2012, 2013) had something to it, Hush (2019) underwhelmed, and Death in the Family (2020) struck me as quite possibly the most frustrating bat-film ever produced.

So where does this one land in that spectrum? Somewhere in the middle. Giving the story two parts lets it breath a bit, especially when the source material is a limited run, and not a year-long (or multi-year) storyline. I have some vague ambition to track down part two now, so my interest in the adaptation hasn’t abated from my morbid curiosity about this first installment. The performances are on average, pretty average. Anyone other than Kevin Conroy playing Batman/Bruce Wayne in an animated production always feels like a misstep, and Ackles does the thankless job of not drawing attention to himself. Troy Baker, on the other hand, so desperately apes the timbre, cadence, and cackle of Mark Hamill that the homage only made me long for the original more. Jack Quaid brings all of his squirrely energy to Alberto Falcone. You may think mentioning a side character isn’t worth the word count in this review, but… Well, you just need to take in the story for yourself.

Just how you might end up taking in that story brings me to the big point.I still end up falling just shy of a complete recommendation of the film. When I first read the graphic novel all those years ago, I made the remark that it would make a great Batman movie. And it did. With some shift in focus, it was called The Dark Knight (2008). Go watch that movie, or go read the graphic novel. They’re far more worthy of your time.

The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)

Director: Chris McKay

Cast: Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Rosario Dawson, Michael Cera

Have I Seen it Before: There was very little chance that a film like this was going to fly under my radar, right?

Did I Like It: The version of me that is five-years old—that same version of myself which steadfastly refuses to see any flaws in Batman (1989)—would probably label this movie asa my favorite movie of all time.

The version of me that had been refreshing LEGO.com every fifteen minutes over the past few days to make sure my order of the LEGO 1989 Batmobile has shipped* can also find plenty about the film to enjoy, too. It is steeped heavily in the lore (perplexing and sort of stupid though it sometimes is) of The Dark Knight. References abound, and as Warner Bros./DC keeps doing grave disservice to Barbara Gordon, Rosario Dawson’s portrayal of the character may just be the best for which we can hope for a little while. Will Arnett—extending his work from the superlative The LEGO Movie (2014)—perfectly captures every bad thing about the character I’ve spent the vast majority of my life** apologizing for. The rest of the characters get their due, which is hard to do when there are dozens of them, and double hard when more than a few live-action Batman films have fallen apart when they try to service half a dozen main characters***.

And still, there is some part of me that is unsatisfied. The LEGO Movie was such a perfect exercise in anarchy, that I can’t help but wish there was something a little more subversive at the core of this one, too. “You’re my best friend, and friends are family” is… nice, I guess? I want something darker and more serious. Kind of like Batman.

That may say more about me than it does the film.

*Update: It has.

**Side note: I don’t at all remember the first time I had heard of Batman. The summer of 1989 happened, and it was like I had always been aware of him? I even added a scene in Orson Welles of Mars where several characters realize that it is next to impossible to explain the character without a common frame of reference, aside from calling him “The Shadow, but minus guns and add pointy ears.”

***You may be thinking that I’m talking about Batman & Robin (1997), and well… I am. But I’m also throwing in any live-action bat-production since The Dark Knight (2008).

Batman (1966)

Director: Leslie H. Martinson

Cast: Adam West, Burt Ward, Lee Meriwether, Cesar Romero

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, man... Many, many times. Before it was released on DVD, I made do with a WGN broadcast of the film I had recorded in the summer of 1989. That screening truncated the beginning and cut entirely the scene where Batman (West) calls the Pentagon.

I had no idea what I was missing.

Did I Like It: At various times, it has been more than a little bit fashionable for Batman fans to look down their noses on the Adam West iteration of the character. There are few elements of Batman fandom—with the possible exception that every film Ben Affleck has appeared in is a criminally under-appreciated gem—that annoy me more. Adam West’s hero isn’t tortured, and he always plays fair. He is a hipster adventurer, and anyone who says the mythos of the Caped Crusader doesn’t have room for that particular hue doesn’t understand the sheer adaptability of the character which has made him a mainstay of the superhero genre for 80-plus years.

He’s also deeply, unalterably, perhaps even insanely funny. There’s room for that, too, and tragically, that is the part that Clooney’s effort in Batman & Robin (1997) never utilized. If Clooney forced himself to read every translation on an elevator button before pressing “up,” he might be the version of the hero we all were clamoring for in the forthcoming Flashpoint, but alas.

I don’t even mean to only say that West is funny relative to the rest of the Batman canon. He is supremely funny in the context of screen comedians at large. I would put the “somedays you just can’t get rid of a bomb” up there with the greatest of all time.

The film’s sense of adventure is—and someone is going to shake their head when I type this, I just know it—far greater than any other live-action feature-length version of the character. Keaton and his successors restricted themselves to a very limited stretch of Gotham (those parts which could easily fit into a backlot), Bale upgraded to a city which felt like a real place (largely, because it was), and Affleck was mostly fixated on his mother (which is saying a lot for the character), West’s Batman reckons with a world writ large, that is still somehow brought to life on nothing more than a TV budget. The film reached for a wider canvas, and therefore could underwrite expenses for the associated TV show, amplifying its scope in the process. We’d have been stuck with just a Batmobile on the show if this film hadn’t seen fit to place their characters in a larger world.

If you’re a Batman fan and not an unapologetic fan of this film, then you’re lying about one of those things. I don’t make the rules; I just enforce them.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League (2021)

So, yes. It is time to review Zack Snyder’s Justice League (2021). And honestly? I got nothing. I have very little to say about of the film which isn’t painfully obvious from just hearing about the trivia surrounding it. The film is four hours long (it’s too long). The film had additional reshoots three-plus years after release (several scenes are tacked on and don’t work). The studio allowed the filmmaker to do whatever he originally wanted with the material (it is, at times, pointedly personal, and collectively, a thorough mess). So, I’m going to have my lovely wife, Lora (@BringToABoyle) pinch-hit, because, friends... She had opinions about this one. Enjoy.

Title: Zack Snyder’s Justice League (2021)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, Ciarán Hinds

Have I Seen it Before: Technically no - seeing as how this week was the first time anyone could stream this version of the film. However, as we will come to learn in the course of this entry, I certainly feel like I’ve seen this before.

Did I Like It: Ultimately, there wasn’t much for me to like. At four hours long, there’s a TON of content here, but it never feels cohesive. It’s a story told in several parts, which might have worked better as a TV series, but does nothing in service to the overall plot other than provide way too much material to sift through. There are at least four different movies here: a coming together of great superheroes to save the planet movie, a fairly decent Cyborg (Ray Fisher) solo flick, a high fantasy epic where disparate groups of people come together to destroy the object the Big Bad seeks to find, and a heartfelt movie about family, loss, and moving on.

As the coming together of heroes to save the planet, Justice League really falters for me. There’s nothing here I haven’t already seen across several Marvel movies. And while the Big Bad of the MCU showed us a lot about why he was out to blink a bunch of people out of existence, Darkseid (Ray Porter) offers us no such thing. Any time he or Steppenwolf or Darkseid’s acolyte person (the internet says he is DeSaad (Peter Guinness), but I swear the movie never names him), were on screen together they only spoke in exposition. Get the mother boxes together...for reasons. An equation for anti-life (huh??) exists and it turns out it’s been on Earth for a long time...for reasons. I have no idea why any of these things is happening, nor do I really care to find out. 

The one thing this version improves over the theatrical version is in it’s service to Cyborg’s story. In fact, this could have a been a very solid solo film for him. It’s a thoughtful and interesting story of a father facing a tragedy and using his scientific knowledge to save his son’s life after losing his wife. In doing so, he turns his son into a cyborg with massive technological potential, but the son has to come to terms with what was forced upon him and how he will reconstruct his life. Not only is this a story about a dynamic and intellectual Black family, it’s also a story of disability and acceptance. I’ve seen many people on #DisabilityTwitter applaud Cyborg’s line in the film “I’m NOT broken!” as he finally starts to reconcile who he is and what his father gave him. 

Ultimately, yes, I’ve seen this film before. A. Lot. There’s a really long scene, which is basically just the ancient battle in The Lord of the Rings where the armies of the Elves, Dwarves, and Men (I mean, Amazons, Atlantians, and Men) all come together or destroy Sauron (Darkseid) and take away his ring of power (mother boxes, also there’s a ring, but not the one you’re thinking of) and formulate a plan to keep the source of power away from the evil until the evil possibly one day returns. I hope Peter Jackson got some royalties for this film. Also, Steven Spielberg called and would like his Jurassic Park (1993) rippling glass of water back. Not to knock the Cyborg story, but James Cameron deserves a nice fruit basket.

There’s also a family film in here somewhere about moving on from loss. I know Zack Snyder suffered a profound loss in his own family while working on the original film. Amy Adams is phenomenal in her portrayal of grief. Diane Lane is also an amazing actor. I would watch the hell out of their film about moving on from Clark’s death. Instead of really leaning into this and bringing in a more powerful emotional side to the film, instead we get...Martian Manhunter? Ugh. Don’t get me wrong. I love him in Supergirl. But why is he even here?

To paraphrase from a different DC movie: Why so...many endings? Seriously. More endings than The Return of the King (2003). And some of these endings aren’t even endings to things that happen in this film. Jared Leto reprises his role at the Joker in one such ending scene - which takes place in...an alternate timeline? The future? There’s no explanation for it, other than it is yet another Dream Of The Future(tm) for Batman (Affleck). Leto feels like he’s trying to channel too much of Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix’s version of the character, and seems less interested in making it his own. Plus, he feels like the Joker for a different Batman film. Maybe something in the Schumacher oeuvre?

Some final random thoughts: Batman looks really silly fighting aliens. It just doesn’t fit for his character’s skill set. Alfred, in any iteration honestly, is great. Jeremy Irons is particularly fun here and brightens every scene he’s in. Finally, I dislike this version of The Flash. Ezra Miller is fine, and is doing his best with what he has here. But it doesn’t help that every scene in the film with The Flash being flashy is...SOOOO sloooow. Putting The Flash in all slow-mo just isn’t a choice I would have made. It also probably added fifteen minutes to a four-hour (!) runtime. Plus there are some implications that The Flash is going back and resetting time or something? It’s another thing in a long line of things in this film that is just never explained.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg

Have I Seen it Before: :gritting through my teeth: Yes.

Did I Like It: Let’s get right to it, shall we?

This is... Yes, I’m going to say it, a more wrong-headed film than Batman & Robin (1997). More stunted than Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987). To slightly break up the pattern I’m building, it is even more irritating than Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007), which would make it the single most irritating film ever produced.

Now that I’ve cleared all of the Zack Snyder fans off the site*, let’s really talk about how the film goes wrong.

Martha. We’ve all talked about it. Or, more appropriately, we’ve talked at the issue. From before this film shot a single frame, the conceit has a flaw that was going to take some heavy lifting to surpass. The film was never going to be the battle royale between the Dark Knight (Affleck) and the Man of Steel (Cavill). They would initially disagree, and maybe scuffle just a tad, before realizing that they need to join forces in order to vanquish a larger, common foe.

This movie gets to that point, but hinges their eventual alliance on the fact that their mothers happen to have the same name. This would have been annoying storytelling in its own right, but the fact that the film almost, very nearly credibly sells Batman’s need to destroy Superman, all to have it not mean anything. Suddenly. Irrevocably. So much so that it fuels Batman’s megalomania well into the next movie.

Had Superman had a moment of humanistic purity that stopped their fight, or if Batman’s intellect had uncovered the realization that Lex Luthor (Eisenberg, more on him in a bit) had been playing them for fools the whole time, the third act really could come together.

This movie could never possibly recover from that moment.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. Is there a poorer casting choice in recent memory than Jesse Eisenberg trying to take his Mark Zuckerberg schtick to its absurdist conclusion and make something like a Lex Luthor out of it? He lacks the gravitas for the character. Bruce Willis could have played this character. The task may have been beneath the skills of Bryan Cranston. Even Kevin Spacey equated himself well enough, if nauseatingly in retrospect. I had a debate with somebody shortly after the release as to whether or not the miscasting of Eisenberg or the Martha blunder would be the film’s lasting legacy.

Why can’t it be both?

And there are other flaws as well that are more banal and less load-bearing. At three hours for the “ultimate” edition, it utterly fails to warrant its runtime. There are plenty of perfectly fine films that filled two VHS tapes back in the day, but also plenty of great films that didn’t need to be that long. Making a film long doesn’t guarantee an epic scope, or a story we can sink our teeth into. It guarantees nothing. Editors, please proceed with caution.

Also, I do have one big beef with the film which bears mentioning, speaking of the Ultimate Edition. In the lead up to this home video release, there was a bubbling sense that this extension would include Barbara Gordon/Oracle, and she would be played by Jena Malone. This would have been great casting, and widened the DC movies in a pretty great way. It didn’t happen, though. Malone played... I dunno, some IT person at The Daily Planet. Is it the film’s fault that it didn’t give me Oracle? No. Is it DC Films continued fault that they won’t give us Oracle, even in Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn) (2020)? Absolutely.

And yet, it’s not all bad, which makes it somehow more frustrating. 

Affleck is actually good as Batman. I’m reasonably sure I didn’t need a cinematic reboot of the character only four years after The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but he brings a certain quality to the character that was missing from Bale, or Kilmer, certainly Clooney, and dare I say, even Keaton. His interplay with Alfred (Jeremy Irons) is pristine. His unflinching eagerness for danger in the film’s opening minutes is about as Batman as a film performance could get. The sequence where he rescues Martha is pretty great. Sure, he’s a little eager to kill people standing in his way, but even Keaton wasn’t above some murder, so who am I to judge? I could have done with several more movies with him in the role, if only in the hopes that he could finally shed the title of Best Batman To Never Be In A Good Batman Movie. 

And now there’s nothing left to do but endure Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Speaking of things which have no right to be as long as they are... Let’s get this over with, I suppose.

*I would remind those of faithful still remaining that I kind of liked Man of Steel (2013).

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

Director:  Eric Radomski, Bruce Timm

Cast: Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Dana Delany, Hart Bochner

Have I Seen It Before?: The VHS copy—I am sadly one of the many dolts who didn’t catch it in the theaters—was part of the haul of a massive tenth birthday shopping spree at Target (it went as high as fifty dollars!), twenty-six years ago today.

Did I like it?: Oh, man. At a time when Schumacher was at the helm of live-action Batman, this was hands-down the greatest feature-length story of the Dark Knight ever produced. Nolan came and the bigger movies got better. This one might have fallen a bit in esteem, but that is patently unfair. It is just as good as the Nolan films, and certainly better than either of the Zack Snyder entries with the character.

It’s equal parts competent whodunit puzzle (and it’s a shame how rarely a Batman story is also a mystery), film noir tragedy, and superhero story, all jammed into a tight 76-minute package. The moodiness that typifies people’s skepticism about Batman (Conroy) is given context (but not explicit explanation) here. He is a product of his own obsession, born in an era that made some brutal sense, but a part of an era where some degree of insanity is the only valid insurance policy. The only reason he continues to be a hero is because that obsession hasn’t completely swallowed him up, despite its best efforts and easier success with others. Other films have tried to harness this truth about the character. This one succeeds. The animation was originally intended for a direct-to-video release, and it shows, but none of us were showing up for Batman: The Animated Series for the feature-quality cels. We came for the writing… and also, it’s what was on the local Fox affiliate at that particular moment.

It also eschews many of the things that can become so de rigueur about Batman stories. At no point in this film does Martha drop her pearls. What’s more, her name isn’t even mention despite Bruce’s parents hovering like a cloud over everything. One of the Rogue’s Gallery doesn’t suck the air out of every moment in the film, either. Joker (Hamill) is here, but he’s a supporting character, a cypher. I’ve always felt the Clown Prince of Crime is like comic book wasabi. A little bit, and the flavor is surprising, perhaps even chaotic. Too much, and your mouths numb aside for the feeling of green horseradish in your mouth. Batman often works best when the supervillains are just part of the scenery; just see The Long Halloween for a master’s course in the subject. Or, better yet, give this film a view. It’s currently on Netflix, but who knows for how long?

Batman Begins (2005)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, man. Summer of 2005. The eventual release of this film and the abatement of the era of Schumacher were the only things getting me out of bed in the morning.

Did I Like It: It’s a strange thing from some different angles, but this movie is often overshadowed by the juggernaut that was The Dark Knight (2008). In some ways, that’s fair, as Nolan so succeeded with this freshman effort that he was subsequently given the same freedom to flex his creative muscles in the sequel that Tim Burton was given in Batman Returns (1992) and Schumacher (I guess) got in Batman & Robin (1997).

And it’s fair primarily in the sense that this film is somewhat mired in very basic film writing tools. There’s a big set piece at the end, featuring the monorail built by the Wayne family and Wayne Tower that is seeded in the films early minutes. There are a few call backs to early sections of the film that feel a little jokey. The dialogue for Ra’s Al Ghul (Neeson) that is far too on-the-nose villain speak. And there’s a moment that causes regular audiences—and even myself—enjoy, but in the verisimilitude Nolan is going out of his way to try to achieve, doesn’t make any sense. Why does Batman (Bale) use his first appearance to say “I’m Batman” when that seems like something that the media would attach to him after he begins to terrorize the underworld? Even the Zack Snyder films—a complete drag as they mostly are—manage to give the Dark Knight more of an urban legend quality. It is one of the few things that those films got right.

There’s also that sense, and I think it mainly comes from the Star Trek series, that if the second film in the series is the absolute best-case scenario for a film series, then it must be because there is something wrong with the first film. This really isn’t case, other than those nitpicks I indicated above. The film is interested in character development (even if some of the characters drift into archetypes, see above) and moving those characters forward. The toys, to borrow a term from Jack Nicholson, Batman uses are given origins that may not be realistic, but have a certain James Bondian logic.

The film would have scratched all of my various bat-itches by the end, and then there’s that final scene. I remember in the theater when Gordon (Oldman) turns over that playing card, I had an expression of pure joy. He was out there. And at that moment, he was all potential. The imagination tingled. It’s a great way to leave a film. Even now, when the rise of the Clown Prince of Crime in this series had been fully and delightfully realized (and had become the rallying cry of every idiot with a blu ray player until Joaquin Phoenix gave them something else to fixate on), it still sends a shiver down my spine.

It’s still a pretty great way to make a movie.

Batman Forever (1995)

Director: Joel Schumacher

Cast: Val Kilmer, Chris O’Donnell, Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman

Have I Seen It Before?: Ah, 1995. It was a simpler time. Apparently. There I am, ten going on forty-seven, a Riddler (Carrey) action figure in one hand, the novelization of the movie in another. Somewhere in the distance, “Kiss From a Rose” is playing on every radio station in the known universe. I had the above poster hanging in my room well into the twenty-first century.

Yeah, I saw it.

Did I like it?: In a word, no.

A weird and idiosyncratic blockbuster (or as weird and idiosyncratic as a film is like to get when a board of directors is at all involved in the creative process) is unleashed into theaters. Some fans balk. Others think it is a work of genius. Toys don’t sell as well, which is the real problem. Another director is pulled into right the ship. Who cares if the movie is any good, as long as it doesn’t piss off anybody?

Now, am I speaking of the state of play of the Star Wars saga at this very moment, or the circumstances surrounding the Dark Knight twenty-five years ago?

The differences between the two situations are cosmetic, at best, aside from the reality that Star Wars – Episode VIII: The Last Jedi (2017) is nowhere near the weird, intentionally ugly film* that became Batman Returns (1992). And so we are stuck with both Star Wars – Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) and Batman Forever. Both are less films than they are studio memos with a runtime. Both were mangled mercilessly in the editing room. Both are (probably) going to make a ton of money, and the studio that birthed the film will not learn a damned thing.

The campiness isn’t even the problem. Both the tv series and the feature film Batman (1966) revel in their campiness and are infinitely rewatchable delights. 

No character has any real arc to speak of, aside from maybe Dick Grayson (O’Donnell) who wants to kill Two-Face (Jones, inexplicably pigeon-holed into a c-minus Jack Nicholson impression that would be embarrassing to anything beyond single-celled organisms) but then decides he won’t. One would think that this would please Batman (Kilmer, forever cementing the fact that Michael Keaton is an American treasure), who has spent the entirety of the film’s runtime discouraging his nascent protégé against the evils of vengeance for the sake of vengeance. Instead, Batman immediately kills Two-Face himself. Also, the Riddler and a blonde lady are there. Fade Out. Roll Credits. Cue Seal.

That’s it. That’s the whole movie. 

*A sincere compliment, I assure you.

Joker (2019)

Director: Todd Phillips

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy

Have I Seen It Before?: That’s the real question, isn’t it?

Did I like it?: Wow, just the one-two punch with the really tough questions, huh?

I had a temptation to write two separate reviews for this movie, one unrelentingly positive, the other abjectly negative. The film had spawned so many hot takes even before its wide release that adding anything to the discourse started to feel like a mix of disingenuous and redundant.

There is a fundamental flaw in the idea of trying to explain the Joker. Part of his disturbing appeal lies in the fact that he eschews origin. The comics are steadfastly bumfuzzled as to where The Joker even has a name. Alan Moore’s superlative The Killing Joke even casts a vote for the notion that The Joker himself can’t even remember how he became like this (a notion hinted at by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight [2008]). Trying to explain who he is by giving him a name and a series of events to go wrong to push him into murderous clowning takes away from the essential spark of the character.

Before you start, yes, I know Batman (1989) tried to give similar dimension to the character by way of Jack Nicholson, but I’m allowed to love a movie despite its flaws. I’m allowed to live with some contradictions.

There is no way this film would work even fitfully if it weren’t for Suicide Squad (2016) and Jared Leto. Much as it pains me to give credit to Leto for anything outside of Dallas Buyers Squad (2013), but that ill-considered adventure effectively nullified the question of should anyone play this character after Heath Ledger’s mesmerizing turn. So, thanks, Jared. As it stands Phoenix gives a performance to rival—although I think I will land on not-quite surpass—Ledger’s. He certainly has committed to the part (far more than others associated with the movie committed to their roles, but I’m getting ahead of myself), and the anguish he contorts his face into during his flare ups of pathological laughter add a dimension to the character at a time when one would have been forgiven for assuming that there was nothing left to mine in the Clown Prince of Crime.

The sequence where Arthur/Joker (Phoenix) finally arrives on the panel of Murray Franklin’s (De Niro) talk show is about as good as any handful of minutes of Jokerdom from Cesar Romero to the present. The tension is palpable. The movie itself wants to telegraph the punch that Arthur will kill himself live on TV, Budd Dwyer-style. Anyone who’s read The Dark Knight Returns had to have been like me, and wondering how he was going to kill everyone in that television studio. When he puts a slug in De Niro’s face and chest, it’s genuinely surprising.

I wish I could say as much for the rest of the film. The clown’s uprising spreads throughout Gotham on that same evening, culminating in—you guessed it—the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. If I have to see that woman drop her pearls on a wet alleyway one more time, I think I may lose my mind. Including the TV series Gotham this is the sixth—count it, sixth—time I’ve had to watch that same exact scene, and there really aren’t a lot of ways to stage those events.

It’s the first crumbling piece in the façade that is the entire movie. Phoenix may be doing great work, but every other ounce of the movie and every word out of director Todd Phillips’ mouth has been a real bummer. Yes, it’s sort of new to bring the early-Scorsese sensibility to the superhero film, but it is still not far removed from films that have already been made. Phillips is—to borrow a phrase from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)—imitating the sounds, but not the language of those films. He’s even gone record to insist that the film should not be taken seriously, because he wasn’t trying to say anything with it. Such a cop-out feebly tries to absolve him from any negative impact on society, but it also nullifies the entire movie.

It’s lazy, and it’s dumb. While there are parts of the film that work despite itself, it can never truly achieve escape velocity from that unfortunate reality.

Now, this is all to say that I saw a story (it was admittedly click-bait-y) that hinted that after this film’s somewhat surprising box office success, Warner Bros. may be wanting to further branch out into weird one-off films, including an adaptation of Batman Beyond with Michael Keaton as Old Man Wayne. If that comes to pass, everything is forgiven, Todd. You gave me what I always wanted, despite yourself. Kind of like Jared Leto.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019)

Director: Mike Mitchell

Cast: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Tiffany Haddish

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. Somehow missed the movie while it was in theaters. 

Did I Like It: That above statement might dictate this one once again, but you know what? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this one is… sigh… awesome.

The first The Lego Movie (2014) was a revelation wrapped up in a movie that had no right to claim anything resembling a revelation. It’s ultimate twist that—like a Toy Story (1995) with a heaping portion of self-awareness—the proceedings are the playful mental wanderings of a boy (Jadon Sand) trying to just play with his father’s massive collection of Lego. It was a deceptively powerful meditation on creativity wrapped up in a movie wherein one of the characters is constantly asking after the location of his pants.

Where could a possible sequel even go from that high example? The first film sets up a new threat by allowing the boy’s sister (Brooklyn Prince) to also play with the massive piles of bricks, thus threatening to ruin all the boy’s master plans, starting the cycle all over again.

And this is where many may want to break ways with the new film. The revelation is gone, and each plot development is predictable first and enjoyable second. 

The question then becomes, is this a problem? Is it fair to compare the film to its progenitor? Is it fair to expect every film clearly made for children to re-wrinkle our adult brains? The answer to all three of those questions are probably no. 

To bypass the question of fairness, and address them in reverse order: It’s not fair to expect every movie made for children to really blow our collective hair back. There are plenty of great children’s films that possess only quality storytelling without any Charlie Kaufman-esque antics in place. 

While it may not be fair to compare this sequel to its predecessor, that comparison is hard to avoid, and through that prism the film suffers slightly. 

But here’s the takeaway: that isn’t a problem. The film is enjoyable, charming, and visually doesn’t let up. It may benefit from coming after the more aggressively disappointing Lego Batman Movie (2017). So what if it isn’t one of the greatest animated movies of all time? Thankfully there are plenty of perfectly fine films within the genre that aren’t as awesome as some of the others.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy

Have I Seen it Before: Sure.

Did I Like It: Look it’s a Batman movie that doesn’t rely on certain characters mother’s being named Martha. What’s not to like? I’ll tell you.

I ultimately don’t think Nolan had a plan going into this one. Maybe he didn’t really want to make a third film in his series, but he really really didn’t want to make any more movies, so he scrambled for a rousing conclusion. It forges together some of the bigger Batman comic plot lines that weren’t covered by Nolan’s two previous movies, Knightfall, No Man’s Land, and The Dark Knight Returns, but the blending doesn’t quite come together. It all fits together not as smoothly as it did in the previous entry, 2008’s The Dark Knight. In the attempt, to many plot lines rise to the top.

Too many plots. How did Bruce Wayne get back into Gotham after escaping Bane’s prison, especially when it is well-established that he’s broke by this point in the movie? And where and with whom is Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul at various points in the third act?

While people moan and wail about the deep, unforgiving chasm that separates Bale's Batman voice from his Bruce Wayne voice, he seems utterly restrained* when compared with the Sean Connery and Darth Vader forged in a blender that is Bane (Hardy). Several years have separated this particular screening from its premiere, but the first moment he speaks on that airplane, it’s one of the most bizarre sounding things that has ever been committed to film, compounded by the deep realization that Bane’s words clearly were modified deep into postproduction, as he didn’t sound quite so ridiculous in the early trailers for the film released in 2011 and 2012. 

Speaking of that airplane sequence, let’s get into what absolutely, unassailably works about the movie. The stunt work is legit. Nolan—although he couldn’t possibly have had the screenplay he hoped for—is one of the last great filmmakers working in studio films these days. I can’t imagine that there is not a single frame of 

Also, where Bane leaves one wanting, Anne Hathaway never fails to impress as Selina Kyle/Cat Burglar who is never explicitly referred to as Catwoman. The role has had so many distinct portrayals over the years, but Hathaway manages to tap into a realistic cat burglar vibe, while also embracing the soul of the character. As it’s always a little bit shocking how strange of a creation Bane is, it’s equally impressive how good she is, when there was plenty of room to be mediocre.

One might be tempted to be more forgiving of the film, viewing it through the same prism as Return of the Jedi (1983) or The Search for Spock (1984), thinking it suffers only because it follows the best-ever movie in the series. Tragically, while there are some things to truly like, and by no means do I think Christopher Nolan’s reputation as a shaper of popular entertainments will have ended up suffering because of it, The Dark Knight Rises ultimately has too many glaring flaws to work on it’s own account.

And I might feel pretty bad about that, but somewhere lurking in the future of this franchise is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), which accomplished the herculean task of making even Joel Schumacher look like Akira Kurosawa.

*Except of course when he’s talking to himself on a rooftop after Selina Kyle departs. I don’t know who he thinks he’s doing that for, but it certainly isn’t part of maintaining his secret identity.

Batman (1989)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson*, Kim Basinger, Michael Gough

Have I Seen it Before: Let’s put it this way. There was a time when if you were to say any series of words that happened to be a line from the movie, like, say “Better be sure,” I would feel compelled to perform the next ten minutes of the movie. “See? You can make a good decision when you try. Hehehehehe. Where you been spending your nights? Well, welcome Count Dracula… Etc.”

I’ve gotten better in my advancing age, but not by much. I still perform the rest of the movie in my head, I just don’t make you watch it.

So, yes. I’ve seen it before.

Did I Like It: Is it even possible to offer criticism of a film that has lived in your head since your earliest memories? Can I ever watch this movie without watching the Michael Gough-staring Diet Coke Commercial and Bugs and Daffy demanding I call a 1-900 number for a Warner Bros. catalog (the traditional manner, as both ads appear before this film on the initial VHS release)? Is there room in the world for both a Batusi and a Batdance?

These are just some of the thrilling questions I will attempt to answer here.

The film’s production design is second to none. The film is clearly being filmed on a backlot, where every moment of action that isn’t in Stately Wayne Manor, The Gotham Globe, or Axis Chemicals**, seems to take place on the same street corner in Gotham. And yet, with matte paintings and other tricks of the camera, one is almost fooled into believing that Gotham is an actual city. Batman’s (Keaton) vehicles are wrought metal creations so indelible that while they were originally meant to adapt the then-fifty years of comics that had preceded it, but ended up becoming the ur-template for the next thirty years of interpretations of the character. 

The makeup is pretty special as well, but without the man behind it, all you’re essentially left with is Jared Leto. While Nicholson doesn’t quite pull off the same job that Heath Ledger does  in The Dark Knight (2008), but he doesn’t need to. Ledger disappeared into a character so slithery and despicable that there was incredibly little left of the actor. Nicholson chews scenery with aplomb, but isn’t the least bit interested in jettisoning the movie-star persona that had gotten him the role.

And then there’s Michael Keaton. He was shamed on spec for even approaching the role of the World’s Greatest Detective, because, I dunno Beelejuices and Messrs. Mom can’t kick ass? Once the movie actually came out—indeed, by the time the first trailer artificially inflated the box office of Deepstar Six (1989) or The January Man (1989)—he became Batman for an entire—read: my—generation. I’d love to see him reclaim the role in a Batman Beyond/The Dark Knight Returns adaption, but what really makes his performance stand out is that Keaton, as Bruce Wayne, is a stellar nerd. He’s never been able to be Bruce Wayne with any reliable success, but when he is at work, he is his best self. It also helps that he has a car that’s essentially a jet engine on wheels. Between his performance in these films and Bill Murray as Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters (1984), I had most of the attainable pillars of masculinity that I would ever need.

That probably says more about me than anything else, but I digress.

I have been effusive with praise for the film up until this point, but there is plenty that doesn’t work, and I’m not just talking about Robert Wuhl***. My generation is pretty in love with Prince, but since this film was my first exposure to his work, I’ve never found him—dare I speak ill of the dead—anything more than distracting. Also, the screenplay doesn’t hold up under even minimal scrutiny, buried as it is under the whizbang circus that Burton is far more interested in. And, here I’m not talking about Jack Napier/The Joker (Nicholson) usurping Joe Chill’s rightful place as the the murderer of Bruce Wayne’s parents. In fact, I’m only kind of talking about how eager Batman is to kill those that stand in his way. The rest of the plot is far too wobbly for its own good., too. And, on spec, it isn’t a bad plot, either! The idea of the mob getting a hold of CIA-abandoned nerve toxins and unleashing them on a city’s cosmetic product supply could make a pretty good movie, but it just isn’t particularly allowed to breathe here. The closest thing to a traditional goal-oriented story arc is handed to Vicki Vale (Basinger), but her dogged sleuthing of just what is up with both Batman and Bruce Wayne always rings a little hollow, because we have come into the film with the mystery all wrapped up in our heads. Honestly, I’ve thought a superhero story where the secret identity element becomes the back-bone of a whodunit has always appealed to me, and I may yet write it one day.

The film is chicken soup, just like mom (or, in this case, Tim Burton) used to make. I went into this screening nursing the tail end of a head cold and a stomach ache, and now I’m thrilled to say I can enjoy the films more medicinal properties the next time I don’t feel well.

So, sure, it’s worth watching, I guess. It’ll probably take upwards of thirty years for the film to reach the same level for you as it does for me, but I think you can get there.

*Some confusion about who should get top billing on this one, but I choose to go in alphabetical order. Some eagle-eyed readers will think I am giving way to bias and putting Keaton ahead of Nicholson. I’m reasonably sure that’s not what I am doing here.

**Which themselves are re-used sets from James Cameron’s Aliens (1986).

***I’m supremely confident Mr. Wuhl is a decent guy, and wouldn’t have made that crack about him if I didn’t think he was in on the joke. I once saw an interview with him where he called some other film I’ve now forgotten, “So bad, that I thought I was in it.” He seems like he knows what’s up.

Batman & Robin (1997)

Director: (trying to control my rage) Joel Schumacher

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Chris O’Donnell, Uma Thurman

Have I Seen it Before: It’s a little shocking how many times I’ve actually said it.

Did I Like It: What kind of a question is it.

The text of this review appeared previously in a blog post entitled “What Schumacher’s Batman & Robin got right” published 05/22/2016.

WARNING: Heresy and rubber nipples lie ahead.

It's 3AM. My stomach is a churning miasma of unsettling notions. Naturally, my mind wanders to the work of Joel Schumacher. They go together like nausea and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze. Between the rubber nipples and cascade of puns that have become the stuff of legend, Schumaucher's contributions to the legend of the Caped Crusader are uniformally seen as the dark ages for the Dark Knight.

Here's the unfortunate secret that most bat-fans wouldn't dare admit, unless they're waiting for an industrial-sized dose of Peptol Bismol to kick in:

There are some things -- just a few, mind you -- that Joel Schumaucher not only got exactly right about Batman, but in fact did better than in any other Batman film to date.

I had to be wrong, so I went ahead and did the one thing I should never do: I re-watched the damned movie. Thankfully, the world is not completely upside down. Batman and Robin is just as bad, if not worse than you remember. The movie is congenitally unable to latch on to anything resembling a story arc for its characters. Every quip falls flat. It's kind of a miracle that even the law of averages wouldn't have given the movie some semblance of wit at some point in the proceedings.

Maybe it is all because the film was more of a toy commercial than it was a major motion picture. I tend to think it was because Schumaucher and company came to the conclusion (perhaps rightly so) that superhero films are for kids. Where they went off the tracks and never bothered to look back is determine that because these films are for the under-15 crowd, then it doesn't matter if the film sucks. It doesn't so much matter that the film is bright and campy and doesn't take itself too seriously. It's of far more importance that the film just sucks.

And yet, as I watched the movie again today, there they were, those few scant things that, while they hardly elevate the film in any measurable way, do show some semblance of awareness for what Batman is and can be.

1) The Batman does not kill.

Quick. Go watch every Batman movie, and then go read every Batman comic in existence. I'll wait. Done? Notice anything? The main theme people come away with is that in publishing, Bruce Wayne is bound by a particular code, springing from his origin at the end of Joe Chill's gun. Put simply: The Batman does not kill.

Except, no one bothered to inform the various screenwriters who have handled Warner Brothers' number one franchise. In Batman (1989) Bat-Keaton specifically tells Jack "I'm going to kill you," and he damned sure he puts a grapelling hook to good work to get the job done. 

In Batman Returns (1992) Bat-Keaton again dispatches Louie De Penguin with a carefully orchestrated wave of bats and a steep fall. Don't even get me started on the circus strongman that blew up real good for the capital crime of asking Batman to hit him. 

In Batman Forever (1995) Iceman-Batman flung Billy Dee Tommy Lee Jones from a tall height* even after Robin O'Donnell learned the important lesson of sparing one's enemies. 

In Batman Begins (2005), Bale-Bat does go out of his way to not directly kill Ra's-al-Gon-Jin, but he's pretty content to not save him, when he had plenty of time and resources to do so. 

In The Dark Knight (2008) Bale-Bat returns to fling Billy Dee Tommy Lee Eckhart from a tall height** after spending the entire movie not killing Ledjoker, despite literally everyone being fine with that possibility. 

In The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Batman drops a thermonuclear bomb into Gotham Harbor, thereby ensuring that the next seventeen generations of Gothamites can look forward to a litany of thyroid problems, if they're lucky. 

And finally, in Batman v Board of Education: Dawn of the McMuffin (2016), Batman's antipathy for guns didn't get translated to the other 807 plot points, because Batfleck is more than content to drop a few no-names in the pursuit of... Kryptonite? Barely a month out of seeing the movie, it already feels like a blur.  

Sense a pattern here? Batman and Robin is the only post-Adam West cinematic outing where Batman does not kill. One point for Schumaucher and company. Brings the score to 787,231 to 1, but at least it won't be a shut out. 

2) Who is Batman? 

By the time the fourth film in the series begins, everyone should know. It doesn't take much to find out. Alfred Pennyworth, Vicki Vale, Jack Napier, Selina Kyle, Oswald Cobblepot, Max Schreck, Dick Grayson, Edward Nygma, Harvey Dent, Chase Meridian, Ra's Al Ghul, Rachel Dawes, Lucius Fox, Coleman Reese, Talia al Ghul, Bane, Selina Kyle (again), Non-Robin, James Gordon, Clark Kent, and Diana Prince. Through the course of the Bat-films, all of these characters have figured out Bruce Wayne's secret. Here's the question: are there any other characters in the Batman universe? Outside of Bat-mite and Aunt Harriet, does anyone not know? 

There's only one film where Bruce Wayne's secret identity isn't sussed out by the villains or his girlfriend (or some mixture thereof). Which film is that? You guessed it. Batman and Robin. Yes, Barbara Wilson trips over the truth***, but I'm grading on a curve here. Give me a break.

3) At least they didn't run out of money.

I don't think anyone is going to get this far into this blog post and get the idea that I'm actually defending the core of this movie. It's a completely wrongheaded cluster of half-baked almost-ideas, packaged into a cheap sausage casing of '90s fashion. It's the cinematic equivalent of haggis, although saying that does a grave disservice to a sheep's stomach filled with food you wouldn't otherwise want to look at.

But at least they, you know, finished the movie.

It's not neccessarily high praise to say that Warner Brothers didn't just cut their losses and release a rough cut of the turd they had in the oven, but it does make it, fundamentally better than other fourth entries in superhero franchises. Superman IV is content to just use the same footage of Christopher Reeve flying towards the camera, and has a climax that confirms the long-heard suspicion that Mariel Hemingway can breathe in the vacuum of space. It's important to keep things in perspective.  

There are a lot of other examples from there. The villains' origins are -- if goofy -- more or less correct. The mythos isn't contorted to make it so that Mr. Freeze is the one who pulled the trigger on Thomas and Martha Wayne, even if that would've been one hell of a flashback. The Schumaucher movies also make Gotham City appears as if it may have the actual scope of a major metropolitan area, even if that city might be a maddening mish mash of Greek statues. In retrospect, Burton's movies look like they take place on a remaindered set from a dinner theater production of Our Town. The movie tries to be funny, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Batman can be funny. Adam West as Batman is funny. The problem is that the movie only tries, and forgets to bring the laughs. It is an important distinction. 

So, maybe Batman and Robin is the worst. Making movies is hard. We can't imagine what they might have been up against, and even if Schumaucher's myopia is to blame, there are far more serious sins in the world. Don't believe me? Go watch Superman IV: The Quest For Peace one more time.

* A lot of falling deaths in these movies, no?

** Sound familiar, no?

*** Again, it's not like a lot of deductive reasoning is applied; she uses an infinite amount of password tries to unlock an interactive CD-ROM.

Justice League (2017)

Director: Zack Snyder credited, Joss Whedon with the assist

Cast: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ciarán Hinds, Henry Cavill

Have I Seen it Before: The better question is whether I’m ever going to feel compelled to watch it again.

Did I Like It: It’s… not the worst. As long as we live in a world with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) or Batman & Robin (1997), we can live secure in that knowledge.

The text of this review appeared previously in a blog post entitled “Okay, Warner Bros. Time for us to have another one of those little chats.” published on 12/03/2017.

Hey, Warner Bros. It’s been a long time. No, I still don’t think the name “Martha” is a sufficient plot development around which to build an entire screenplay, but I don’t want to talk about that. We’re friends; we’ve been friends for a long time. Let’s talk about something else.

So Justice League is a thing. You went waaaaay simpler on the title. That’s good. 

You picked up Joss Whedon for some relief pitching. Tragic why it came to that point, but I think you hired the right guy to finish the job. 

Wonder Woman (the film) and Wonder Woman (the character) are legit, and you doubled down on that. Good; very good. 

Danny Elfman’s doing the score? Is he going to bring back his theme from Batman (1989)? He is? Well, you’ve got a hit on your hands if I’ve ever heard of one.

What’s that? Why wouldn’t you use the Flash you have set up on television? He’s even super dimension-hoppy… Fine, whatever. Flashpoint will sort this all out.

Who’s the villain? Steppenwolf? Like “Born to be Wild”/“Magic Carpet Ride” Steppenwolf? No, he’s a… with horns, you say…? Oh, a helmet. Like the dude at the beginning of Thor: Ragnarok? No, not like that… Why not use Darkseid? You’re wanting to tease that out. :sigh: That’s fine, we can’t blame you for aping a format that certainly has worked for the other guys. Actually, I can blame you for that, but we’ll get to that later.

Wait… What’s that about Henry Cavill’s mustache?

An actual frame from the movie.

The same frame, unaltered. Don’t look it up. Just trust me.

Oh, Warner Bros, you sweet, innocent, beautiful summer child. What have we learned?

All Newhart-esque riffs aside, Zack Snyder’s third film with Superman as a character* is out now, and is fine. While it certainly doesn’t have any of the bewilderingly bad choices that Martha v Martha: Dawn of Martha had**, it still isn’t nearly as thrilling as Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman, but plays it far safer than the interesting-in-concept, but uneven Man of Steel (2013). Is it a step in the right direction for the floundering DCEU? No. It actually moves the proceedings back to the gestalt of Mommy v Mommy: Mommy of Mommy; as it turns out, Wonder Woman was the step in the right direction. That right direction, as it turns out, would be to make a bunch (and not just one) really watchable movie, then try to bring those disparate elements into a huge crowd pleaser. If only there was somebody out there that had already done this. That would be marvelous.

And that’s where I come in with some thoughts about the future of the DCEU, especially in light of League’s anemic box office. The internet has already buzzed about the possibility, and several news items have indicated that Warner Bros. may be thinking in this direction, but it may be time to abandon the Marvel business model. DC might have had a chance at being the second person to the party, but too many missed opportunities, murky creative strategies, and well, let’s face it, Marthas mean that DC may never truly get it together. The massive superhero movie continuity may not be possible to replicate. Heck, any massive movie continuity is not likely to have the benefit of a Robert Downey Jr. opening salvo, and thus, falter. Just ask the poor, maligned Universal monsters, who—despite their proud tradition of creating the idea of a cinematic shared universe before 1950—have had to endure now two false starts in twice as many years at uniting their stable of characters.

So don’t try, DC. Be weird. Don’t worry about setting up the next movie. In fact, it might be better if you’re no 100% sure what the next movie will even be. That Scorcese-produced Joker movie? I’d rather you didn’t go back to that well, but as long as Jared Leto stays home, I’m in. Flashpoint could cleanse the palette, give Affleck a dignified*** exit, allow Gal Gadot to keep making Wonder Woman movies in perpetuity, and restore Henry Cavill’s upper lip to its once-humanoid glory…

But what do I really want you to do DC? What is the only Christmas wish this boy has on his list?

You know what I’m about to say.

Last year, I wrote <here on the blog> about how I would have preferred DC handle its shared universe. It didn’t involve Affleck, and it didn’t really involve Batman, per se. You didn’t take that course here, but if you are truly giving up the ghost on being Marvel-lite, can I ask for one movie to be included in your increasingly Elseworlds-esque slate…

Batman Beyond… with Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne. You can even bring back Danny Elfman to do the score.

Get that done, Warner Bros., and everything will be forgiven. Including any and all Marthas that may come up between now and then.

*Spoiler alert? Can something be a spoiler alert if the bit of info is built out of pure inevitability? These are the questions I ponder at night when sleep eludes me.

**Although it still did manage to include an irritating tag scene with profoundly miscast Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

***He wants a “cool” way out of the role, and presumably never have to talk about it again, but I think the “best Batman to never be in a good Batman movie” can be erased from existence via the Cosmic treadmill, right?