Remembering Tim Burton's 'Batman' Films

Before Christopher Nolan's acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy, before Joel Schumachers Bat-nipple craze, Tim Burton was the man in charge of the Batman film franchise. While his films are sometimes overlooked in favour of some of the more modern incarnations of the character, I feel like it's very important to highlight just how brilliant these films were. The first of these, Batman, was released in 1989 and was followed by a sequel, Batman Returns, three years later. The films came at a time when Batman comics were getting darker, from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, to Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, Batman was no longer the campy caped crusader of the 1960's. Naturally because of this Burton's films were quite dark as well, maybe not so much by today's standards, but in comparison to other superhero films that came before such as Richard Donner's Superman, these were much darker films. It was because of this that Burton never got to make his third Batman film, his vision was seen as too dark and unsuitable for younger audiences. Burton then left the franchise, Joel Schumacher took over, and the rest is Bat-history. While his run on the franchise was cut short, Burton's Batman films are by far some of the best, in some aspects even better than Nolan's. Here are some reasons why his films deserve to be better remembered.

The Visuals

Tim Burton is a director known for his unique visual style, and his Batman films are the perfect representation of this. Burton put the goth in Gotham City, his version of Batman's hometown is a sprawling, dark metropolis that looks like a hybrid of noir cinema and the German expressionist movement. Full of pointed skyscrapers, gothic cathedrals, and dark alleyways, this version of Gotham was the perfect playground for a darker incarnation of Batman. This version of Gotham felt otherworldly almost, it didn't look like a normal city but rather something taken straight out of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It really made the films feel like comic book films and made them stand out from other similar films. Along with this, the costumes also enhanced this otherworldly, gothic atmosphere in Burton's films. From Penguin's black top hat and suit, to Catwoman's stitched-up, black leather jumpsuit, these were darker incarnations of familiar characters. The costumes helped these characters fit into this gothic landscape and set them apart from previous incarnations. My only criticism of the production design is in Batman Returns and the fact that it was a closed set. The city feels much smaller and much more confined in the second film, and it feels like we're visiting the same locations again and again, almost like a play. Despite this, however, it's still a beautiful looking set.

The Love Interests

One of the biggest issues with modern superhero films is the treatment of the love interest. Normally, they are reduced to underdeveloped, supporting characters, who seem to be there for the sole purpose of being a love interest and nothing more. Most of the time they are stripped of any depth or personality, being left as one-dimensional characters. However, the love interests in Burton's films are treated a little differently. In the first film, Kim Basinger takes on the role of resident reporter Vicki Vale, the love interest of the piece. Vale is front and center for a considerable part of the film and her relationship with Bruce Wayne is a major part of the story. While she is still a damsel in distress type character, at least she is a damsel in distress with a bit of character development. However, the second film is where we see Burton really make use of the love interest character. In Batman Returns, Michelle Pfeiffer takes on the role of Selina Kyle aka Catwoman. This is as much her film as it is Batman's, and we watch her develop from meek secretary into the vivacious criminal Catwoman. Pfeiffer is phenomenal in the role and to me, is the definitive portrayal of the character, but along with this, her character is given depth. It's not just about Catwoman, but also about Selina Kyle, her feminine liberation, and her relationship with Bruce Wayne. The fact that they both struggle with that sense of duality makes for a really interesting story arc and allows for a much more layered incarnation of Catwoman.

The Villains

Of course, no hero is complete without their villain, and Burton brought some of Batman's greatest rogues to life in both of his films. First of all there was The Joker, portrayed superbly by veteran actor Jack Nicholson. Nicholson brings that signature craziness and applies it to the character to make for a charming, yet terrifying bad guy and the perfect match for Batman. Unlike other incarnations of the character, this version of The Joker has a definite backstory that ties into Batman's past as well. While it does take away that some of that sense of mystery from the character, it allows for a more layered villain with a closer tie to Batman. Three years later, Batman Returns gave us The Penguin, played by Danny DeVito. This version of the character was a lot different from previous incarnations, instead of the gentleman of crime, he was a deformed man who lived in the Gotham sewers where he was raised by penguins from the zoo. This was a much darker and almost disturbing version of the character, he was foul-mouthed, filthy, yet he was also sympathetic to a certain extent. He was a man abandoned at birth who had been rejected by society his entire life, at times you couldn't help feel sorry for the guy. The villains of Burton's films received a considerable amount of development each, and we watch both their stories and Batman's stories play out simultaneously, almost like in Michael Mann's Heat. Burton understood how integral the villains were to these stories and provided a number of terrifying, yet layered characters for Batman to face off against. It's another thing many modern superhero films tend to neglect and it's something I think that they could take note of.

Batman Himself

Michael Keaton's Batman wasn't exactly well received upon his announcement, mainly because he was a comedic actor whose physique didn't exactly resemble that of Batman from the comics. It's an understandable criticism to be fair, but regardless, Michael Keaton delivered in a brilliant performance as the caped crusader. Of course, Batman is a dual performance at the end of the day and Keaton was fantastic as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. As Bruce, he was a very troubled individual who always seemed distracted, like his mind was elsewhere. You can tell that he is a character still haunted by his parents death and that it is still the primary motivation for his vigilantism. As Batman however, he is very different. Keaton's Batman is almost like an urban myth, a boogie man who is feared by the criminals of Gotham city. At the beginning of the first film we see two criminals discuss him as though he is some sort of supernatural being, he is an enigma as opposed to just a vigilante. While he may not be the muscle-bound Bat from the comics, Keaton's Batman uses other techniques to overcome his adversaries. He puts to use a wide variety of gadgets and 'toys' to outsmart other criminals as opposed to just beating them down. He is tactical and theatrical, almost as if every night of crime fighting is a performance. While he may seem a bit dated by today's standards, particularly during combat sequences, Keaton's Batman made for a much darker onscreen version of the character and set the standard for Batmen that followed. As Bruce, he was troubled and vulnerable almost, but as Batman he was incredibly formidable.

Also, as a side note, can we take a moment to appreciate Danny Elfman's iconic score?

It is clear that there are a lot of things that modern superhero films can learn from Burton's Batman franchise. First of all, all of the major characters receive an equal amount of development. Not just the protagonist, but the love interest and the antagonists are all layered characters with as much significance to the plot as the eponymous hero. Along with that, they have a distinctly unique visual style that set them apart from other superhero films. Burton's Batman films are easily distinguishable from other ones and set in stone that dark environment for him to inhabit. I would also like to point out that, despite one Crime Alley flashback, neither of Burton's films are Batman origin stories so that's another thing that modern superhero films can learn from. It is now evident why Burton's Batman films are so important and what the superhero genre can learn from them today. They got a lot of things right that some superhero film still fail to do.

'The Mummy' (2017) Review

In 1931, Universal Studios launched an incredibly successful chain of monster movies beginning with Dracula and Frankenstein. The latter begins with a famous scene in which actor Edward Van Sloan appears onstage to warn the audience of the terrors to come. 'I think it will thrill you' he announces, 'it may shock you, it might even horrify you.' Well, the same can be said for Universal's latest attempt to revamp their monster movies, The Mummy, only not for all the right reasons. While the film does have some mild thrills, I was more shocked by its treatment of the titular character, and horrified at it's terrible script. Set to kick off the Dark Universe franchise, the film follows ancient Egyptian priestess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) who rises from the dead in the 21st century and attempts to resurrect an evil god of death. While it has some enjoyable moments, overall the film is a straight out mess.

Tom Cruise stars as Ethan Hu- I mean, Nick Morton, a soldier turned treasure hunter who uncovers Ahmanet's tomb. Morton is that same old loveable rogue that Cruise has played time and time again, only this time he didn't seem so loveable. This is the main protagonist after all, a character we're supposed to root for, but instead he spends the whole film looking confused, being downright arrogant, and of course, running. He has a few comedic moments, but overall I would have rather seen him being eaten by flesh eating scarabs or something actually exciting. To make matters worse, his chemistry with female lead Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) is virtually nonexistent. One of the things that the film actually does get right is to give the 'love interest' some sort of development, and I actually did enjoy Wallis' performance and her character overall. However, there is little chemistry between her and Cruise aside from a few flirtations early on, and this really takes away any impactful emotions from the films climax. Of course, I thought at least Russell Crowe could save this film as Dr. Henry Jekyll and his villainous counterpart Edward Hyde, but oh was I wrong. Crowe's Hyde persona is literally him doing a Danny Dyer impression with a bit of CGI to change his eye colours and add veins to his face. However, I'm still convinced that with a better script and better direction, Crowe could still pull off a better iteration of this character.

Then of course, there's the eponymous Mummy herself Ahmanet, played by Kingsman star Sofia Boutella. Boutella does the best with what she's given, unfortunately what she's given is not that much. That's right, in her own bloody film the mummy is reduced to a mere supporting role who spends the whole film chasing Tom Cruise like an obsessive fan girl. This is not Boutella's fault however, and there are some moments where she is truly menacing, especially in the films first act. However, from the moment she is chained up in the underground headquarters of Prodigium (don't ask), it's hard to see her as anything but a supporting character in The Tom Cruise Show. Ahmanet had so much potential as a character, but if I'm brutally honest, those in charge had so little respect for her. If you look at Universal's classic monster movies, the monster is generally front and center for most of the film. They are intimidating and have this constantly menacing presence that leaves an impact on the audience. Karloff's original mummy Imhotep had this, even Arnold Vosloo's iteration of the character in the 1999 version of The Mummy had this, but unfortunately poor Ahmanet is deprived of this. She is not treated with the respect that she is more than deservant of. Hopefully if a sequel ever materialises she will get better treatment, but as of now she is just wasted potential.

The worst thing about this film, and for me, the thing that drags it down most is its terrible script. It's hard to believe that it took six writers altogether, between the screenplay and the overall story, to come up with such an awful script. The worst thing about it is the consistent and excessive exposition throughout the film. The convoluted story is explained more than once, practically drilled into our heads, and it feels like every time a character goes to do something, they have to announce what they're doing. For example, during the plane crash scene where Nick searches frantically for a parachute he keeps shouting 'parachute! parachute!' For god's sake man, we know what you're looking for, you don't have to keep telling us. There's nothing more frustrating than a film that underestimates its audiences intelligence, this film may as well have been made for three year olds, only even they would still feel insulted. Along with that, there's nothing really new here and the entire film just feels like a mash up of various other films. From previous mummy movies, to Mission Impossible films, even An American Werewolf in London (you'll see), it feels like a variety of much better films all rolled into one to create something just awful. It tries to balance too many themes and ideas that it just feels like one big mess and really brings the film down upon itself.

Which leads me to the films tonal inconsistency. The Mummy never really knows what it is, one minute it tries to be a horror, the next it tries to do action, one minute it takes itself seriously, the next it throws in some comedic one-liners. For me, the film does best when it tries to be scary and there are some really enjoyable scenes near the beginning where the film genuinely feels like a mummy movie. Ahmanet roaming the gloomy countryside with her undead minions, that's what we're here to see, that's what works. However, as soon as monster-hunting organisation Prodigium are introduced in an effort to expand this shared universe, the film just goes completely off the rails. Along with this, the film quickly veers away from horror to action, which could have worked in the way the Brendan Fraiser films did, but unfortunately the action just isn't that good. Sure, the plane sequence is thrilling enough, but after that there's practically nothing, a bit of running, a bit of swimming, it all feels very mundane after a while. While there are some admittedly humourous moments, a lot of them feel extremely out of place at times. The worst is by far one of Cruises one-liners at the end where he says something along the lines of 'you're just not my type', and that was the final nail in the sarcophagus for me. The Mummy works best when it tries to be just that, a mummy movie. If it stuck to its horror roots and refrained from introducing this shared universe it would have been a lot more enjoyable, but unfortunately it didn't.

Overall, The Mummy is a huge disappointment and a terrible start to Universal's Dark Universe. The poor script, inconsistent tone, and general treatment of the titular antagonist really hold the film back from doing anything spectacular. While there are some funny moments, both intentional and unintentional, along with some exciting scenes, overall the film is just a mess and a blatant attempt to follow the success that Marvel have experienced with the MCU. The Mummy had the potential to do something great, to reimagine this classic movie monster for a new generation of horror fans to issue in a new era of terror. Unfortunately, it veers too far away from its horror routes and instead opts for a below average action flick with as much exposition as there is CGI. This new version of The Mummy is bad enough to make even Imhotep turn in his tomb.

'Wonder Woman' Review

It's safe to say that the DC Extended Universe got off to a bit of a rocky start in comparison to its Marvel competitors. From the largely forgettable Man of Steel, to the polarising Batman v Superman, to the purely awful Suicide Squad, fans were beginning to lose hope in the franchise. However, I am happy to report that Wonder Woman marks a turning point for the franchise, making for an exciting and enthralling female-led action flick. Directed by Patty Jenkins, the film stars Gal Gadot, reprising her role as the eponymous Amazon as she sets off from her home world of Themyscira for the very first time during the First World War.

It's hard to believe that this is only the second feature film directed by Patty Jenkins as her direction is akin to that of someone who has made a vast number of films. Her skills are masterful and she brings to life these excellent action sequences throughout the film. There is a battle scene on a beach near the beginning of the film that feels like something right out of one of Homer's epic poems, and Jenkins manages to transport us right into the battlefield making for an engaging experience. Unfortunately, some of the later action sequences are bogged down a bit by excessive CGI and there are a few Zack Snyder-isms that contrast the films overall tone. The final act feels feels like a totally different film altogether due to its CGI-heavy boss battle, but sure look, at least it wasn't another beam-shooting-into-the-sky climax thank god. Regardless, Jenkins' directorial skills still hold up and, along with her fantastic production team, she manages to bring to life these wonderful locations. The island of Themyscira is a beautiful setting, blending these natural locations with CGI really works here to create this entirely otherworldly environment. Jenkins also brings to life familiar locations as well such as war-torn Belgium, London, and the Ottoman Empire, putting her own spin on each of them so that they all feel entirely new. Let's hope she comes back for the sequel.

Once again, Gal Gadot shines as Princess Diana, giving a charming and layered performance throughout. Her character is initially a fish out of water, experiencing our world for the very first time, Gadot brings a sense of innocence and curiosity to the character while also posing questions about various aspects of society during the First World War. However, she is also an optimistic character who is experiencing war for the first time, and watching her develop due to the horrors of war is a fascinating experience. Chris Pine takes on the role of Steve Trevor, a US intelligence agent and Diana's love interest. He brings his signature charismatic wit to the character and shares excellent chemistry with Gadot, if only all comic book movie love interests were treated so fairly. Other highlights include Danny Huston and Elena Anaya as the villainous General Ludendorff and Dr. Poison respectively, they felt like characters ripped straight from a cartoon and shared an interesting dynamic onscreen. There is one scene in particularly where they both give a villainous laugh after gassing a room full of generals which truly embodied that sense of comic book corniness brought in for good measure. David Thewlis also gives a strong performance, however I feel like his character was somewhat underused, perhaps we haven't seen the last of him.

In a world where superhero films are yearning to be more dark and nihilistic, Wonder Woman opts to take a different route, taking pages from Richard Donner's Superman as opposed to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. This was a refreshing change to the usual gloominess found in the DCEU and pits Diana as a symbol of hope instead of a symbol of fear. While the film does display the sheer horrors of war and looks at the dark side of humanity, it also looks at hope and how it can always be found amidst the darkness. Diana is this character who wants to save everybody, and when she realises that she can't, she finds herself questioning everything she believed about humanity. However, instead of turning her back on humanity because of its flaws, she accepts them and aims to bring hope to the people who need it most. It has surprisingly strong themes for a summer blockbuster film, looking at female empowerment, the horrors of warfare, and of course, love. Instead of embracing the darkness, Wonder Woman opposes it and becomes humanities beacon of hope, which was a refreshing change for the superhero genre.

With excellent direction, strong performances, and a thought-provoking story, Wonder Woman brings DC back to form. While it does suffer from a few of the usual pitfalls such as excessive CGI and an underdeveloped villain, it manages to overcome these and shine through strong. It's an interesting period piece that brings a powerful female to a world where females had little power, and seeing her oppose these social constructs in the name of doing what's right is a true pleasure to watch. Not only is this the film that DC desperately needed, but also what the superhero genre as a whole needed as well, and I sincerely hope that it will inspire more female-led superhero films in the future. Wonder Woman is a breath of fresh air for the genre, and I one can only pray that DC are taking note if they want continued success in the future.

The Forgotten Masterpiece That is 'Lisa and the Devil'

Before Dario Argento spooked the world with Suspiria, before Lucio Fulci unleashed hell in The Beyond, there was Mario Bava. The renowned Italian filmmaker known primarily for his horror films has influenced a variety of filmmakers both in his native country and across the Atlantic in America. Ranging from suspensful giallo flicks to more supernatural ghost stories, Bava's extensive filmography has become greatly celebrated in the horror community. While there has been countless amounts of praise for his films such as A Bay of Blood and Black Sunday, one of his more forgotten films is the polarizing Lisa and the Devil. One of Bava's more surreal films, Lisa and the Devil borrows aspects from a variety of different horror subgenres, while at the same time transcending them all. The film begins straightforward enough, with a young tourist named Lisa (Elke Sommer) getting lost in the Spanish city of Toledo and winding up at an old villa where nothing is as it seems. While the premise sounds simple enough, Lisa and the Devil is anything but.

Lisa and the Devil was a sort of passion project of Bava's and in 1973, he finally found the means to make the film with little studio interference. Producer Alfredo Leone gave Bava complete creative control over the film, allowing him to bring to life his dream. That's essentially what watching Lisa and the Devil feels like, a dream. From the moment Lisa finds herself lost in the ancient city of Toledo, we feel as though we are being dragged down the rabbit hole into Bava's nightmarish wonderland, but that's just the beginning. The more Bava's dark tale unravels, the more dreamlike this world begins to feel, and by the time it all comes to a close we are left to interpret what exactly just happened. Essentially, the film sees Lisa arrive at this old gothic villa where she meets the Countess (Alida Valli), her son Maximillian (Alessio Orano), and their enigmatic butler Leandro (Telly Savalas). Maximillian soon begins to mistake Lisa for his old lover Elena, believing she is a reincarnated version of her. For a while things are pretty straightforward, Lisa gets stranded at the villa, a few people die, and it looks as though the film will take a similar route to The Mummy with Maximillian using Lisa to resurrect his dead lover. However, the appearance of a mysterious mustachioed man and the enigmatic motives of the butler Leandro lead this film down a very little route.

Still with me? Grand. So what makes this film so great you ask? Well, first of all, the atmosphere. As Bava has frequently demonstrated, he is a master of creating atmosphere. This is first evident here when Lisa finds herself lost in Toledo, strolling hopelessly through its ancient streets. The entire sequence feels incredibly unsettling, despite the fact that it is set during the day. The sense of isolation that constantly follows Lisa as she attempts to find her way out of the old city is highly unsettling, and there is this consistent sense of hopelessness as she struggles to find her way back. This was an excellent way for Bava to open the film as, not only does the atmosphere grab the audiences attention, but it also acts as the transition from our world into Bava's dream world. Lisa even passes through a small doorway leading into the backstreets of Toldeo in a scene very reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. The suspense is consistent throughout, and pays off wonderfully during some of the films death scenes where Bava harks back to his earlier giallo films. One of the most memorable is the scene where Maximillian murders one of the other characters by caving their face in. Bava shoots this sequence from the floor, and we watch as the screen fills up with the victims blood as his head is smashed, it's one of the films most grizzly yet rewarding moments. This is by far Bava's most atmospheric film, and it's only enhanced by the sense of mystery surrounding the character of Leandro.

This brings me to the most interesting aspect of the film, Leandro, or the eponymous devil. Played by Telly Savalas, aka T.V. detective Kojak, Leandro is the true highlight of the film and is the focal point of all its mystery. While he is not a central character, Leandro is an ever present force through out who is with Lisa from the beginning right until the end. Throughout the film, we see him wander through the villa carrying out strange tasks involving mannequins, however his motives are generally kept secret. While it's never explicitly stated, the general consensus among critics is that Leandro is the devil, this is hinted at in the beginning where Lisa draws comparisons between him and a painting of the devil she saw in Toledo. While this is not built upon much throughout the film, there are a number of moments that reinforce this idea. Throughout the film we see Leandro interact with these mannequins that resemble the characters, at one point we even see him use the mannequin of the countess to trick her son into thinking she had returned from the dead. Many believe that the mannequins represent the films characters and how Leandro, as the devil, is capable of manipulating and controlling them. The ending almost confirms this theory, as Lisa boards her plane home to safety she realises that things are far from over as the pilot reveals himself to be..you guessed it, Leandro.

Many believe that Leandro was behind everything all along, manipulating the characters into repeating their ill-fated lives over and over again, the fact that he repairs one of the dead characters mannequins reinforces this idea. So while we've been watching Lisa on her dreamlike journey, in reality Leandro was the central character acting as puppet master to the rest of the characters inside some twisted version of purgatory. By the time the credits begin to roll, we are left to reflect on what we have just watched. Was the film a dream? Were Lisa and the other characters dead all along? Was Leandro the devil? Unfortunately, we have never gotten any decisive answer for reasons I will address soon, but that sense of uncertainty is part of the beauty of this film. Right from the get go Bava presents us with a very unconventional film, it's a surreal tale immersed in mystery and uncertainty. For Bava to present us with a conventional ending would have taken away from the films mystery, it would have been out of place, if he wanted to give us a straightforward ending he would have told a straightforward story. Instead we are left to ponder the films events, and for me that is the real beauty of Lisa and the Devil, it presents you with all these different pieces and leaves you to piece the puzzle together.

So why isn't the film so widely talked about in comparison to some of Bava's more conventional horror films? Well, upon its original release, Lisa and the Devil was a commercial flop and only received a limited release over in the US, this prompted producer Alfredo Leone to make some changes to the film. Leone convinced Bava to alter the film into copycat of sorts of The Exorcist in order to cash in on the latters success. New footage was shot, old footage was cut, and the entire plot was changed into an exorcism story, much to Bava's disappointment. Bava eventually left the film entirely which was eventually released under the name The House of Exorcism. While I have not seen this version of the film, the reviews are less than favourable. Bava's passion project faded into obscurity with few being aware of Lisa and the Devil's existence, then in 1980, Bava unfortunately passed away. Three years later however, Lisa and the Devil resurfaced for a whole new generation to discover as it was finally released in its full version. Bava's passion project was saved, but unfortunately he never lived to see its return.

It's an upsetting thought that Mario Bava died thinking that the film was a failure, the fact that it was supposedly his most personal film makes it all the more unfortunate. However, Bava's legacy lives on, and Lisa and the Devil has gained an immense cult following over the years. It is an interesting film that disregards the idea of a conventional narrative in a way that not a lot of horror films did at the time. While it does present itself initially as a straightforward story, Bava constructs a complex, dreamlike narrative that leaves many things up for interpretation. It is a film oozing with atmosphere, soaked in blood, and full of twists and turns. On top of all that, Telly Savalas' devilishly camp performance as Leandro may just be one of the greatest onscreen versions of the devil I've ever seen. So if you're a fan of horror and are looking for something different, something that will chill you to the bone, something that will leave you pondering for days on end, then I highly recommend Lisa and the Devil.