Change Your Image
Gordon-38
Reviews
Jurassic Park III (2001)
The Dictionary Definition of "Unnecessary Sequel"
I suppose "Jurassic Park III" is useful for one thing: it demonstrates that Steven Spielberg phoning it in is still better than Joe Johnston giving it his all. Even the mediocre-at-best "The Lost World" is better than this thing.
Sure, the dinosaurs look great - one might go so far as to say that they look better than ever. And some of the action set pieces are pretty fun, though none of them come even close to the first T-Rex attack or the climactic Raptor chase in the original "Jurassic Park."
But the film cannot overcome its own flaws. I'll be the first to tell you that the Spinosaurus is a wicked-cool dinosaur. But there's not even the slightest attempt to explain why this beast, apparently bigger and badder than T-Rex, pops up in the third installment without having appeared or even so much as having been mentioned in either of the first two.
That sort of sums up the fatal flaw of the entire film: it's pointless. Nothing is ever adequately explained. None of the characters, even the venerable Dr. Grant, is given anything interesting to say or do.
A note for the writers and director Johnston: Pay attention, as you seem to have missed some important lessons in drama class. A standard story structure for a film such as this would be: Rising action, climax, falling action, roll end credits. The path you've chosen instead: rising action, roll end credits. Additionally (MINOR MAYBE SPOILER UPCOMING), well...let's just say that the deus ex machina plot resolution is weak at best. I'd really like to learn more about the digestive system of a spinosaurus, though, since apparently a sattelite phone can pass through it unharmed. (END SPOILER, THANKS)
So...my reccomendation? Dust off your VHS or DVD of the original "Jurassic Park" to get a dinosaur fix. If you're headed to the the theater, go for "Planet of the Apes" instead.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
If You're Remaking Classics, Here's How to Do It
Tim Burton has the right idea here. This isn't just "let's shoot the same movie all over again with different actors", it's actually a fairly different take on the same material. The basic concept remains the same, but it's most definitely a different movie.
One of the most noticeable differences is in the apes themselves. They're a great deal more bestial, athletic and...well, ape-like than their 1968 counterparts. Charlton Heston was threatened by the apes because they had guns. Mark Wahlberg is threatened by the apes because they are, as one might rightly expect, much more than a physical match for a human. I did miss the caste system that ruled the simian society in the original, but that probably has more to do with the script overall being much less allegorical than Rod Serling's 1968 screenplay.
Mark Wahlberg is an appealing enough hero, though there's not really much of a character to play. Tim Roth is, as always, a terrific villain and probably the most convincing of any of the apes.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A.I. = Actual Intelligence
I have no problem with summertime popcorn movies, and I've thoroughly enjoyed an awful lot of them. But it is a nice change to go into a theater in late June and see a smart, challenging film.
Is it flawless? No. But is there enough good stuff in the movie to overcome the flaws? Without a doubt. The visuals are striking - much of what was on-screen was futuristic and familiar all at once. The story is compelling, because it boils down to something everyone can understand: a quest for personal identity rising out of a desire to be loved. The performances are spectacular - I don't know if anyone has ever had two Oscar nominations by the age of 13, but Haley Joel Osment could certainly achieve such a feat.
The Kubrickian qualities of the movie will make it stand out among Steven Spielberg's filmography, no doubt. But I got the sense that, had Stanley Kubrick lived to make this movie himself, it would have had a Spielbergian quality that would have made it stand out equally from his.
Hopefully, the appeal of a movie that does not offer a pat heroes-vs.-villains story will not be lost on moviegoers...but my hopes aren't high. Most of this movie is, well, a little much for typical folks who thought "Pearl Harbor" was a great movie.
Shrek (2001)
Goofy Fun
"Shrek" is a goofy movie. In this case, of course, goofy is exactly what they were aiming for (as opposed to something like oh, say, "Pearl Harbor" where the goofiness is completely unintentional). It's clever, it's entertaining, and there's always something interesting to look at on the screen.
The voice-over work from Mike Myers, John Lithgow and most especially Eddie Murphy is fantastic - it seems that they really enjoyed their work on this movie. Cameron Diaz does fine work, as well, though not as noticable since, like most fairy-tale princesses, she's not really given too much to do.
It's an interesting story, because it both sticks like glue to fairy tale conventions, and turns the fairy tale genre on its ear; sort of like Sondheim's "Into the Woods", only more fun.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Better than "Armageddon", I guess...
Michael Bay is a filmmaker whose ineptitude knows no bounds. It's really astounding to me that a guy of such limited ability gets these huge budgets and choice summertime opening weekends.
With "Pearl Harbor", he has once again employed his standard bag of tricks - lots of noise and plenty of special effects in place of any substance, jingoistic patriotism in place of any meaning. Of course, this is what a vast portion of the movie-going public loves, so I guess his budgets shouldn't be surprising at all.
To call this movie a comic-book version of the early days of World War II would be insulting to the comic book medium. The intent is for "Pearl Harbor" to be a "Titanic"-style tragic love story. The flaw with this plan is that it's built on characters whose only distinguishing characteristics are their names. I never got a chance to care about which of the two flyboys the nurse would choose - the phrase "love triangle" applied to the movie is accurate in that it's two-dimensional like a triangle, inaccurate in that I didn't ever get a sense of the characters being in love.
The centerpiece of the film is, of course, the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor. Bay's staging of the event has at least one merit: it reminds us of the brilliance of Steven Spielberg's D-Day invasion sequence in "Saving Private Ryan" by being so limp in comparison. Where Spielberg was able to introduce method and meaning to the madness of his battle scenes, Bay merely gives us dozens upon dozens of explosions, and shot after shot of Japanese planes firing their torpedos. What could have and should have been a memorable, virtuoso Hollywood battle scene instead winds up playing like it was put together with stock footage.
Blame for the picture's stupidity can't rest entirely on Bay's shoulders, of course. The writer, Randall Wallace, must take his lumps as well. Not only is every twist and turn of the plot as predictable as the sun rising in the east, the dialogue is as bad as in any movie you'll see this year. When the invasion begins, one character brilliantly explains, "I think World War II just started." I wish I had the space to go into detail about how and why that line is one of the most idiotic lines in any film ever, but I shall spare you that particular rant. Desperately trying to show that the Japanese are not just the stock villains of War-era movie serials, he gives us the sad and wise Japanese admiral with fortune-cookie dialogue such as "A truly brilliant man would find a way to avoid war" and "I fear we have done nothing more than awaken a sleeping giant" (which serves the dual purpose of making the Japanese Admiral sad and wise and also reminds the audience that the USA is going to go kick some Japanese booty and get revenge!).
It makes me kind of sad how many people are going to swallow this tripe, go back for seconds and thirds and rave about what a great movie it is. My advice? For less than the price of a matinee admission to "Pearl Harbor" you can go to your local video store, rent "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" and get much better films covering the same events.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Well...it was noisy and there were lots of monsters.
I wasn't bored watching "The Mummy Returns", which is about all I can say for it. The problem was that I was never really involved, excited or interested. Brendan Fraser maintains his vague, undefinable, barely-there charisma. Rachel Weisz is still kinda-sorta-attractive-but-not-really and her acting hasn't improved any. The little kid is, like most little kids in the movies, roughly 7,000 times smarter than any of the adults in the picture, far too smart to really be 8 years old, full of "hilarious" wisecracks, and massively annoying.
The ultimate problem, though, is that it doesn't really succeed as a summertime special effects movie - it doesn't contain a single FX shot that made me sit up and take notice. Granted, this is becoming harder and harder to do, but "The Mummy Returns" didn't even try. They just had all the same effects from the first movie, except more of them.
But there were some swordfights, lots of shootouts, plenty of monsters, and the volume was turned way, way up. Also, the popcorn was pretty tasty, the root beer was okay...and I didn't fall asleep once during the movie. So...I guess...that's a plus. Of sorts.
Wo hu cang long (2000)
A Very Strange Movie
Not strange in a bad way, mind you - strange in that it defies classification. I went into the movie expecting more of a standard over-the-top kung fu flick that legions of comic book dorks would go see and congratulate themselves for seeing a subtitled movie, much as they did for seeing something "deep" like "The Matrix" a couple years back.
I was pleasantly surprised to find a more complex story and richer characters than I was expecting. Not exactly a film that scholars will be discussing and writing about for years - but there's certainly more going on here than the simple good-vs.-evil clothesline of "The Matrix" or "Star Wars."
My only real problem - the action was difficult to follow during one key fight scene, and the much-discussed treetop fight simply looked ludicrous and unbelievable. That aside, an excellent film, very entertaining and very much worth seeing.
X-Men (2000)
Best Comic Book Movie Since "Superman"
"X-Men" does right exactly what Richard Donner's "Superman" did right. Neither film goes for camp quality, neither simply tries to put a "comic book style" movie - bright colors, large-scale sets - on the screen. While the movie does contain a lot of impressive visuals, it's doesn't focus on the visuals at the expense of everything else.
Like "Superman", "X-Men" takes time with its story and develops genuine rather than forced conflict. It isn't simply a matter of "Here's the villain, here's his master plan, now the hero fights him." While there is a villain, and there is a master plan, the actual conflict runs deeper than that.
Ultimately, the strength of both "Superman" and "X-Men" lies in the fact that the real focus lies on the characters. Just as Donner focused more on the relationships between Superman/Clark Kent and Lois Lane rather than Superman vs. Lex Luthor, director Bryan Singer focuses on the interaction between the X-Men characters. It works perfectly.
Fight Club (1999)
Why, why, why?
Yet another movie that wants you to think it's built around "BIG IMPORTANT IDEAS!" and has "SOMETHING TO SAY!"...without really having any of that. So many people watch this and talk about how it "made them think" and claptrap like that.
Here's a few of the things that "Fight Club" made me think: 1. Could the ending have been any worse? More contrived or arbitrary in any way, shape or form? (After a little more thought, I decided that the answer to these questions is no.) 2. How many more movies are we going to be subjected to that are desperate to show us how crass materialism is ruining our lives? 3. Is it possible for David Fincher to come up with yet another "Forced Super-Gloom" set design for his next movie, or has he blown his wad with "Alien 3," "Seven" and "Fight Club"?
Hey, whattayaknow, it did make me think.
The real problem with this movie is that it had a lot of promise. The concept of the Fight Club itself could have made for a much more interesting movie than the pseudo-revolutionary psychobabble garbage it became less than halfway through.
The Patriot (2000)
Best Movie of the Summer!
To call "The Patriot" director Roland Emerich's best film ever is to damn with faint praise. When all you have to compare with is tripe like "Stargate" and "Godzilla" and the entertaining-but-forgettable "Independence Day," to call it the best of the bunch is not saying much.
But "The Patriot" is, in fact, an outstanding film. All that "Gladiator" wanted to be and wasn't, "The Patriot" is. A moving, engaging story about a conflict that is worth letting yourself become involved in. Where the villain in "Gladiator" was simply weird and creepy, the villain here is truly villainous, and presents a worthy foe for the hero.
The movie finds exactly the right balance between action and emotion, owing largely to Mel Gibson (now starring in the two best movies of the summer, "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run"), Heath Ledger and the absolutely gorgeous Lisa Brennan. Great performances, great action, great story...what's not to like?
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Absorbing and entertaining, but flawed
"The Perfect Storm" is quite certainly a picture that drew me in, kept me interested and frequently caused me to hold my breath or grab the armrest on my chair. It's visually stunning - whatever special effects they use to create extreme weather have improved even in the few years since "Twister."
George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg are both excellent actors and turn in fine performances here. The rest of the cast isn't really given much to do - they sit and look anxious and scream or cry or both occasionally, but not much beyond that.
The film's biggest flaw is important but not fatal. The very chaos of a hurricane that has been so effectively recreated here has a tendency to make the action hard to follow at times, especially during the sequences involving the Coast Guard helicopter and its crew. There's no real way to tell these characters apart, and that makes it somewhat difficult to develop much interest in what happens to them. Furthermore, the Coast Guard sequences mostly just serve to intrude upon the story and characters we really care about, the Andrea Gale and her crew.
It's too bad, because the stuff aboard the swordboat is pretty good. On the whole, a strong but not outstanding film.
Chicken Run (2000)
A Classic Movie, animated or not.
I take it as proof that we are in the midst of an animation rennaisance that a "claymation" movie about barnyard fowl not only gets released by a major studio, but in the midst of the summer movie season, no less.
Sadly, mainstream moviegoers will more than likely ignore this movie. It's their loss, because it's one of the best, most entertaining movies I've seen in a long, long time.
The artistry and skill that went into this movie creates something more visually spectacular than any stunt or special effect in most summer movies.
The story is geniunely exciting and the characters are engaging. I suppose most people would feel foolish getting emotionally involved in the struggles of lumps of clay...but again, it's their loss.
The truly sad thing is that this is, above all, a great "family movie" that will get lost in the summer shuffle. A couple of moments might be unnerving for younger kids, but nothing worse than the infamous "Bambi's Mother" scene or about 75% of last summer's "Tarzan."
"Chicken Run" deserves a spot on the list of animated classics, up there with "Toy Story" and the Disney "masterpieces" (those that have earned the title rather than having it slapped on the video cover by the marketing department, that is).
Gladiator (2000)
Such a Mixed Bag
I absolutely love Ridley Scott. "Alien" and "Blade Runner" both rank among my favorite films. "Gladiator," though, just didn't work for me.
Russell Crowe is a fantastic actor, and really ought to be a big, big, big star. Unfortunately, he's not given much to do here. He fights, he broods, he whines...but he's never really forced to stretch his talents.
My main quibble, I suppose, is that the movie was clearly going for "Braveheart" effect, and it fails. It was easy to get some sympathy going for Mel Gibson's character in "Braveheart." He was fighting for freedom and justice. Sadly for "Gladiator," it's pretty hard to develop much sympathy for any particular faction within the Roman empire. Where "Braveheart" was able to give us a few effective hallucinations and dream sequences, "Gladiator" shoves it down our throat with oddly-colored, tripping-on-acid dream sequences every five minutes. Yes, we get the point. He misses his family, and he'll see them in the afterlife. Move on already!
Apart from the dream sequences, the movie does look pretty spectacular. The Colliseum is an impressive sight. The costumes, for once in a sword-and-sandal epic, don't look like the costume department simply raided the bedding department at K-Mart. And the fight scenes are, indeed, entertaining and visceral.
In the end, though, the movie is less than the sum of its parts.
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
An improvement on the first movie
As the credits rolled, my buddy turned to me and said loudly, "John Woo sucks!" I replied, "Are you kidding? That was better than the first one!" He spent the rest of the evening making snide comments about the movie and generally being baffled by the fact that anyone could even like the movie, let alone think it was an improvement on DePalma's "Mission Impossible."
I didn't have nearly as much trouble following the plot of the first movie as most people seemed to - but the sequel certainly eschews the needless complexity of the original with a fairly straightforward plot. There are some enjoyable twists and turns, but everything remains pretty clear.
The stuntwork and action set-pieces are better this time around, too. The laboratory break-in is clearly intended to top the fabulous computer vault break-in from the previous film. It doesn't quite make it, but it's still a great scene. The climactic scene is a spectacular chase with some stunts involving motorcycles that are every bit as impossible as the helicopter-in-a-tunnel bit seen in the first movie...but nowhere near as stupid.
Tom Cruise, as always, is an appealing hero. Ving Rhames is entertaining, if not given much to do. The real strength of the movie, I think, comes from having a much clearer and more well-defined villain; Dougray Scott projects menace and spits bile with the best of them. Also adding a great deal to the story is the presence of a real love interest - Thandie Newton is gorgeous, and makes a good partner with Tom Cruise.
My friend with the low opinion of John Woo just didn't care much for the style of the movie - the characteristic touches that make John Woo a recognizable director instead of a journeyman who points his camera. The slow-mo, the odd camera angles...I thought it made the whole package a lot more stylish and visually enjoyable than its entertaining but visually pedestrian predecessor.
Neither "Mission Impossible" movie works on quite the same level as the television series from which they take their name - about all they have in common is the name of the secret agency that the heroes work for and the "This message will self-destruct..." opening. But in judging the movies in their own right, they are pretty entertaining.
And John Woo doesn't suck.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
Ugh.
Okay. The accent or lack thereof doesn't bother me in the least. But come on...an American playing Robin Hood? Sort of like a Brit playing Davy Crockett, methinks.
A lot of people like to go on and on about how this is a great version of the Robin Hood story because it's "realistic" (which is a ludicrous statement in its own right, but beside the point). It's myth, people! Who wants realism in mythology? Do we need "Jason and the Argonauts" to be realistic? "A Robin Hood without tights or feathers," they say. That's exactly the problem!
Give me the gaudy technicolor dream-world of Errol Flynn's Robin Hood any day! Flynn actually has the spirit and exuberance that's traditionally associated with Robin Hood. Basil Rathbone can be a hammy, scenery-chewing villain without seeming out of place, because it fits the spirit of the movie. Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham is the only bit of "Prince of Thieves" with any life or color at all, which serves only to make him stick out like a sore thumb.
Belive me, the Errol Flynn version is the way to go.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Am I The Only One Who Hates This Movie?
Often when I get into a discussion of favorite movies with people I meet, they are astounded by the fact that I hate this movie. That I loathe and despise this movie. "How can you hate it?" they ask. "It's so inspirational!" The only thing it inspired in me was a need to vomit.
I have enjoyed much of Robin Williams' work. I have greatly enjoyed Peter Weir's work - "The Truman Show" and "Witness" are among my favorite films. But "Dead Poets Society" just bothers me. I appreciate the theme, I appreciate the idea of a teacher who inspires his students. I just can't stand being hit over the head with it every few seconds. I can't stand the plastic characters.
But what really gets to me is this - there's a strange sense of defeatism about this movie. As much as it would purport to advocate individuality, it seems to advocate the belief that individuality can only lead to ruin. Take a long look at the fate of some of the major characters and think about how much the filmmakers really believe in the positive power of unconventional thinking.
In the end, the whole thing just seems forced to me, I guess. It's like the writer decided upon Point A and Point B for his characters, and simply figured out a way to railroad them all from A to B, instead of letting anything develop naturally.
Top Secret! (1984)
The last great movie of its kind
"Top Secret!" was the last of the ZAZ/Mel Brooks "spoof" movies to really be worth much of anything, or more importantly, to be remotely funny. And it is truly funny, and earns a place not quite at but near the level of "Young Frankenstein," "Blazing Saddles" and "Airplane" (the undisputed classics of this odd mini-genre).
I get mild chuckles from the first "Naked Gun" movie. And "Spaceballs" has one classic line that makes me laugh every time I hear it - but that's the only time I laugh at the whole movie. "Hot Shots" does nothing for me. And Mel Brooks has just been churning out endless, boring dreck like "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" and "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" for many years - thank God he's apparently focused on getting "The Producers" going on Broadway so as to spare us any more awful films from a once-great writer/director.
So anyhow, "Top Secret!" sorta marks a dividing line - the last time one of these silly spoof movies was actually truly funny.
Always (1989)
Spielberg's Worst
Steven Spielberg, despite the constant whining of the naysayers, is a truly gifted filmmaker. Well, even Babe Ruth struck out from time to time. "Always" isn't just Spielberg striking out, it's Spielberg striking out looking on three straight pitches.
"The Lost World" had its moments, "Hook" had some neat visuals, "1941" is truly fascinating to watch for a variety of reasons...but "Always" just has nothing going for it. Yes, Spielberg remembered "A Guy Named Joe" affectionately from his childhood...but I remember "The Karate Kid" affectionately from my childhood, but that doesn't mean I think it needs to be remade.
Nothing really comes together for me in this movie. It's just some pretty good actors kind of wandering aimlessly through some half-connected and half-written scenes. It's almost there, but just never really works. Compare this with "1941," wherein absolutely nothing even comes close to working - but at least it's interesting to watch a film self-destruct that badly. "Always" is so amazingly bland that it doesn't even manage to generate interest on that level.
The worst part of the movie, though, is that what little emotion it generates is the worst of what Spielberg's critics accuse him of - over-sentimentalized tripe. The late-80's/early-90's, with "Always" and "Hook" represents the unquestionable low point of Spielberg's career - saccharine, melodramatic, overblown...perhaps as a reaction to poor response to the truly brilliant "Empire of the Sun," perhaps for other reasons unknown and unguessable...but it seems that Spielberg is aiming to give audiences and critics no more than they absolutely expect from him. It's unfortunate because shortly doing after these two films, Spielberg directed "Schindler's List" and moved into a period where he has shown us that he is capable so very, very much more.
If only he had applied that ability to "Always," material for which he clearly has great affection, he could have created a truly complete, emotionally moving story..."E.T." with ghosts instead of aliens...but as it stands, it's an empty shell that no one ever bothered to put nearly enough effort into.
Space Jam (1996)
So Totally, Horribly Wrong-Headed...
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: Bugs Bunny would not need ANYONE's help in defeating a bunch of goofy basketball playing aliens. Bugs Bunny could take on the entire universe with one hand behind his back and win...without Michael Jordan's help.
God, how I hate this movie. How I loathe and despise it. It somehow manages to get the spirit of the classic WB characters totally wrong with animation that lacks any of the charm and style the the classics had. It manages to spend 90 minutes making Bugs, Daffy and the rest lest interesting and less compelling than they were in a 6-minute short 50 years ago.
Michael Jordan, at the very least, is an entertaining, engaging screen presence. I can't exactly call him an "actor," as he doesn't really play a role...but he is entertaining. It's just too bad that he's surrounded by such aimless, annoying dreck.
Magnolia (1999)
Not Quite Perfect, But Worth Seeing For Sure
Paul Thomas Anderson is, if nothing else, an absolutely marvellous actor's director. He helped Mark Wahlberg and Burt Reynolds to give incredible performances in "Boogie Nights," and now does the same in "Magnolia" with a stellar ensemble. Moreover, Anderson has unquestionably improved upon himself as a director.
While I admired the performances in "Boogie Nights," I wasn't especially impressed with it - I felt it lost its way badly in the third act. Not so with "Magnolia." It held my full attention for the complete running time. The characters are so fascinating, and the actors playing them so good, that the full three hours just fly by. I've long maintained that Tom Cruise has been unfairly represented as a pretty-boy movie star without any real talent as an actor, and I feel that this movie proves that. I dare anyone to find an incomplete performance from any of the substantial cast.
A word about the obviously controversial ending - I can't quite decide whether I think it's the greatest ending ever or the worst. But it has the benefit of being unexpected and original.
Anyhow - I heartily reccomend "Magnolia" to anyone who's a fan of great actors playing great characters.
The Wrong Trousers (1993)
An All-Time Classic!
"The Wrong Trousers" is up there with the classics of comic animation - including the Holy Trinity of Chuck Jones classics, "One Froggy Evening," "What's Opera, Doc?" and "Duck Amuck". The inventiveness of it, the timing of the gags, and especially the incredible amount of character demonstrated by lumps of clay (especially Gromit and the Penguin, who have no dialogue)...it's really amazing what Nick Park has created here. "The Wrong Trousers" deserves a place in the top ten of any list of the great animated films of all time.
Election (1999)
Did someone say "Black Comedy"?
Rarely have I seen a black comedy that succeeds so completely at being both humorous and morbid - perhaps "Fargo," perhaps pieces of "Pulp Fiction." But "Election" manages a truly artful balance between the "black" and the "comedy." Although they are comical, the characters all remain believable - if you didn't know a Tracy Flick in high school, you must have gone to a pretty small school.
The thing that really impressed me about the writing, direction and acting was the character of Paul Metzler - the filmmakers, collectively, have created a much more true-to-life "High School Jock" character than what we see in most "teen movies": the self-absorbed, egotistical ass who is invariably cruel to Our Hero until he gets his comeuppance in the end. The character in "Election" is kinda dumb, but a genuinely affable guy who doesn't go out of his way to hurt people. That the filmmakers really tried to create characters rather than stereotypes is impressive.
On the whole, really nice work from all involved.
Batman: The Movie (1966)
Adam West is the King!
If you can't appreciate the sublime glory that is the 1966 version of "Batman," I pity you, brother. There's nothing quite like Adam West dashing around a pier, holding a bomb with a ridiculously long fuse, declaring, "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!" There's nothing quite like Cesar Romero's refusal to shave his moustache before putting on his Joker makeup. There's nothing like Romero and Frank Gorshin getting in a cackling contest as the Joker and the Riddler. For that matter, there's nothing like the Joker and the Penguin deciding that they need to don masks in order to commit crimes...
Comic book dorks whine and complain about the 60's-era Batman - I say that such people don't recognize how great the 60's Batman really was - the best fictional characters are the ones who can stand up through the decades to dozens of different interpretations. There's room in the world for Tim Burton's Batman, Adam West's Batman...heck, maybe even Joel Shumacher's Batman. Like "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai," "Rocky IV" or "Flash Gordon," this version of Batman is one of the great goofy pleasures of movie-watching.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Are you kidding me? Nearly as good as Raiders!
Why's everyone so down on this movie? For that matter, why does anyone in their right mind think that "Last Crusade" is better than this one? "Temple of Doom" takes Indiana Jones and puts him into a totally different scenario than what we've seen in "Raiders," and the character still works.
No, Kate Capshaw's character isn't as cool as the Karen Allen character from "Raiders," but variety is the spice of life, and just cloning "Raiders" would have been boring - as "Last Crusade" perfectly illustrates.
Man on the Moon (1999)
Very Good, But...
"Man on the Moon" is very well-made, and features some truly wonderful performances (yes, Jim Carrey lives up to the hype). I really enjoyed it a lot.
My only question, though...Would Andy Kaufman have enjoyed this movie? I doubt it. It's a highly conventional movie, totally lacking in Kaufman's flair and style - especially his way of toying with an audience's expectations about what they're going to see. The movie's opening minutes are clever, and approach a Kaufman-esque level, but just don't quite get there.
On the whole, though, quite a worthy effort from all involved.