Roger Ebert's "Best / Worst Movies of 2004" list! (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Actually, the Washington Post's review is pretty similar to Ebert's. He also hated the source material, and thinks that Schumacher's camerawork gets around some rough spots.



Well, if you are going in, knowing that you don't like the music, I'd say there are other things that you are probably going to concentrate on. Apparently, the cinematography makes up for some of the shortcommings. Not to mention Emily Rossum just looks simply delicious in all the pictures I've seen from the film.

Jason

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Er...wha? I don't think I'm all that jaded. Find any of my five-star reviews and you'll see a grown-up child who still loves his movies as much as he ever did.

Am I cynical for calling CRAP when I see it? If so, then OK by me.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Still, when Ebert writes in his review of Batman Returns that he always thought it would be "fun to be Batman," he reveals a deep misunderstanding of what Batman is all about."

While maybe off to side of the target, Ebert scored a hit with that remark for me -- where is any sense of release or achievement in the Batman character in the movies? Frank Miller showed us moments of Batman taking pride in his victories and even smiling at times. Shouldn't we see the cathartic release in the movies? We're talking about a guy who is driven to go out at night and beat up muggers, surely he derives some satisfaction in his work. Frank Miller showed this, all of the movies have avoided any hint of that -- treating Batman like a Sheriff in a crazy costume who is oh so sad and somber about waging war on criminals. Ebert's comment highlights a lack of dimension in the Burton/Schumacher Batman films in how they treat the character. The truth is, both Burton and Schumacher were scared to death of the larger issues touched off by the vigilante (recalling charges of neo-fascism levelled at the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies), hence, they allowed the comic campy villains as much screen time as possible, anything to avoid the character known as Batman and what he really does, and what he really stabds for.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Well sure, but Ebert's remark infers that he thinks being Batman is all about dressing up and having fun being a hero and playing with sundry gadgets from his utility belt. That is emphatically not what Batman is about. I'm all for Batman smiling and taking pride in his work at times, but witnessing the murder of his parents made him a seriously damaged person; he doesn't see his duty as Batman as trying to be a hero. Rather it is something of a holy mission for him. People like Frank Miller and Jim Starlin captured that obsessiveness about his character. I don't believe joy is an affect we should associate much with Batman, since his actions spring from psychological trauma, although that is tempered with remarkable compassion for others (this value of life truly makes Batman unique among superheroes of such grim temperament).

As for the politics of Batman, they're quite complex. I'll be brief because of HTF rules, but on the surface one can look at Superman and Batman and read the former as leftist populism and the latter as right-wing fantasy for those that feel that criminals are getting coddled by an ineffectual justice system (whoa, talk about a run-on sentence!). Batman constantly uses intimidation and violence to get information from criminals (recall Harry Callahan torturing Scorpio to find out where the girl is being held captive), seemingly not giving a second thought to due process and civil liberties. At first glance, Batman's methods seem like an apologia for fascism. But his aforementioned compassion, his avowed non-belief in vengeance, his refusal to kill, doesn't exactly line up with the "eye-for-an-eye," "snuff 'em all" crowd. Remember that episode of the animated series where he opposed that sadistic guard who mistreated Arkham inmates? Not what you'd call a reactionary viewpoint, right? Batman comes across as a hybrid of conservative "get tough on crime" ideology and a liberal--one would like to think the following aren't solely the purview of the left, but modern political discourse from both sides seem to frame it as such--aesthetic of compassion, tolerance, respect for life (even unrepentant murderers), etc.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Look, rather than put words in Ebert's mouth, or make inferences about what he meant, let's look at what he actually did say, because I don't think he is too off-base, and the final paragraph of his Batman Forever review reads like a prophecy that I think is possibly going to be fulfilled this summer...read on...


"The Gotham City created in "Batman" is one of the most distinctive and atmospheric places I've seen in the movies. It's a shame something more memorable doesn't happen there. "Batman" is a triumph of design over story, style over substance - a great-looking movie with a plot you can't care much about. All of the big moments in the movie are pounded home with ear-shattering sound effects and a jackhammer cutting style, but that just serves to underline the movie's problem, which is a curious lack of suspense and intrinsic interest.

"Batman" discards the recent cultural history of the Batman character - the camp 1960s TV series, the in-joke comic books - and returns to the mood of the 1940s, the decade of film noir and fascism.

The movie is set at the present moment, more or less, but looks as if little has happened in architecture or city planning since the classic DC comic books created that architectural style you could call Comic Book Moderne. The streets of Gotham City are lined with bizarre skyscrapers that climb cancerously toward the sky, held up (or apart) by sky bridges and stresswork that look like webs against the night sky.

At street level, gray and anonymous people scurry fearfully through the shadows, and the city cancels its 200th anniversary celebration because the streets are not safe enough to hold it. Gotham is in the midst of a wave of crime and murder orchestrated by The Joker (Jack Nicholson), and civilization is defended only by Batman (Michael Keaton). The screenplay takes a bow in the direction of the origin of the Batman story (young Bruce Wayne saw his parents murdered by a thug and vowed to use their fortune to dedicate his life to crime-fighting), and it also explains how The Joker got his fearsome grimace. Then it turns into a gloomy showdown between the two bizarre characters.

Nicholson's Joker is really the most important character in the movie - in impact and screen time - and Keaton's Batman and Bruce Wayne characters are so monosyllabic and impenetrable that we have to remind ourselves to cheer for them.

[snip]

But did I care about the relationship between these two caricatures? Did either one have the depth of even a comic book character? Not really. And there was something off-putting about the anger beneath the movie's violence. This is a hostile, mean-spirited movie about ugly, evil people, and it doesn't generate the liberating euphoria of the Superman or Indiana Jones pictures. It's classified PG-13, but it's not for kids.

Should it be seen, anyway? Probably. Director Tim Burton and his special effects team have created a visual place that has some of the same strength as Fritz Lang's Metropolis or Ridley Scott's futuristic Los Angeles in "Blade Runner." The gloominess of the visuals has a haunting power. Nicholson has one or two of his patented moments of inspiration, although not as many as I would have expected. And the music by Prince, intercut with classics, is effectively joined in the images. The movie's problem is that no one seemed to have any fun making it, and it's hard to have much fun watching it. It's a depressing experience. Is the opposite of comic book "tragic book"?
-- review for BATMAN




The gloomy undertone of the Batman movies is like a tow line, holding the movie back, keeping it from springing free into the wind.

Tim Burton's "Batman Returns," even more than the original "Batman," is a dark, brooding film, filled with hurt and fear, childhood wounds and festering adult resentments. It is also a most intriguing movie, great to look at, fun to talk about. There is no doubt Burton is a gifted director, but is he the right director for Batman? The film opens in cruelty and shame, as the parents of a deformed baby put him into his bassinet and drop him into the river on a cold, snowy Christmas night. The frail little craft floats downstream and into the sewers of Gotham City, where the infant is rescued and raised by the penguins who luckily happen to live there.

Arriving at adulthood, his hands like lobster claws, the Penguin (Danny DeVito) learns about the human world by peering out through sewer gratings. His soul burns with the need to discover who his parents were, and why they treated him so meanly.

Elsewhere in Gotham, the mayor (Michael Murphy) presides over the municipal Christmas tree lighting before cold crowds under sullen skies. He is joined by the vile tycoon Max Shreck (Christopher Walken), who has a scheme to build a power plant that will drain the city of its energy. His browbeaten secretary (Michelle Pfeiffer), killed after she discovers the scheme, is licked back to life by alley cats and vows vengeance, sewing herself a skintight, fetishistic costume and venturing out into the night as Catwoman.

Meanwhile, in the bat cave beneath his gloomy mansion, Batman (Michael Keaton) ponders whatever deep needs led to his own peculiar existence.

Even back in the days when Batman lived in comic books, his world was a little darker than, say, Superman's. There was a shade of film noir in Gotham City, in contrast to the deco 1930s optimism of Superman's Metropolis. The Dark Knight, a graphic novel that inspired the Batman movies, was darker still, and now Burton takes it all the way - into a movie set mostly at night, photographed on refrigerated sets, so that the actors sometimes look as if they would rather have a mug of hot chocolate than all the passion and wealth in the city.

[snip]

Remembering the movie and contrasting it to my childhood memories of the comic books, I wonder if perhaps I cannot fully respond to this film because I was shaped in a kinder, gentler time.

I always thought it would be fun to be Batman. The movie believes it is more of a curse - that Batman is not a crime-fighting superhero but a reclusive neurotic who feels he has to prove himself to a society he does not really inhabit.

All of Tim Burton's films ("Pee Wee's Big Adventure," "Beetlejuice," "Edward Scissorhands" and the two Batmans) are about characters whose strange qualities place them outside the mainstream, and who live in worlds that owe everything to art direction and set design. Looking at these movies is a pleasure - they are not ordinary, or boring.

Perhaps I would have enjoyed Batman more if the movie had been about someone else, perhaps one of those Marvel superheroes who frankly concede their personal inadequacies. I can admire the movie on many levels, but I cannot accept it as Batman. And I was disappointed that the disjointed plot advanced so unsteadily, depriving us of the luxury of really caring about the outcome.

It is a common theory that when you have a hero, like James Bond, Superman or Batman, in a continuing series, it's the villain that gives each movie its flavor. "Batman" had the Joker, played by Jack Nicholson, to lend it energy, but the Penguin is a curiously meager and depressing creature; I pitied him, but did not fear him or find him funny. The genius of Danny DeVito is all but swallowed up in the paraphernalia of the role. "Batman Returns" is odd and sad, but not exhilarating.

I give the movie a negative review, and yet I don't think it's a bad movie; it's more of a misguided one, made with great creativity, but denying us what we more or less deserve from a Batman story. Looking back over both films, I think Burton has a vision here and is trying to shape it to the material, but it just won't fit. No matter how hard you try, superheroes and film noir don't go together; the very essence of noir is that there are no more heroes. I had a feeling by the end of this film that Batman was beginning to get the idea.
-- review for BATMAN RETURNS



Although the first two Batman movies were big winners at the box office, there was a feeling after "Batman Returns" (1992) that the series had grown too dark and gloomy. Batman was a reclusive neurotic, his enemies included the deformed Penguin (raised from childhood in sewers), and the movies tried for a marriage of superheroes and film noir. That didn't work: The message of noir is that there are no heroes.

Tim Burton, director of the first two brooding Batman films, steps up to producer for "Batman Forever," and the new director, Joel Schumacher, makes a generally successful effort to lighten the material. There are more clever one-liners for Alfred the butler (Michael Gough), lots of laughs for the Riddler (played by Jim Carrey like a riff on his character in "The Mask"), and even sitcom moments like the one when Alfred tells Bruce Wayne that the "young master" has run off with the car. "The Jaguar?" asks Wayne. "No, sir. The other car." The movie looks great, of course; Gotham City is a web of towering spires, bridges and expressways, planted in a swamp of despond. Boardrooms and laboratories look like German Expressionist sets, and the charity circus could come straight from Murnau's "Sunrise." There are neat gimmicks, like the Riddler's brain-wave helmet, and neat stunts, as when the Batmobile climbs straight up the side of a skyscraper. And there is a consistent visual motif: two hands clasping in a firm grip. Dick Grayson is caught in such a grip by his acrobat father during a dangerous trick, and later the shot is repeated to show that Bruce Wayne is now his surrogate father.

But somehow Batman still doesn't come alive. Val Kilmer is a completely acceptable substitute for Michael Keaton in the title role, but in all three of the movies, Batman remains shadowy and undefined. The movies exist for their villains, who this time both seem to be playing the same note; the Riddler and Two-Face alternate in overacting, until the pace grows wearying. There is no rhythm to the movie, no ebb and flow; it's all flat-out spectacle.

Is the movie better entertainment? Well, it's great bubble gum for the eyes. And younger children will be able to process it more easily (some kids were led bawling from "Batman Returns," where the PG-13 rating was a joke).

I liked the look of the movie and Schumacher's general irreverence toward the material. But the great Batman movie still remains to be made. Here is the most complex and intriguing of classic comic superheroes, inhabiting the most visually interesting world, but somehow a story hasn't been found to do him justice. A story - with a beginning, a middle and an end, and a Batman at its center who emerges as more than a collection of costumes and postures. More than ever, after this third movie, I found myself asking, Who was that masked man, anyhow?
-- review for BATMAN FOREVER

 

[Jose Martinez]

Well said, Ernest.

On a lighter note. I thought Robert Englund was great in The Phantom Of The Opera

 

[Chris Woodard]

I think the reason people respect Ebert, as I do, has little to do with his taste in film (god knows I disagree with his opinion on almost everything)... but that he is a shinning example of how to write subjectively. He puts it all out on the table in such a way, that even if he didn't like a film, you can look at what he said about it and think "well, sounds like I might."

Which is a rare talent. I mean seriously, getting hung up on the star ratings is missing the whole point. Look at what he writes about the films, not whether he liked them or not.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Excellent analysis. This is why I like Ebert. Although I disagree on the ratings of least half of his reviews, I don't really disagree with his analysis of a film. The guy knows cinema and can write. Just because I disagree with his personal feelings does not mean his objective view is inaccessible and unhelpful.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Roger Ebert may well be the most well-known film critic in America, but I would suggest that is a far different thing than ‘greatest’. I don’t know Ebert, but I’d be surprised if he claimed to be the greatest.

It may be just me, but I respect critics who alter their opinions over time. Certaintly I have read many, many critics, including the noted Andrew Sarris, who comment on how their views of films, filmmakers and actors have changed over time.

For me, some of the best reviews come from reviews with which I disagree. I don’t really learn much when I agree with what a critic writes. But an insightful take on a movie that is different than mine gives me something to consider.

Basically Ebert gives higher ratings to a good many more movies than I think they deserve. And he sometimes writes in haste (I assume) and makes errors (what person writing under deadline would not?). OTOH, when we writes incisively or takes the time to do a DVD commentary, the breadth and depth of his knowledge of films is clear—as is his understanding.

 

[George See]

I don't know if I can handle a list that has Dogville as worst of the year but doesn't mention dreck like White Chicks.

 

[Patrick McCart]

In all honesty...

A movie like White Chicks is bad from the start. Movies like Troy or Alexander should be excellent. No one expects House of the Dead to be another masterpiece.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I absolutely agree with this.

The point and the purpose of lists is not so much to give an accurate ranking of one's feelings but to generate discussion. Its funny because a friend of mine made a list of his hundred favorite movies of all time, and we had a long discussion about some of his placements, and I think that's the purpose of this kind of exercise.

I don't have a problem with Ebert or anyone else having an opinion that changes over time. Someone asked if reviews are always fluid then what is the value of a review? Reviews are not meant to be timeless, they are more of an in the moment thing. What is my reaction to this movie now? Not what will my reaction be to this movie in 10 years. A review that were to be written in anticipation of how someone might feel about a given film in 10 years would be an absolute failure.

There are several reasons why this is true, not the least of which is that I can't predict the events that will take place in my life and how they will effect my thoughts and attitudes towards a given subject matter.

Reviews are designed to help people decide should I go see this movie or not? I don't have a problem with E.T. ranking higher on his top films of the decade of the 80's than either of the films that were ranked ahead of it in 1982. As others have said, the decade list was made much after the fact, and a lot of things happened that may have influenced him to move that movie up higher than the other 2. Cultural impact being the best example. That does not mean that his impressions were wrong back in 1982 or that a change in his opinion after subsequent viewings is somehow an admission that he was wrong in the first place.

I am not the same person I was 5 years ago, and my taste in film is a reflection of that. Some things I liked then I hate now, and some things I hate then I enjoy a lot now. I suspect that this is even more pronounced for someone that makes a living by watching movies.

As someone mentioned earlier, it is possible for a person to disagree with Ebert on a film and them both to be right because they are not necessarily coming at the film with the same past experiences or the same tastes.

 

[Chris]

In reality, the greatest critic alive is you.. the person watching, because you vote with money and you decide what you like and don't.

That having been said, I enjoy Ebert, even when I disagree with him.

I know there are lots of films I've hated that everyone else loved (I still despise "E.T." and as a child told my parents afterwards I thought it was a terrible film, and still stand by that)

Anyway, to each their own opinion.

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

I'm surprised that people are so flabbergasted by Ebert referring to "Batman Forever" as the best of the Batman movies. Didn't anyone remember that he gave it the highest rating of the three (although still not a thumbs up)? I agree with him on this. Most of my knowledge of Batman comes from "Batman: The Animated Series", so my knowledge of Batman is limited compared to that of the comic book readers here, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the character and his world.

All of the Batman movies were horribly flawed. "Batman Forever" upsets me with its butchering of the character of Two-Face, the neon production design (and gang of thugs), and the nipples on the costume, but despite these bad characteristics, I still think it's better than the first two.

It had a much better story, and I liked Jim Carrey and Val Kilmer a lot better in their roles than Danny Devito and Michael Keaton. Nothing against those actors (who I respect and usually enjoy in movies)...I just found their characters poorly written (Bruce Wayne/Batman was boring in the first two Batman movies, and The Penguin was too gross and incomprehensible most of the time). "Batman Forever" may be my favourite Batman movie so far, but I realize that it's far from a movie that does the Batman characters and universe justice. I expect "Batman Begins" to do just that.

I think Ebert was making a similar point. "Batman Forever" is not a good Batman movie, but it's a better Batman movie than the first two because it's more focused on substance than style. Again, the substance is limited, but "Batman Forever" had more of it than its predecessors. For example, compare the death of Dick Grayson's parents in "Batman Forever" to the death of Bruce Wayne's parents in "Batman". When Dick's parents died, there wasn't just a flashback. It happened in a long scene, and was followed by many scenes dealing with how Dick felt about it, as he and Bruce talked about it.

"Batman Forever" was a step in the right direction (mishandling of Two-Face aside), and gave the series hope. Then "Batman and Robin" came out and it consisted of all the worst things about "Batman Forever" magnified, while all the good things about it were taken away.

 

[Chris]

The best batman movie was "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" all of the others (except the other animated sequel) fail to capture what I loved about Batman.. the moment at the graveside in "Mask of the Phantasm" where Bruce Wayne utters "it just doesn't hurt so much anymore"

That was the kind of moment that was lacking from all of the live action films.. real emotional weight.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Isn't it odd how a cartoon is more comfortable with the character of Batman than three films that were directed and/or produced by a man who spent his early years making cartoons?

Tim Burton was simply the wrong man at the right time. Loads of people went to see his Batman films, how many truly liked them?

From where I sit, the only decent Batman films ever made were Paul Dini's Mask of the Phantasm, and the uncomfortable Return of the Joker. How odd that both of these were more interested in the character of Batman, more interested in the terrors of actually being Batman or his accomplice - than any of the live action films, which are, in the final analysis, enormous failures of the studio system. How odd is it that the Tim Burton and Schumacher films leave us asking "Why are you Batman?" as opposed to audiences asking the villains, "Why are you evil?" We understand the villainy in these live action cartoons. Why is it that the filmmakers cannot connect to Batman's morality and make it accesible in any of the four?

 

[Chris]

Well put Ernest. I think what's amazing is how adult the animated films seem in comparison to the live action films. The animated films (especially "Mask of the Phantasm" which is a -MUST- watch for Batman fans) dealt with complex issues: when is revenge going to far? Is Batman doing this for revenge or justice? Being Batman is not an easy thing.. and it is, in fact, treading dangerously close to going to far.. as was seen in this film.

Batman: MOTP nails all of the issues cold. It tells a convincing story that is a character study in "why do people act this way?" and it sells it. There is some intense stuff that goes on, and it doesn't pull any punches about the real implications.

If any one of the live action movies had taken the material that was provided by the comics and done anything close to MOTP, it would have been incredible. Instead, they tended to take the Batman from the 1960s TV show rather then the one inspired by the comic books.

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

Of course "Mask Of The Phantasm", "Sub Zero", and "Return Of The Joker" are all light years ahead of the four live action Batman films. I was referring to "Batman Forever" as the best Batman film only out of the live action ones.

 

[AlexCremers]

I never thought of E.T. as terrible film-making, but the first three times I saw it, I noticed I was not moved by this film. I couldn't call it "terrible" but I decided this film was not for me. When I was older (approaching thirty) I saw it again, and this time, for some reason, everything was ... different. Watching E.T. became suddenly a whole new experience. OMG, I already started crying from the moment E.T. was left behind by his fellow extra-terrestrials. For two hours long, the adventures of E.T. and Elliott effected me deeply. For the first time it felt as if I was watching this movie with my shields down. Whatever it was that stood in the way of me liking E.T. was no longer there.
What is my point, you ask? Well, sometimes we see a movie at a wrong place, at a wrong time. Maybe we just didn't "open" ourselves (intellectually and emotionally) to it for reasons too many to list. I believe our present state of mind is what mainly forms our opinion. Oh, what the heck, my point is that E.T. IS a great movie.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Paul_Scott]

i agree that Batman Forever was the best(or at least the liveliest) of a sorry series of films.
i think Eberts criticism of the first two is dead on.



Thankfully all these previous deficencies are addressed in the new film.
i had my doubts before, but after finally breaking down and reading the script, i think the character has finally gotten a film commensurate to his appeal.
i'll be looking forward to seeing Eberts take on it.