NICK'S PICK: 5 Good things about the BATMAN & ROBIN movie

Somewhere out there, a geek has come across the title of this article and has passed out due to Nerd Rage. Hello: My Name is Nick! And allow me to go clarify my statements before someone revokes my Nerd Cred: the 1997 film BATMAN & ROBIN is a terrible, TERRIBLE movie: Clooney was bland as Batman, Bane was turned from an actual threat into a brainless goon, the cinematic style had gone from "gothic" to "campy" to "so flamboyant even the gayest of nerds would commit a hate crime," etc. The fourth movie in the beloved 90's Batman "saga", director Joel "They're called comic books not drama books" Schumacher helped to make BATMAN & ROBIN one of the worst comic movies to ever grace the silver screen. While he may take the brunt of the blame now, let's not leave out the Execs over at WARNER BROTHERS who were more interested in selling toys and Happy Meals than putting together a decent film. That would explain why flavor-of-the-month actress Alicia Silverstone was put into an ill-fitting costume and randomly tossed on screen as BATGIRL. Or why the Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, plays a bad-pun spouting, freeze-gun totting, blue-tinted ROBOCOP MR. FREEZE. BATMAN & ROBIN is so bad that George Clooney still apologizes for it! But every cloud has a silver-lining, as the saying goes, so I rewatched the movie and tried to find some things to salvage this mess. Here is what I found...

1. "This is why Superman works alone."
This is early on in the film. After the opening credits and a quick montage of our heroes changing into their Bat gear(Bat Nipples...), we see a quick exchange between the Dynamic Duo about the Bat Mobile:

Robin: I want a car. Chicks dig the car.

Batman: This is why Superman works alone.

This scene surprisingly does quite a bit in such a short time. It establishes character: Robin is light-hearted and a bit more rebellious, Batman is a loner still adjusting to having a sidekick, and the Bat Mobile is made of win! It is funny, with a nudge and a wink to the fans without being cloying to the audience. But best of all, it establishes a greater DC Universe by mentioning another superhero. A decade later, IRON MAN would do something similar by introducing Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. along with teasers for Captain America and the Avengers.   

This is also the best scene in the movie... Yup. Five minutes in and Batman has blown his Bat-Load.

 2. The Evolution of Robin
As far as character arcs go, Robin is the one that stands out. By the time BATMAN & ROBIN rolls around, Dick Grayson appears to be taking to the superhero gig rather well. He still has a jovial sense of humor but has matured and grown into a hero of his own. Unfortunately, Batman still treats him like a child. The two butt heads until Robin finally leaves to become his own hero.

These events should sound familiar to comic fans as this is similar to how Dick Grayson's Robin became Nightwing. Don't believe me? Compare the Robin costumes from BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN. Take away the cape(and Bat-Nipples) and you've got Nightwing! Not sure why they didn't commit to Robin's evolution into Nightwing. I'm going to assume they wanted the tone to be happy, so no drama between the Bat and the Bird. Bet they still made Nightwing toys for the movie... money-hungry jerks...

3. A Dying Alfred(?)
I love Alfred Pennyworth. I love him as much as I love Batman. Hell, I might love him more than Batman himself. He is the backbone to the Batman legacy. Bruce's main confidant. And while I like Michael Caine's portrayal in the Nolan trilogy and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr's superb voice work in BATMAN: TAS, Michael Gough will always be my Alfred-Of-Choice. So the concept of his passing was a sound idea. He had been a surrogate father figure to both Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson. His death would force the two of them to either come together in a time of need or deal with the loss by going their seperate ways... of course he didn't die, now did he? No, Arnold Schwarzenegger was clearly a scientist(No, seriously) who had a cure for Alfred. So the Dynamic Duo stayed together and were joined by Chunky Batgirl who was just...there. But for a moment, Alfred's circumstances looked dire. And in that instance I grieved just a little... Rest in peace, Michael Gough.

4. Hey, Remember Coolio?
Hey, remember Coolio? Yeah, he was a thing during the 90's. Let the records show: "Gangsta's Paradise" was awesome! What does this have to do with BATMAN & ROBIN? A valid question, seeing as how his cameo in the film lasted 2 seconds and he doesn't appear to be on the soundtrack. Hmm... Man, was "Gangsta's Paradise" the shit!

5. It Was a Godawful Film That Killed The Franchise
Sorry, Batman Fanatics, no matter how much "Prep Time" he has, even Batman loses at times.

How is it that BATMAN & ROBIN's failure is a good thing? Good question. For starters, it set the standard of what makes for a bad comic book movie. While not the worst comic book movie ever made(Trust me, I've seen my share), it does everything on such a bad level that it becomes the example we use to critique a franchise. Miscast actors, characters who don't resemble their comic counterparts, plot points that go nowhere, blatant product placement, bad writing, the list goes on. If THE AVENGERS or THE DARK KNIGHT or SUPERMAN sets the standard for quality comic-to-film adaptations, than BATMAN & ROBIN sets the example for those that are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Second, it ended the Burton/Schumacher film saga before it could get any worse. As the film began getting negative responses, WARNER BROTHERS was already planning another movie. This one would introduce Scarecrow and would also be the return of the Joker!(Apparently somewhere in BATMAN RETURNS there is a newspaper headline that states the Joker has returned. But since nobody noticed it and he was never brought up again, I'm going to assume it was less teaser and more random set design.) But the movie was doomed from the start as it was clearly trying milk the bat for all it's worth(Ewww, bat milking). Before production was even getting started, the execs at WARNER BROTHERS were already pimping out Batman to promote a walk-on movie role contest for OnStar(Seriously? How is the location of the Bat Cave secret if OnStar knows where it is?) They were also looking for the return of Tim "I don't read comics" Burton to direct the franchise. Considering what Burton accomplished when left to his own devices on BATMAN RETURNS(The Penguin is a mutant raised in the sewers? Catwoman has magic 9 lives zombie powers? Rocket-wielding penguins and a Rubber Duckie car?) I'm kind of glad we didn't get to see his interpretation. As much as I liked the first two Burton directed Bat films. I can't imagine Helena Bonham Carter dressed as a creepy mutant crow that causes nightmares.

Lastly, it gave our hero a chance to comeback to life(creatively speaking). I love the Batman films of the 90's, but by the time BATMAN & ROBIN came to be the franchise had run it's course. It was time for a change. And while some of the proposed film prospects were abandoned(An adaptation of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Clint Eastwood as an elderly Batman? Could you imagine that?) we did strike a win with Christopher Nolan(director of MEMENTO, INCEPTION, and everything full of win), who for the first time brought the origin of the Caped Crusader to life on the big screen in BATMAN BEGINS.

"Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up."

That is the mantra of BATMAN BEGINS. And it seems like a fitting one for a movie that followed Schumacher's last Batman flick: after taking a fall in the box office, Batman needed to get back in the fight. And boy did he ever!

Speaking of, the final movie in the Nolan Trilogy, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, comes out July 20! Can't wait to see how Batman picks himself up after taking the fall for Harvey Dent's death.

NICK'S PICK: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN MOVIE REVIEW

Spider-Man 3 came out 5 years ago. And we already have a reboot of the franchise?!? WELCOME TO HOLLYWOOD, FOLKS! MY NAME IS NICK and welcome to my review of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! What's that? Why didn't I do an AVENGERS review? Because, unless you're Amish or are in a coma, you've seen the movie, you know how awesome it is, and the few complaints I have are out-weighed by the truly triumphant moments that will live on in my memory of super heroics! And if you are an Amish or in a coma, how in the world are you reading this right now?

Where was I? Oh yeah: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! So, for those of you who are not familiar with the financial history of MARVEL or the nature of copyright, let me give you the cliff notes: in the early 90's, Marvel went bankrupt. While sorting out their affairs, they began selling off the film rights for their comic properties. Fast forward to today where, despite Marvel being back on their A-Game, the film rights to their properties still belong to the studios who bought them in the 90's so long as they make a film every 10 years. That is why FOX still owns the X-MEN and is working on reboots of the FANTASTIC FOUR and DAREDEVIL. Why THE AVENGERS had stand-in aliens the Chituari rather than the Skrull. And why SONY was in such a rush to get another movie out of one of MARVEL's best characters. Who knew movie execs had stickier fingers than the old Web-Head?(See what I did there?) Yes, 5 years feels a bit too soon to have a Spidey reboot. Particularly for someone like me, a comic geek who fell in love with the art form thanks to Spidey and his spectacular adventures. But let's look at the comic reboot track record: Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS came out 8 years after BATMAN & ROBIN. THE INCREDIBLE HULK came out 5 years after Ang Lee's HULK. Heck, despite some familiar elements(including a Hugh Jackman cameo), X-MEN: FIRST CLASS was basically a reboot done 2 years after the abysmal X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. So the possibility of a good reboot was promising... than again the PUNISHER reboot came out 4 years after the 2004 version, so the possibility that this could suck was unavoidable as well. So how does THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN fair on the reboot scale?

The movie begins similar in the vein of another comic reboot, BATMAN BEGINS. We see a young Peter Parker playing with his father, a scientist who works for Oscorp. Suddenly comes the realization that someone has broken into their homes in search of something. Fearing for their son's safety, Pete's parents drop him off with his Aunt May and Uncle Ben and disapear. Fast forward about 10 years, and a now 17 year old Peter is a top-performing student attending high school and enjoying a daily routine of skate boarding, taking photos for the yearbook, and getting his ass kicked by "Flash" Thompson. While helping his Uncle Ben fix some appliances around the house, Pete comes across a brief case that belonged to his father. Discovering a secret compartment, he finds secret documents linking his father to some gene-splicing experiments at OSCORP along with another scientist by the name of Curt Connors. Sneaking into OSCORP(with a little help from classmate/assistant to Dr. Connors, Gwen Stacy), Peter goes looking for answers... and ends up bitten by a spider!

Yes, this is another origin story.  But rather than driven purely by Uncle Ben and what comes with great power, this movie focuses more on the relationship between Peter and his first true love Gwen Stacy. Which I suppose is one of the reason's SONY brought on (500) DAYS OF SUMMER director Marc Webb(Ha! Spider-Puns!) to bring this film to the screen. As a matter of fact, one of my favorite aspects of this reboot is how well the characterizations are handled. I dug Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. When promo images first started coming in, I know fanboys were worried this Garfield would come off more emo than nerdy(particularly after SPIDER-MAN 3). But Garfield is simply playing a different type of nerd. Rather than the classic meek, nose-in-books nerd, he plays it more as the smart guy with this nervous anxiety about him. As Spidey we finally get a wise-cracking, one-liner spewing Web-Head. As Peter, he has a witty charm about him but has trouble fumbling with his words. Especially when trying to talk to Gwen Stacy, played by the always adorable Emma Stone who is the spitting image of John Romita's illustrations. Gwen is a smart girl, quick with the charm as Pete struggles to find his words. Their relationship is very playful and a joy to watch. Of course, their relationship has opposition in the form of Gwen's father, Captain Stacy(played wonderfully by Dennis Leary). He fills a role much like J. Jonah Jameson in the Rami films. As an officer of the law, he views Spidey as a vigilante. He even notices a pattern about Spidey that, even Pete recognizes, makes the web-head seem guilty.

With all this talk of character development, don't think this movie lacks action! It has it in spades! With this movie, rather than rely too heavily on cg, they tried to use stunt work as much as possible. So when you see Spidey swing through the city, Spidey is actually swinging through the city! This lends itself to a number of action scenes that are fun to watch and seem real to the senses. One of my favorite scenes is Pete having a misunderstanding/panic attack on the subway after being bitten by the spider. There's also this great scene where Spidey strings up an actual spider's web in order to feel out the location of his enemy.

This movie does have it's faults. The first being the scientist-turned-villain, Dr. Curt Connors/the Lizard, played by Rhys Ifran. The CGI on the Lizard is... well, it's not that good. Sure, the fight scenes between him and Spidey are awesome to watch but... he just looks off. Part of it is his face I think. His face looks like a Sleestack from Land of the Lost. Or, as a friend pointed out, a Goomba from the Super Mario live-action movie. All I'm saying is, how about we spend a lil money to make the Lizard not look like a carbon copy of the Batman villain Killer Croc? The Lizard's alter ego doesn't fair much better. While Rhys tries to do the best with what he's got, Connors falls flat and has little to do. Which is bizzare since the movie starts out suggesting Connors and Pete's parents might have a deeper influence on the origin of Spider-Man. Yet, 30 minutes in, that story angle gets dropped and basically doesn't get dealt with until the after-credits scene which, once again like Batman Begins, hints at a sequel to this new franchise as well as a possible villain(?).

That is my other beef with the movie. In this expansive movie(a little over 2 hours long!) Webb trys to retell a familiar story in a different way. In doing this, certain aspects that make up the Spidey mythos are either rushed over or left out all together. The Daily Bugle is only seen through news paper headlines, Norman Osborn is mentioned off hand several times in relation to Connors' research, and Pete's childhood friend Harry Osborn is no where to be seen. Perhaps the most offensive of these neglects is the exclusion of Uncle Ben's famous mantra: "With great power comes great responsibility." They have Uncle Ben do everything but say those  6 famous words. After Ben's death, there is a plot device which would have been perfect to have the mantra used, but no such luck. I know that phrase can be over used at times. It's said so much in the first Sam Rami movie you could probably make it a drinking game(If no one has yet, I call dibs on copyright). But to leave out the line entirely is a travesty.

All in all, I dug the movie. Where Rami's Spidey films were influenced by the stories and style of the original 60s-70s comics, Marc Webb brings a modern feel to thestory. The characters were well developed, particularly Peter and Gwen, and the action was intense. Is it better than Sam Rami's films? I think Rami covered the origin better. But I like the Peter/Gwen relationship in this movie better than the Peter/Mary Jane relationship in all 3 Rami films. I can already see people arguing over which movie is better. One thing we can all agree on though: It's better than SPIDER-MAN 3!