Down And Out In Gotham
Town- “Batman” (1989)-A Film Review
DVD Review
By Phil Larkin
Batman, starring Jack
Nicholson, Michael Keaton, Kim Basinger, 1989
WTF. Yeah WFT I am still
standing although for the life of me I don’t why after the screed I ran through
in the last film review I did if you could call it that Marvel Comics’ The Avengers. WTF too that I am still
doing kids’ silly super-hero comic book airheads turned to the multi-plex
screens all because everybody, boy or girl from the look of things, between the
age of a about eight to twenty-one no longer can sit through the twenty minutes
it takes to read a comic book. Said kids will only sit through a couple of
hours of swill, as long as the dialogue doesn’t exceed short sentences and
grunts, there is kick-ass action every thirty seconds for no apparent reason,
and there is an ample supply of vat- tubbed butter-drenched popcorn and
gigantic refillable soda cups.
Although you and I both know
if you have been following this race to the bottom of filmdom being forced on
me with this brainless twit stuff that this is the first stages of a purge by
the recently installed new leadership which seems to be making every effort to
get rid of the old writers who held this operation together in the days when
the assuredly purged, don’t believe that voluntary retirement stuff, Allan
Jackson (aka Peter Paul Markin on this site) was made to fall on his sword. We
who voted for his retention, meaning against the installation of the new pope
Greg Green and his flunky Ed Board, are expected to follow suit. And assuredly
as well the quickest way to get rid of senior writers is to give them
assignments picking up the popcorn tubs and soda cups after a bunch of lazy
kids who won’t read.
Here is the latest Greg
Green has ordered me put on “probation” and hence this disciplinary assignment
from hell (yeah, yeah through the Ed
Board but even those know nothing eight to twenty-one year olds know this has
the earmarks of the “boss” making the decision and not some hireling nonsense).
The reason? Well off that last review if not the first one there are a million
possibilities. Start off with my WFT that might offend those eight to twenty
year olds who emphatically don’t read much less review screed-like film review.
Even there PG parents don’t care as long as they don’t hear their precious
Jills and Johnnies don’t use that language around the house. How very liberal.
But strangely, or maybe not so strangely since “teacher’s pet” Kenny Jacobs
mimicking me started using salty language that is not the reason. Although
given this new crew’s kind of left-handed way of doing things since Allan’s
purge now that they have wind in their sails that could be the disguised
reason. Probably not though since in some weird modern let’s be hip and let
everything but the very worse language slide through they are catering to that
younger crowd which see the whole thing as picturesque. How very liberal.
You might think that
daring them to print the damn review after skewering not only the film’s
reasons for existence but basely calling the whole thing an empty shell would
be the reason. After all a bad review, which by the way Alan Jackson cared less
about which way the review went as long as it was well-written and less than
three thousand words (so he didn’t have to pay a premium bonus number of words
in cyberspace being meaningless). This crew from what I have heard in order to
grab some extra revenue is taking “advertisements” from the movie companies in
this space. And the surest way to lose such lucrative emoluments is to have one
of your writers declare their whole operation a house of cards However Greg
mentioned to I think Lance Lawrence that these modern day studios still work on
the old premise that the only bad publicity is no publicity.
You might, and again be
wrong, that skewering the characters and their personal identities would draw
the line and put me beyond the pale. Calling patriotic Captain America a brawny
brainless twit who would be hard-pressed to figure out how to use a spoon if he
ever had occasion to use one. Ditto the Hulk except dumber when he goes off the
deep end and turns into a green balloon-ish cretin. Calling beautiful Thor a
wooden head, as wooden as those Valhalla Viking ships that faded from history
fast. Sorrowfully calling Black Widow nothing but a commie bitch, eye candy for
the jet set, and not to be trusted under any circumstances. Mutants, social
misfits and rogues all. Even the brainy Ironman who in the end didn’t want to
play ball, got all crazy and stuff.
No, the reason if you
can believe this that I am on “probation’ is that as has been standard policy
at this site since the old days when Sam Lowell, now really retirement but of
late muzzled, ruled the roost as official Senior film critic, a title now abolished
in the new ‘democratic’ era I did not give an adequate plot-line summary. What?
What plot beyond kick-ass bad guys every thirty seconds in between gulps of
soda or throated popcorn for the audience and don’t get any scratches on the
uniforms or one’s person. Does it matter if the “enemy” is Hydra or Thor’s
aunt? No, I think not and so there is the very real substance to my feeling
that my days in this space are numbered. Once they say they have a pressing
assignment for me out with the exiled Allan Jackson out in Utah I can kiss my
ass good-bye.
That brings to the
so-called plot-line of this Batman film from 1989. I am doomed anyway so once
again I will say –what plot. Batman, played by mild-mannered Michael Keaton in
between bouts of going under the Wayne mansion downy billow beds with
investigative reporter Kim Basinger has a run-in or seven with the Joker,
played by living maniac Jack Nicholson, who got caught short in an acid vat
after killing his mobster boss. In the end, ho-hum, the Joker takes the big
fall, takes the trip six feet under. Any more plot-line summary than that Greg Green
can sue me. Enough said.
No comments:
Post a Comment