JaAm PoWeR

I don't think Batman & Robin is a good movie. However, I don't think it's he epic disaster the general public has made it out to be. As a throwback to he camp of the Adam West Batman, the film actually somewhat succeeds with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, heck I even liked Bane as a dumb grunt. Some of the crazy action scenes such as the opening at the museum work in how ridiculous they are with the hockey goons, Freeze's space rocket, and the bad puns. In all, the camp somewhat works and the villains in this work. However, the film falters with the hero characters. Clooney looks like he's sleepwalking through this film, Chris O'Donnell as Robin is very annoying, and Batgirl feels like a last-minute inclusion. Also add that the subplot of Alfred dying, as well as the Nora Fries plot, felt very out-of-place in a film that goes for an even campier tone than Forever did. In all, when the film focuses on Freeze, Ivy, and Bane It's kinda fun. However, Batman, Robin, Batgirl, and when the film attempts to be more serious is when the film drags. I still enjoyed Goldenthal's score as well as the look of the film, I paused the film on a shot of Gotham City and it looked like a sceneic city painting, I would argue the film sometimes looks too good for a script this lame. So while Batman & Robin isn't a good film, It's hardly the worst film I've ever seen. Joel Schumacher got way too much flack for directing a mediocre Batman film in a series of mostly mediocre Batman films to the point where he felt like apologizing. I've seen dreck like Dracula 3000, Where the Dead go to Die, Caddyshack II, Lawnmower Man II, Battlefield Earth, Superman IV, Highlander: The Source, Ratatoing, Inchon, Double Dragon, The Robocop sequels, Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem, Catwoman, The Little Panda Fighter, and Birdemic. Honestly, compared to those films Batman & Robin starts to look a lot better.

The thing is that I tend to like most Tim Burton films from around this time with Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands being favorites of mine. However, I just don't like his Batman films. I know that many wish that Burton had done a third Batman film, but if Tim Burton making Ed Wood instead was the trade-off then I think it was well worth it. Batman Return's is the best of this medicore due since I found the characters of the Penguin and Catwoman to be a bit more compelling than anyone in the 1989 film since their characters have an arc as well as decent motive. Granted, Penguin's story is just that of Edward Scissorhands, but with his character being yeeted by his parents and being adopted by actual penguins (srsly), and the Catwoman's story of being ressurected via alley cats and then going on a warpath with literal 9 lives is just odd. However, I did enjoy Devito and Pfiffer's performances despite the writing being not all that great. Keaton is still "eh" as Batman fore me, he seems more comfortable as Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is even more homicidal than he was in the first film and seems to relish it at points (see the bomb scene). I almost forgot to mention Christopher Walken who, while not bad and his character is they keystone to the plot, doesn't really resonate as much as I thought he would. Also, Walken playes a character called Shrek, I'm suprise that this hasn't been memed. Again, I liked Elfman's score and the production design. However, the film looks more obviously like a set with crowds of only 20 people at most while there should be hundreds in the middle of a city giving the film an artificial feel and look. Also, the strange plot decisions with Penguin and Catwoman I mentioned earlier, as well as dumb stuff like Penguin having the designs for the Batmobile and ruuning for mayor were taken from the 1960s show, so these films that fans claim are dark and serious versions of Batman are just taking campy plots and putting some late 80s/early 90s "edge" to them (ie Penguin making vulgar jokes and biting someone's nose off). While people will likely disagree with me, Schumacher's Batman is not that far off in tone than Burton's films, his films just happen to be more open with how silly they are.

To be clear, this is a film that I enjoyed growing up and as a teen. However, as I've grown older and as I've reevaluated most films that I used to enjoy when I was younger, I find that Batman 1989, and its sequels, don't stand up to the test of time. While there are admirable aspects to these films and I appriciate that these films brought the character into the mainstream and removed the camp version of the character from the minds of the public, as well as bringing us Batman : The Animated Series, I find the Burton-Schumacher films to be wanting. Batman 1989 has a great aeshetic and production design with a Gotham City that has a grim retro look look, as well as the batsuit and batmobile from this film that even I cannot deny how iconic and influencial they have become. Danny Elfman's score is also synominous with the character and is still used today in the lego Batman games. I will even say that Jack Nicholson's Joker is spot on with his performance going from fun to creepy at the drop of a hat. What even suprised me is Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale wasn't that bad. Granted, I felt as if her and Keaton had little chemistry, which is why many have a low opinion of her performance, but she did fine for a last minute replacement. Now I hate to say it but I was never enomoured with Keaton's version of Batman. I like Michael Keaton as an actor and thought he was great in Mr. Mom, Beetlejuice, and Birdman (heck, I even liked his take on the Vulture in Spider Man). However, I just can't buy the fact that he's this man who could beat up criminals and I find that he lacks the charm Bruce Wayne should have which is why the love story falls flat, and I'm puzzled as to why people think that Keaton is the definitive Batman when I find his performance very lacking. That said, Batman himself is underdeveloped with his motive for being Batman only explored towards the end to make this film into a contrived 1980s action-revenge movie. Batman doesn't really grow or develop in this film, heck Batman is the least developed character in his own films with the Joker, Vale, and even Knox given more to do than Batman himself. Heck, before Joker 2019 people used to joke that Batman 1989 should have renamed Joker due to his character feeling more like the lead and Nicholson having top billing. Also, I know that many excuse Batman killing in this film with the fact that the internet didn't exist but if Superman 1978 managed to nail that character in that film than Batman 1989 has no excuse. And yes while Batman did kill early on, it was such a brief period of time that it would be as ridiculous as basing a wonder woman movie on the "mod" era version of the character. Other aspects are lame such as the poor, even for the time, Prince soundtrack and the action scenes being clunky at best.

Coming from me this is the definition of faint praise, but Forever is my favorite of the Burton-Schumacher quartet. Granted, there are some serious issue which I'll adress, but on the whole I kinda like this film. For a start, this film actually gives Batman / Bruce a compelling arc with his identity crises, and how that relates to Robin dealing with his want for revenge and the death of his parents. I also appriciate how this film attempts to rectify a mistake the 1989 film made in which Batman doesn't kill, and tries to tell Robin about how the road of taking one life will lead to disaster. While I'm not a huge Jim Carrey fan, I didn't mind his Riddler with his performance since he managed to balance between his manicness with a somewhat creppy undertone of being a obsessed stalker, which I don't think enough people credit that aspect of his performnce. Val Kilmer I actually prefer of Keaton's Batman since he nailed that likable playboy of Bruce Wayne with the brooding nature of Batman quite well, and honestly his performance came off as more natural. Chris O'Donnell is decent as Robin and considering that few Batman films have Robin in it, it makes for a welcome change. O'Donnell nails the 90s attitude with his want and desire for revenge, but is proabaly too old looking more around 25 than 18. I think Rider Strong would have been a better choice since he was the age Robin was around that time and is a pretty good actor. As much as people love to badmouth Joel Schumacher's direction, I think it's clear that he has a better understanding of Batman since Batman doesn't kill anyone, is the film's focus, and Forever raises and addresses interesing points of the character with his eternal struggle for justice. Also, the action scenes are more dynamic and are actually fun to watch compaired to Burton's films. Elliot Goldenthal's score, while not as iconic as Elfman's work, is still a decent listen and the production design, while overdoing the neon, still looks like Gothan City. Sadly, there are issues with this film that prevent it from being a great film. Nicole Kidman, while a good actress, has a terrible love story with Batman. Chase Meridian's scenes while Bruce and his repressed memories i find compelling, but her lust for Batman is comical even for these movie's standards. Tommy Lee Jones is suprisingly the worst aspect of this film with his performance coming off as a dollar store Joker. If Two-face was played as the straight man to Jim Carry's RIddler, I think both performances would have been better recieved since most people seem to think that Carry and Jones both act like wannabe Jokers and having two manic leads tends to be grating. I will also say that the film goes from serious to camp pretty quickly and it's pretty jarring. One example is a well acted scene between Dick Grayson and Alfred are discussing the Robin helmet and it's significance which is followed by a fun, but silly, car chase. It's kinda strange and I can see why the tone shift would be a turn off. All that being said, Forever is the one film in the Burton-Schumacher series that I don't mind giving a rewatch every once-and-a while and even with it's flaws, it's no-where near as bad as it's reputation is. Also, Tim Burton was still on as producer and gave the OK on most of the creative decisions so not only would Burton's version of Forever be not be as different from what we got, but I think Schumacher being more knowledgable about Batman lead to an overall better and more compelling film.

The first Sonic game and my personal favorite, but I'm not blinded my nostalgia. For a start, While I love playing as Sonic the rest of the playable characters are very hit and miss. Tails can be fun in that you can skip most of the levels and go from platform to platform with ease. I don't mind the Knuckles Emerald hunting stages or Gamma's rack-em-up shooting stages even of they are very brief. Big's stages, while not as bad as people make it out to be, I always thought should have been a side mini-game rather than a full story campaign. I actually find Amy's gameplay to be the worst in that her movement feels the clunkiest and her stages tend to go on the longest. The fact that the player has to complete all of these stories that vary in gameplay quality, and the cutscenes have aged horribly to the point where they are now meme-worthy. Even Sonic's gameplay, while having my favorite stages and the best controlling Sonic (imo), has issues. I'm more forging to this game's jank considering this is a 25+ year old game, and I played the PC version as close as possible to the Dreamcast version via mods, but there are still issues of Sonic sticking on and clipping through walls and the camera, by the game's own admittance (see Mr Know-it-all), sometimes fails to follow the character properly which can lead to temporary frustration. There are other aspects that drag out the game such as the various boss battles which have never been the Sonic game's strongest aspect and the various minigames, such as Sky Chase, which are just boring. It may seem like Sonic Adventure is a bad game, and I'll event admit the game hasn't aged well, but the Sonic gameplay which is the main bulk of the game is fantastic. Like I said Sonic feels great to control and the level layout allows for exploration through the player's skill similar to the classic games where better players are able to stay on the higher paths and are rewarded with quicker routes and more goodies (rings, lives, power-ups, etc). Honestly a remake or remaster that removes the jank, improves the cutscenes, and have it where Super Sonic story can be unlocked by finishing only half of the stories instead of all six would be great. If not, there are mods that can improve the gameplay, mods that restore earlier builds of the levels such as Windy Valley, to mods that overhaul levels like Casinopolis which reduces the number of rings required to get the Chaos Emerald. That said, I would at least recommend SADX mod installer that brings the DX PC port as close to the Dreamcast version as possible since the Dreamcast version has fewer glitches, better textures and aesthetics, and other features. All-in-all Sonic Adventure is my personal favorite Sonic game but that mainly consists of Sonic's story as well as some of Tails, Knuckles, and Gamma's stories. However, with how the game has aged, as well as the large chunks of the game that aren't fun to play that even intrude into the stories and characters I like playing, I can't blame some for not liking this as well as a lot of the 3D Sonic games and a lot of the issues which the 3D sonic games would be known for later on started here. However, if you can tough it out through the muck then you'll find a fun, if flawed game.

A mixed bag of a show. The first season mostly consists of the Maximals running away from Vehicons and the plot is a slow burn. That wouldn't be too much of a problem if not for the characters acting rather unlikable for what feels like drama for drama's sake such as Rattrap literally getting so angry at the rest of the Maximals that he sides with Megatron for a day. Also, due to the writers of this show being told not to watch Beast Wars, some of the characters act out of character with the worst offender being Megatron who now hates his Beast mode and all organics despite the fact he seemed to revel being a powerful T-Rex/Dragon in Beast Wars. If this were G1 Megatron or a new antagonist I would have been fine with this direction, but with Beast Wars Megatron it's just odd. Also, the character designs are a mixed bag with the Vehicons looking fairly good mostly due to them being more in line with traditional Transformers. However, the Maximals look like weird cyber-infused furries. I haven't even mentioned the technological vs organic theme which feels odd since the characters are literally giant robots, yet the show seems to insist that nature is better than technology and industrialization. Season 2 was better and more focused with the Maximals focused on restoring Cybertron and its population while Megatron moves from body to body, all of this while both sides prep for a decisive battle which I actually didn't mind. I also appreciated that season 2 changed the message to be that nature and technology should work together rather than one over the other. However, the character writing and aesthetics are still an issue. This leaves the show with a dull, dour, and repetitive first season and a pretty decent second season. However, the damage was done with the show's negative reception and poor toy sales leading to a sequel, Transtech, being canned and the franchise had to go back to the drawing board and develop what would become Transforemrs Armada. I don't hate Beast Machines, but it's probably my least favorite series I've seen thus far. Even Energon/Superlink I found more entertaining despite that show technically being a worse show with its animation and writing, I found the character, premise, and themes more interesting even when that show dragged on.

I'm surprised that this Dracula adaptation doesn't get more attention. Frank Langella played an excellent Dracula who manages to balance being charming and charismatic in public, and threatening when the film calls for it. Lawrence Oliver and Donald Pleasence were well cast as Dr. Van Helsing and Dr. Seward, I have heard some critics say that Oliver was miscast but I liked that an older and more frail Van Helsing going up against a younger and imposing Dracula. The rest of the cast who played Lucy, Mina, Harker, and Reinfield were fine, I also noticed Sylvester McCoy as one of Dr. Seward's assistants but he has no lines. I didn't mind this version deviating from the book for a couple of reasons. First, some adaptations "cut out the fat" from the story that would drag out the film's pacing, Just look at the Lord of the Ring films and their omission of Tom Bombadil. Second, There are plenty of Dracula adaptations that stay true to the source material such as Count Dracula from 1970, the Count Dracula 1977 TV movie, and Dracula from 1992 that Coppola directed. Not to mention that many book adaptations deviate from the source material, just look at the Bond films and compare them to the books, or even other Dracula films such as the 1931 Bela Lugosi film or the 1958 film starring Christopher Lee. I also think that one should look at a film on it's own and how well it accomplished it's own goals. Speaking of which, I liked this more romantic take on Dracula. The locations, sets, costumes are excellent (I also saw the color version which seems to be the generally preferred version). John William's score is sublime and isn't really talked about when it comes to his best scores. As I mentioned the acting was solid which, as much as I like the 1992 Dracula, can't entirely be said about Keanu Reeves' performance in that film. My biggest issues with the film are that there were a couple of times where the film would cut from a daylight shot to a nighttime shot when Dracula was carrying Lucy, and Dracula dies from the sun even thought he was out during the day earlier in the film (it might have been overcast when he was out and I guess that cancelled out the Sun). I know the director wanted the film to be desaturated in 1979, which was how the film was re-released for a long time, so the desaturated color timing might fix these continuity issues. That aside, It was a pretty good take on Dracula that seems to have been forgotten between the Hammer films and Coppola's 1992 adaptation.

Watch the subbed Micron Densetsu version. While I can watch the Armada dub since I have a fondness for the voice actors (including Beast Wars' Garry Chalk and David Kaye), and I even prefer some of the dialogue, delivery, and theme songs from Armada, the subbed version is superior. This is due to Armada being rushed and airing six months ahead of Micron Densetsu, so unfinished animation with errors and dubbing mistake are present throughout the series. This won't change the first dozen episodes being mostly very repetitive and dull with every episode being a "find the Minicon/Micron" plot, or the overabundance of human kid characters that might put off viewers. That said, if I to recommend watching Transformers Armada, I would recommend that people watch the Micron Densetsu version. While the first chunk of the show is quite dull and human-centered, Armada picks up when Scavenger/Devastator and Sideways/Doubleface are introduced. From that point onwards Armada progressively gets better as more and more characters are introduced, and the stories become higher in stakes and more personal. Highlights of Armada being Hotshot/Hot Rod and Starscream's character growth, and the final episodes of the show which sees an all out war on Cybertron dovetails into "The Unicron Battles." In all, I do recommend Armada/Micron Densetsu, but with some caveats. Like I said, watch the Micron Densetsu version if you can and watch the first few episodes, then skip to episode 13 where Hotshot/Hot Rod is entrusted with the Star Saber. Trust me, you are not missing much.

In recent years I’ve really noticed a large level of distain towards this film. Now don’t get me wrong, this film was never that well liked but considering how similar this film is to the revived series, I expected that this film would find a new appreciation aside from just McGann’s performance and the TARDIS interior. However, this film’s reputation apparently has only gotten worse considering this film’s score has gone down from a 6.4 to a 6.3. While I wouldn’t call this film a classic by any means, it pretty much encapsulates everything good and bad about Doctor Who. The story is overly convoluted with too much exposition and relies too much on the show’s lore, the antagonist hams it up, and the story is wrapped-up too quickly and easily. However, the film also has good performances bolstered by a likable performance by Paul McGann. Despite the story itself being mediocre, it has some good aspects that make it entertaining. Chang Lee and Grace Holloway make for decent side characters, and I wouldn’t mind if they showed up again in the modern series, the quick pace of the film makes it enjoyable as well, and the themes of the film are well presented. In all I enjoy the Doctor Who movie and I don’t think it deserves the reputation of being a blight or stain on the series record. While I agree that the films could have been better, I don’t think it’s that much worse than most of the series finales of the modern Doctor Who show. While I’m not saying you have to like it, but if you are someone who thinks that the TV Movie is one of the worst stories in Doctor Who, I urge you to give it a rewatch. I’s flawed, but it was made by people who genuinely cared about Doctor Who and I think it shows while watching the film. Not a great film, but worth watching once for any self-confessed Doctor Who fan. If nothing else, it showed that there was still a little life left in the old Doctor.

For me, the main premise of the film being a murder-mystery is flawed to begin with. While I know that Kim Cattrall’s character of Valaris was supposed to be Saavik from Star Trek II-IV, to viewers who know that she isn’t a part of the regular cast it becomes obvious that she is the traitor-character because she is introduced for the purposes of this film. Speaking of Valaris, Cattrall’s acting is pretty poor with her performance coming off as smarmy and smug to the point where she would seem out of place even on Star Trek: Enterprise which is a show famous for unlikable Vulcan characters. If the filmmakers managed to get Saavik back or even if they made one of the main cast members to be the traitor, not only would that have been unexpected, but I would have respected the film more for making a genuine risk. This is not to mention that it is obvious that Chang is the main baddie of the film since he is literally the eyepatch wearing, mustache twirling villain whose performance is wat too over-the-top to be taken seriously. While I enjoy Christopher Plumber as an actor and I was quite upset when I realized he passed away, his performance is so scenery chewing that it would not be out of place in those awful Batman films of the 1980s and 1990s. Again, if the film had taken a risk and made a Starfleet member the main baddie not only would it have been memorable and different, but it would have an interesting antagonist with the villain being Kirk’s dark reflection had his bigotry and racist tendencies gotten the better of him. The aspect I hate about this plot the most is that Kirk and Bones are separated from the rest of the main cast for so long, and for what is supposed to be the last outing for this cast, it’s a shame that Kirk and Bones are on a dull prison escape subplot while the crew of the Enterprise are on a dull and predictable murder-mystery plot. While I have seen this film a few times, the way it’s presented as well as the execution just isn’t that interesting. Not to mention that Kirk’s character change from being a bigot to being someone who is ok with the idea of Federation and Klingon peace feels way too rushed for my liking. Seriously, despite being in an infamous Klingon prison planet Kirk just thinks to himself “gee, maybe that Gorcon guy wasn’t so bad and actually had a point.” Enjoy this film or not, Kirk's change in character doesn’t feel earned whatsoever. If I’m being honest, I find the Nicholas Meyer’s influence was a negative for this film. Granted, he did direct and write for Start Trek II, but I think an underappreciated aspect of the film’s success was Harve Bennett who, while not a Star Trek fan, did watch and research the Original Series to see what aspects worked such as the character dynamic of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the show telling more human stories. Star Trek VI, while having a somewhat human story the parallels the end of the Cold War, lacks the character dynamic of Kirk, Spock, And McCoy and it even feels out of character for everyone but Spock to be against this potential peace with the Klingons. Not to mention that the film feels less like Star Trek and more like the Jack Ryan films but set in outer space with its military-esq conspiracy and its Cold War plot. In all, The Voyage Home was a better sendoff for the TOS cast and I’ll even say that Generations is a far more entertaining film that The Undiscovered Country and actually handled Kirk’s character better than this film ever did.