May
31
Un-Wanted
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 4 Comments
Mark Millar is currently one of my favorite comic book writers. He is the modern-day Stan Lee, a magician of the medium. Almost any superhero or team book he takes on is fried gold during his run. He writes comics that are better than most movies, giving you the impression that a movie based on a Mark Millar comic would be about the greatest thing ever realized on film.
Then I saw a trailer for “Wanted.” Now I’d heard they were adapting Millar’s mini-series “Wanted,” but I thought maybe this was one of those cases of two movies having the same title. The “Wanted” I saw a trailer for — the one with Angelina Jolie that looks like Hollywood’s still trying to ape the style-over-audience-friendliness of “The Matrix films — is about an elite network of assassins; and there’s some “Bend it Like Beckham” nonsense about curving bullets that “Mythbusters” will jump all over no doubt. The “Wanted” comic book, however, is like “A Clockwork Orange” meets Marvel Comics.
The hero in the “Wanted” comics isn’t a hero at all. He’s a put-upon loser who becomes a supervillain after he discovers that his estranged father was a supervillain and that supervillains rule the world. He joins a supervillain organization and they carry out acts of supervillainy. And there’s no Morgan Freeman. That said, the characters in the comic book would wipe the floor with the characters in the movie, particularly James McAvoy, a semi-successful clone of Ewan McGregor. I’m not even sure why they bothered calling it “Wanted” and not something else entirely, like “The One Millionth Movie You Will See About Top-Secret Government Assassins Killing People in Highly Stylized Ways.”
Now the comic book is a little edgier than most of the PG-13 pap that people line up around the block for at the multiplexes. But the filmmakers could’ve softened it a touch — y’know, taken out all the rape for instance. Audiences don’t mind bad guys as central characters, so long as there are “worse” guys who they’re up against. A movie about supervillains as “heroes” would’ve been a good fit in a summer chock full of Iron Men, Hulks, Hellboys and Dark Knights. But alas, that’s not what we’re getting with this film.
A pox on the makers of “Wanted.” They removed from the material the one element that made the comic book unique. Who wants that?
-Brad Lohan
May
30
“Rambo” DVD Review
Filed Under Movies, Political Films | 2 Comments
The Western is a dead genre. Every year or two or three, a straight Western might make it to theaters, but the genre’s played itself out insofar as movies about cowboys and Indians go. Elements of the Western myth have since been appropriated by action/adventure, science fiction and comic book films — the lone hero who restores order to a lawless community by confronting “the other.” Did you see that one? It’s fascinating — if you’re a film geek anyway — to explore how the key components of the Western genre have been contemporized. Cowboys are now cops, stargazers or meta-humans. Indians are now mobsters, aliens or supervillains. The small town out West that’s beset by bureaucracy, corruption and some external threat personified by outlaws or savages is now a major metropolitan city, a galaxy or — ahem — another major metropolitan city. Justice is, as always, meted out by a hero who’s an outsider, someone who doesn’t operate within the law or “by the book.” The system is broken. In order to repair it, one must create new parameters for bringing about utopia.
By that definition, the Rambo movies are all Westerns at their core. The fourth chapter, economically titled “Rambo,” takes the fight to Myanmar (nee Burma), where Sylvester Stallone’s reluctant war machine goes on a rescue mission to save some Christian do-gooders from the country’s brutal military junta. And it’s a helluva flick. At 91 minutes, the film briskly builds to a crescendo of .50 caliber chain gun violence that rivals the final act of Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch.”
The carnage in the film is not like the toothless slapfighting in last summer’s PG-13 “Live Free or Die Hard.” I hate when filmmakers cop-out and “leave it up to the audience’s imagination” when it comes to screen violence. Why doesn’t the director just read me the script then? That’ll really give my imagination a workout. No, “Rambo” doesn’t leave anything up to your imagination. You’re shown every bullet hit, every exploded head, every dismembered body– almost all executed (zing!) with surprisingly effective CGI trickery. Yet the violence isn’t as gratuitous as it’s cathartic. The junta jerkstores’ idea of fun is making innocent villagers run across a mine field. You really find yourself hating these guys and wanting Rambo to reduce them to puddles of goo.
Stallone — who co-wrote and directed — hasn’t made a pure comic book like “Rambo: First Blood Part II.” Granted, there is an element of absurdity to the proceedings. Stallone’s in his 60s, in peak physical condition and nearly invincible; he takes a bullet to the shoulder, but it seems to do more damage to his shirt than to him. He’s also able to outrun the bomb blast from a WWII blockbuster that’s been sitting the jungle for six decades. Still, that’s all part of the myth of the Western hero. If anybody could do what Rambo can do, well, there wouldn’t be any need for Rambo.
I’m terrible about watching all the special features on DVDs. I used to do it religiously, but after the one millionth canned, EPK interview, I got a little burned out. The only featurette I watched on the disc was “It’s a Long Road: Resurrection of an Icon.” The film’s been in development for as long as Indy 4, but they didn’t spend too much time on the different incarnations that had been proposed over the years. No mention was made at all of the Rambo vs. Osama bin Laden concept. Stallone did discuss a potential idea that would’ve sent Rambo to Mexico to rescue a kidnapped girl…not nearly as compelling as taking on bin Laden though.
When it comes to hellholes with rat-bastard regimes, Burma works quite nicely as a shooting gallery for John Rambo. That being said, watching a mythical Western hero — in any genre — achieve what cannot be done in real life never loses its appeal.
-Brad Lohan
May
30
“Wall-E” Folly
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 2 Comments
I’m not sold on “Wall-E.” Not even a little bit. I didn’t see “Cars” until it was on cable, and even then, I missed the first thirty minutes or so. I skipped “Ratatouille” altogether. I found “The Incredibles” — the last Pixar movie I caught in theaters — to be cute, but cold. Okay, put down the torches and pitchforks. I love both “Toy Story” films and enjoyed “Finding Nemo,” “Monster’s Inc.” and even “A Bug’s Life.” I just haven’t found Pixar’s output of late to as ingenious or accessible as their earlier films. Then along comes “Wall-E,” a post-apocalyptic science fiction art film for the whole family. Color me skeptical.
I read an article on CHUD.com about the film that was so ridiculously praiseworthy, I thought the director’s mother may have actually ghost-written it. What do people see in this film that I don’t? The character designs are pedestrian (Wall-E looks like a pre-pubsecent Johnny-5 from “Short Circuit”), the trash-pickup trailer is boring and the entire concept sounds like an overinflated Pixar short.
Wasn’t there already a CGI cartoon about robots? I believe it was called “Robots” and produced by Blue Sky, the makers of “Ice Age.” The movie was so forgettable, though, that as I walked out of the theater, I sort of remember thinking to myself, “What happened? Where am I? Did I just see a movie?” And that film more or less exemplified the standard operating procedure for CG family films: name actors provided the voices, the visuals were bright and shiny, the plot was instantly forgettable making it suitable for children to watch on DVD over and over and over again — never once getting bored.
But I think “Wall-E” is going to bore the kiddies stiff. It’s not that I’m of the opinion that “Robots” is the quintessential computer-animated film. It’s not. It’s as mechanical as its cast of characters. However, culturally we’ve been conditioned to largely reject any creative endeavor that’s outside of the mainstream. Reality TV, popcorn movies, the average person’s unsettling desire to “not wanna think” — these are all byproducts of our cynical and unimaginative entertainment industry, providing the equally cynical and unimaginative audience with a whole lot of nothing. Now I’m aware of this, and I’m still not impressed with “Wall-E.” Maybe it’s because the film — for all the risks it seems to be taking — isn’t really that far removed from the mainstream. It’s still a kid’s movie. It’s still got cutesy characters. It’s still going to be a merchanding behemoth. Damn if “Wall-E” isn’t just more of the same.
Before Disneyland opened in the ’50s, critics called it “Disney’s Folly.” In the ’30s, critics said “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” would be a commercial failure. They were wrong on both counts. So what happens when critics universally and prematurely praise a Disney venture?
-Brad Lohan
May
29
I was browsing the DVDs at Amoeba Music yesterday and lingered over the “Beverly Hills Cop” three-disc set. I ended up not buying it, and it’s probably a good thing I didn’t. With the announcement of another “Beverly Hills Cop” film, there will doubtless be a double-dip of the first three films within the next two years to pimp movie four.
I’m glad they’re making another one. I’ve been seeing posters up in bus shelters for “Meet Dave” lately and wondering just what in the hell happened to Eddie Murphy. He’s softened as he’s gotten older. His days of offending Bill Cosby with his profane concert films have long since passed. He’s retired his leather jumpsuits and carved out a niche for himself as a hapless CGI donkey in the “Shrek” series. But I miss the young Eddie Murphy. He’s since disappeared into one too many fat suits and reemerged as someone else. He needs to bring back that laugh.
The first two “Beverly Hills Cop” movies aren’t classics — yes, even the second one — for any reason other than Murphy’s presence. They’re passable action movies at best. What makes them so watchable is Murphy firing on all cylinders. He’s not buried under gobs of latex or voicing some goofy cartoon sidekick. I want the fourth film to be his return to form.
Brett Ratner’s directing. He has no style to speak of, no “vision” on display; he’s the very definition of a studio hack. He points the camera at the actors and allows them do their thing. I think that can work in Murphy’s favor. Let him cut loose. The third film is by far the weakest of the series because Murphy is so dialed down. I want an Eddie Murphy that goes to 11. And the sooner those double-dips hit DVD shelves, the better.
-Brad Lohan
May
27
Who Watches the Minutemen?
Filed Under Comics, Movies | 2 Comments
I’m still on the fence about the upcoming “Watchmen” film. The desktop image on my home computer is of a blood-spattered smiley-face, a download from the Paramount Pictures’ “Watchmen” site, anachronistically boasting a 2006 release date. Paramount obviously never got the film off the ground, not even with director Paul Greengrass attached to the project. Warner Bros. has since snatched up the rights to “Watchmen,” and Zach Snyder — director of the “Dawn of the Dead” remake and “300,” both style-over-substance geek-gasms — recently announced that production on the film has wrapped. But am I overly enthusiastic? Not so much.
Today, Aint-It-Cool News has posted an exclusive image of the Minutemen from “Watchmen” in all their sepia-toned, pre-WWII glory. I guess I like it alright.
For those of you who haven’t heard of “Watchmen,” it’s been hailed as the “Citizen Kane” of graphic novels. I think that comparison sells the series short. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ essential comic book opus is without equal in the film world. Moore has called the series “unfilmable,” and for almost 20 years, Hollywood proved him right. Director Terry Gilliam was the first auteur who failed to get the project in front of cameras, and this was before Tim Burton’s first “Batman” was released. Inasmuch as comics seem like a no-brainer when it comes to adapting them to film, the two visual media are more divorced from one another than you’d think.
Films are stripped down. Comics — or “graphic novels,” arty-farty comics — are dense. Narration is something that’s to be avoided when making a film, but it’s a key component to driving a story in a comic book. Films are two hours or less. Comics are typically twenty-two pages per month, spread out over sometimes 40 years of one epic, episodic, unending story. Films, like comics, both require the audience to suspend disbelief, and in their own ways, they provide the illusion of movement, space and time. But, films achieve this through editing, comics through page layout. Audiences are simply engaged differently when exposed to one medium or the other, which is why a “Watchmen” film is almost guaranteed to be a lesser work than the graphic novel it’s based upon.
There are just so many great elements in the “Watchmen” comic book — excerpts from the first Nite Owl’s “Under the Hood” autobiography, Rorschach’s psych profile, etc. — that will be lost or relegated to the Special Features on the eventual DVD. I’ve read that the “Tales from the Black Freighter” comic-within-a-comic will be released as a straight-to-DVD animated film, but losing that thread from “Watchmen” — though seemingly extraneous — peels away yet another layer from the original text.
I honestly do want to like the “Watchmen” movie. I’m one of the small minority of “V for Vendetta” apologists, though that movie, too, lost a lot of elements from the comic, and to the dismay of co-creator Alan Moore, became more of an anti-Bush treatise than a dated assault on Thatcherism in Great Britain.
So who watches the “Watchmen?” On March 9th, 2009, I suppose I will.
-Brad Lohan
May
27
Indiana Jones and the MacGuffins of Mass Destruction
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
I watched “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” a second time last weekend. It holds up well. I picked up a few new things, like how they name-drop two of the alternate titles for the film (”Saucer Men From Mars” and “Destroyer of Worlds”) during the interrogation scene and how the titular crystal skull is more than just a plot device to drive the story forward. It’s also a high-powered magnet, a repellent for “big damn ants” and a key for opening temple doors and gateways to parallel dimensions. This got me thinking about the other relics Indy’s dug up over the years — the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail — and about their awesome Nazi-melting capabilities or their various degrees of uselessness, like the cup of Christ that cures bullet wounds but isn’t as effective at granting eternal life as advertised.
Let’s start with “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” The golden idol that Indy nabs at the top of that film, the one that brings a Peruvian temple crashing down all around him, is immediately taken from him by his rival, Belloq. The sneering MacGuffin doesn’t possess any otherworldly powers, though it is sacred to the Hovitos, who quickly fall to their knees and give Indy enough pause for him to escape. Beyond that, it’s just another trinket and not terribly earth-shattering. It’s once the government recruits Indy to find the Ark of the Covenant, that his friend and mentor Marcus Brody reflects that the object is “unlike anything you’ve gone after before.” Here we realize that the Ark is a game-changer. And at the film’s climax, when the Nazis pop the lid and are promptly liquefied, it’s clear that Indy’s found the ultimate WMD.
The Sankara stones in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” don’t exactly trump the Ark of the Covenant in terms of leveling mountains and such. The film’s chief villain, Mola Ram, seems to be convinced that possessing all five stones will give him the power to not only kidney-punch the Hebrew God, but the Christian one as well. Indy’s less than convinced. A bit of a mercenary in this installment (a prequel to “Raiders”), he’s after the stones for “fortune and glory.” What power the stones truly possess — three of them anyway — is the ability to glow when in close proximity to one another and to singe the baddie’s hand during the suspension bridge climax. Simply put, the MacGuffin in “Temple of Doom” is the most inconsequential of the lot. Indy ultimately returns the one stone he didn’t lose along the way to the village from which it was stolen, remarking cynically that “[i]t’d be another rock collecting dust” in a museum.
“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” begins with an emo-haired young Indy snatching the Cross of Coronado from a gang of treasure hunters. The misadventure shoehorns in the origins of his fear of snakes, the scar on his chin, his bullwhip, his distant father, and his fedora. The opening sequence of the film is an expository checklist, hinging on self-parody as it becomes more and more comprehensive. Again, the relic he’s chasing after is nothing more than a bright, shiny object, not something that makes people’s heads explode. Adult Indy, however, embarks on a dual quest to find his long-lost father and the Holy Grail. Legend tells that the Grail grants eternal life to whomever drinks from it, making it the more sought-after of the two MacGuffins; but, the other is James Bond, so that in and of itself is somewhat significant. At the climax, Indy races to retrieve the Grail to save the mortally-wounded Henry Jones, Sr. Then both he and his father drink from the Grail at film’s end, presumably achieving immortality…or not.
We learn in movie four that Indy’s father has since passed away. This sort of diminishes the value of the MacGuffin in “The Last Crusade.” But, in “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” the cranium in the film’s title — once reattached to the skeleton it was taken from — unlocks a gateway to “the space between spaces” that, when opened, rearranges the topography of an ancient city. It also vacuums up some Communists and turns one female KGB agent with a black Prince Valiant haircut into powder. Given the sheer magnitude of destruction at the end of the fourth film, it’s obvious that the crystal skull possess the most bang for the buck of all of Indy’s finds.
Of all the MacGuffins in the Indiana Jones films, none of them really worked out as planned, especially for the villains, like the poor schmuck who drank from the wrong Grail in movie three and turned into John McCain in a matter of seconds. But what’s important to remember about these films is that they’re not actually about the mystical WMD Indy’s looking for. No, it’s the journey, not the destination, that makes the Indiana Jones movies worth watching.
-Brad Lohan
May
22
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” Review
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
Going in, I was nervous. When a franchise goes dormant for more than 10 years, you begin to stop wondering, “When are they going to make a sequel?” or more cynically, “When are they going to remake the first one?” I’d remained cautiously optimistic about the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie, but like the geeks who still hold out hope for a 9-film Star Wars saga, reality set in. It wasn’t going to happen. Harrison Ford was too old now, Steven Spielberg was too serious a filmmaker now and George Lucas was too George Lucas now. When Frank Darabont’s script was infamously scrapped, that was that. Indiana Jones was dead. Except he wasn’t. Somehow the stars and schedules aligned, allowing for them to make a fourth Indiana Jones movie. And better still, I liked it.
I caught a 12:01 a.m. screening of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” last night. Having read enough mixed/negative reviews of the movie leading up to its release, I was prepared for the worst; I was prepared to be underwhelmed. So it was a pleasant surprise to find the movie is much more enjoyable than the hyperbolic critics at Cannes — and even the ones on the movie geek sites — had made it out to be. Is it the best of the franchise? No. Is it worthy of the franchise? Yes. A resounding yes.
The film’s set in 1957. Man alive, what a playground for Indiana Jones the ’50s are. The Reds, hot-rodders, Area 51, rocket sleds, nuclear testing sites — Indy doesn’t even have to leave the States for the first third of the film to find adventure. It’s when he becomes a victim of McCarthyism, finds himself out of a job and pairs up with a ducktailed biker, Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf), to track down a former colleague, that the action shifts to Peru. Once there, he races a sword-wielding Communist and psychic Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett, looking absolutely stunning for a dirty Pinko) and her endless supply of Russkies to find a crystal skull and El Dorado. After having Indy recover MacGuffins for three of the major world religions — Judaism, Hinduism and Christianity — Spielberg and Lucas sidestep Islam and lend a sci-fi flavor to the franchise with Indy’s pursuit of alien artifacts from ancient Mayan culture. I think it works quite nicely. The glowing, bullet-shaped alien skull that’s highly magnetized and repels killer ants is also one of Indy’s more visually interesting, not to mention useful, finds.
Here’s the part of the review where I talk about the things that don’t work so well in the movie. Ray Winstone, perhaps better known as the flawed and constantly namechecking hero in “Beowulf,” feels tacked on as Indy’s sometimes-sidekick and WWII buddy, Mac. John Hurt also swells Indy’s ranks as the near catatonic Professor Oxley, though he was originally rumored to have been cast as Indy’s former mentor, Abner Ravenwood, who apparently is still dead. Karen Allen returns after a two-film absence as Indy’s old flame and Mutt’s mother, Marion Williams (nee Ravenwood). Hers is a welcome presence, though diminished somewhat by the overcrowded cast. Had it been just Indy, Marion and Mutt, the estranged family dynamic — one that worked so well between father and son in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” — could’ve gotten more attention in this film. And if you haven’t guessed Indy’s relationship to Mutt yet, then I hope you enjoy your first time ever seeing a movie.
The whole time I was watching Indy 4, I was already looking forward to seeing it again. Like its predecessors, it’s a movie I’ll doubtless revisit over and over. That’s what’s great about the Indiana Jones franchise. Though technically Spielberg, Lucas and Ford owe us a fifth movie (Indy was intended to be a 5-film saga), I don’t think I’ll ever get so bored with these four that I’ll need another.
-Brad Lohan
May
21
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” Pre-Release Jitters
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 1 Comment
I’m locked in for the 12:01 a.m. screening of “IJATKOTCS” tonight at the ArcLight Sherman Oaks. I think I’ve read enough middling reviews of the film to set my expectations appropriately. I’m already disappointed, and the lights haven’t even dimmed in the auditorium yet. Roger Ebert loved the movie more than Mola Ram loved ripping people’s hearts out of their chests before lowering them into a hot pit. But the four reviews I’ve read on CHUD.com — three of which namecheck “The Lost World” when comparing this film to another of Spielberg’s lesser follow-ups — are mixed/negative.
I really want to like the film. I was an Indy fan long before George Lucas’ other franchise was even on my radar. I’ve been waiting for movie four in this franchise for over a decade now. I tracked its incredibly long development stages from back when it was script called “Indiana Jones and the Monkey King,” written by Chris Columbus. Then there was the script for “Indiana Jones and the Sons of Darkness,” which was to have introduced Indy’s heretofore unmentioned brother, with Tom Selleck and Kevin Costner both up for the role. I almost thought Frank Darabont’s much-loved script from a couple of years ago was going to be the one that would be realized on screen. Spielberg loved it, as did Harrison Ford. But Lucas stamped it with his veto and hired the guy who’d written “Rush Hour 2″(?!) to give it a polish.
Ultimately, it’s a patchwork script by David Koepp (the writer of “Lost World”) that’s been produced. Koepp’s a competent writer, whose name and is all over the serviceable franchise-starters of the past 15 years. He can massage out whatever story problems may exist in a script, but he can’t elevate the material to something more than just popcorn fare; compare his script for “Spider-Man” to Alvin Sargent’s for “Spider-Man 2.”
Can the new Indiana Jones movie overcome nearly two decades of anticipation, a passable script and gobs of ho-hum reviews, somehow giving me my money’s worth after all? To be honest, I loved “The Lost World” and saw it at least 5 or 6 times the summer it came out, and not just because David Koepp’s eaten during the T-Rex rampage in San Diego.
(*Updated*) Read my review here.
-Brad Lohan
May
20
“Spider-Man 4 [and 5]”
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | Leave a Comment
I had a pretty good idea for a “Spider-Man 4″ fan script. Peter Parker and Mary Jane would’ve gotten back together after their breakup in movie three. MJ’s acting career hasn’t exactly picked up, but she has been hired on as a consultant for a “Spider-Man” film that’s being shot in New York; Gwen Stacy of all people has been cast as Mary Jane in the movie-within-a-movie. Peter’s even been given a press pass to get some exclusive shots of the film’s production for “The Daily Bugle.” An accident on the set during a recreation of the George Washington Bridge climax from the first film nearly kills Gwen (she’s saved by the authentic Spidey), and stunt coordinator/special effects guru Quentin Beck (to be played by Bruce Campbell) is fired from the production for his carelessness. He soon dons the persona of dome-headed Mysterio and begins an FX-laden crime wave in New York City. Meanwhile, Peter learns that his late friend Harry Osborn named him the sole beneficiary to his vast fortune, eliminating Peter’s money problems altogether. But all the money in the world might not be enough to save his terminally ill Aunt May. What’s more, Mary Jane begins to discover she’s inherited her own spider-like powers from her relationship with Peter; they’ve been sexually-transmitted, kids!
It’s a fan-script I’ll never write, one of those things I cooked up during my interminable commute a few months ago. There isn’t much in the way of a story. At the moment, it’s simply a first act. But I always like having the makings of a Spider-Man sequel percolating in the back of my mind. You never know when you might bump into Sam Raimi. And I’m absolutely certain he loves to hear pitches for Spidey sequels from unestablished screenwriters like me. Who wouldn’t?
At any rate, my vision for “Spider-Man 4″ looks like it may never be realized on-screen. James Vanderbilt, writer of last year’s “Zodiac,” has delivered an epic draft for movies four and five! Plot details are nil, but I imagine both films will feature Spider-Man in some capacity. Before the third film went into production, the filmmakers had considered shooting parts three and four back-to-back, a la the first two “Superman” films, or more recently “The Matrix” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” sequels. So it’s entirely possible that the next two Spidey films will be shot simultaneously and released mere months apart.
Unfortunately, actors Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst have fulfilled their three-picture deals, and director Raimi’s hinted at returning to the franchise as a producer only. In lieu of expensive contract renegotiations with the principals and the filmmaker, it’s possible the studio might cast newer, cheaper stars (Shia Labeouf? Lindsay Lohan?) and hire a new young visionary to call the shots (Eli Roth?). I think it’s a greater risk, though, to lose so many key components to the franchise at once and double-down with a pair of sequels. If the fourth film falters (there’s some Stan Lee alliteration in your eye!), how will Sony Pictures be able to sell movie five?
Maybe the mega-script for parts four and five is so good, Maguire, Dunst and Raimi will be chomping at the bit to return to the franchise. I know the studio wants to squeeze 6 films out of the Spider-Man brand. I’d like to see them maintain a sense of continuity with the cast and with Raimi in the director’s chair. It’s for the good of the franchise that they keep the original vision intact. They’re also welcome to use my script for movie six. My fee is dirt cheap.
-Brad Lohan
May
18
Sex & the City of Gotham: Batman’s On-Screen Love Life
Filed Under Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 2 Comments
“The Dark Knight” opens in a month or so. A direct sequel to “Batman Begins,” unlike the previous bat-films that share a rather loose continuity, this movie brings back the character of Assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes — a first for the franchise.
To date, Batman’s on-screen romances have never carried over into a subsequent film. The pressures of dating Batman/Bruce Wayne in the earlier movies must’ve been too great for photog Vicki Vale, secretary/supervillain Selina Kyle, abnormal psychologist Dr. Chase Meridian (clearly the most qualified of the lot) and useless piece of arm-candy Julie Madison. It’d be not unlike dating a cop or a firefighter, but one with a cape and a cowl and a car with a jet engine.
It’s important to note, however, that at the end of “Batman Begins,” Rachel tells Bruce that they can’t be together so long as he’s Batman, and in the most recent trailer for “The Dark Knight,” Rachel’s clearly seeing someone else, District Attorney Harvey Dent. But with Dent doomed to become Two-Face at some point the film, Rachel will ultimately become boyfriend-less again. It’ll be the perfect time for Batman to swoop in and try to win her back.
That being said, we should explore Batman’s previous relationships and see what mistakes he’s made in the past so they might be avoided with Rachel:
1) The revelation that he’s both Bruce Wayne and Batman (as seen in “Batman,” “Batman Returns” & “Batman Forever”). Women hate liars, and not telling a woman you’re Batman is lying by omission. Women also tend to either love Bruce Wayne or Batman, but never both at the same time. To be fair, Selina Kyle loved Bruce Wayne and her alter-ego Catwoman loved Batman, and Dr. Chase Meridian initially loved Batman before flip-flopping to Bruce Wayne. But, Bruce Wayne/Batman always waited until late in each film to reveal his dual identities. Unfortunately, in “Batman Begins,” he makes the same mistake, waiting until Act Three to unmask himself to Rachel. So he’s already lost points there.
2) Canceling at the very last minute (as seen in “Batman,” “Batman Returns” and “Batman Forever”). Women want a guy who’s not going to blow off their plans for Friday evening. Bruce Wayne often would make a date with a woman only for it to be interrupted by some damn supervillain before the dessert menu even arrived, leaving the poor girl in the lurch (and stuck with the bill) while he bashed heads in his bat-suit. This doesn’t happen in “Batman Begins,” but from the “Dark Knight” trailer, we get the sense that the Joker does crash a function that Rachel and Bruce are both attending.
3) Spending too much time with the guy[s] (as seen in “Batman Forever” and “Batman & Robin”). Women don’t want to feel like they come in a distant second to their boyfriend’s male friends. Robin the Boy Wonder wasn’t introduced until the third film in the previous franchise, but if there’s anyone who could drive a serious wedge into a relationship between Bruce Wayne/Batman and the woman he loved, it was this kid. Since the character’s introduction in comics continuity way back in 1940, he and Batman have been fairly “out” homosexual partners. Robin became such a prominent fixture earlier films, that the love interest in “Batman & Robin” — Julie Madison — was relegated to an extended cameo. There’s no indication Robin will be in “The Dark Knight,” but Alfred’s role has been beefed up significantly.
“I haven’t had much luck with women,” laments Batman, played by Val Kilmer in “Batman Forever.” And as we’ve learned, it’s his own fault. He’s cagey, non-committal and spends too much time with young men in muscle suits. But he’s also the world’s greatest detective. It stands to reason he can figure out what he’s done wrong in the past and ultimately do right by Rachel…so long as the Joker doesn’t bump her off.
-Brad Lohan