Angela makes Tim Watch: Batman and Robin (1997)

 

Batman and Robin (1997), starring George Clooney, Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzennegger. Written by Akiva Goldsman. Directed by Joel Schumacher.

TIM SAYS:

Okay, I'M supposed to be the Comic Book Person in this marriage! But I had never seen Batman and Robin. It's reputation was bad and we live in an age where there is no shortage of superheroes in popular culture, so I figured "Why bother?" 

But Angela wanted me to give it a shot.  We are both fans of the Adam West Batman series, enjoying its campiness and humor. Angela felt that Batman and Robin was a throwback to that campiness. If one watched the movie with this mindset, she argued, it was very enjoyable.

And it turns out she was right. The movie does have its flaws. Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl was sort of sandwiched into the story without her really needing to be there (though she was otherwise a fun character). And the nipples on the Batman and Robin suits are inexcusable. 

But the rest of the movie is indeed fun. Thurman and Schwarzennegger in particular deserve credit for over-acting in a glorious fashion, delivering one-liners in just the right tone. Thurman seemed to play Poison Ivy in much the same way Julie Newmar played Catwoman in the TV series.

The action scenes were fun in the appropriate over-the-top way, as was the unique design of Gotham City. It was all a perfect fit for the campy tone of the film.

There is one portion of the movie that does work on a more human level. Alfred the butler's father/son relationship with Bruce Wayne hits just the right emotional notes. It provides some moments of real sincerity amongst the overall silliness. 

I like dark, serious Batman as much as any other Bat Fan. I maintain the most perfect portrayal of the character was in the comic books in the Denny O'Neil/Neil Adams stories of the 1970s. (Those of you who know Comic Book History know what I'm talking about. The rest of you don't matter.)

But Adam West was--in his unique way--also a perfect Batman. If you look at Batman and Robin as a tribute to that show, it suddenly turns into a really good movie. 

ANGELA SAYS:

I know the early Batman movies were much closer to the comic book version than the 1960s television series. But Adam West was my first introduction to the superhero and, as a kid, he seemed great. Also, the television series took itself seriously, while not being serious. The villains were always fun and their plans were ridiculous. I was surprised that Tim had never seen the movie since he loves comic books and early pop culture so much.

For me, Batman and Robin harkened back to the attitude and feel of the tv series. It was a movie that begged to be laughed at. It was full of primary colors, like the series, and had a much brighter feel than the other Batman movies. Many of the actors clearly had a blast and I thought Arnold Schwarzenagger captured the classic feel of campy villains perfectly. I knew Tim would like it if he gave it a chance.

I do think George Clooney was a bit weak in the role of Batman. This was a movie that begged for overacting and his understated performance didn't seem to fit the campy feel at all. He also doesn't strike me as an action/adventure hero. Additionally, while I know they were setting up a sequel that never happened, Batgirl seemed disjointed and unnecessary. She didn't add a great deal to the plot development or beating the bad guys. Plus, Alicia Silverstone just wasn't convincing in the role.

Overall, it's just a fun, entertaining movie that moves quickly and captures a sense of nostalgia for a classic childhood hero.

Angela Makes Tim Watch: How to Marry a Millionaire (1953)

 

How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), starring Lauren Bacall, Marilyn Monroe and Betty Grable. Written by Nunnally Johnson. Directed by Jean Negulesco.

ANGELA SAYS:

The premise of the movie makes the three husband hunters seem like gold diggers who are out to make a killing. However, the attitude is more that men are unpredictable, and you’ll probably get a dud. Since that’s the case, it’s much easier to be unhappy and have money, than not. If you take it in that lighthearted, 1950s era vein, you can laugh at the antics our trio gets into. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of them, in my opinion. Bacall, Grable and Monroe all received top billing, but in reality, Bacall was the lead and the other two were supporting actresses. This is a shame because Pola Debevoise (Monroe) and Loco Dempsey (Grable) are hilarious characters that would have shone had their foibles been exploited more. In contrast, Schatze Page (Bacall) is a world weary woman who married for love and was burned.

With the exception of J.D. Hanley (William Powell), the male characters are all one note and pretty interchangeable. The men that Page and Dempsey marry are not given much screen time, while Debevoise’ catch isn’t introduced until the final third of the movie. The only thing we know about him is that the IRS wants him for tax evasion, of which he may or may not be guilty. The movie covers several months, but, disappearing furniture aside, it feels like a few weeks. It would have been funnier had scatter brained Dempsey and vain Debevoise been given more screen time to strut their stuff. This movie could have been laugh out loud funny, but the jokes and gags often fall flat or are only mildly amusing. This is underscored by the five or ten minute orchestra intro BEFORE the opening credits. That screen time could have been used to flesh out the movie a little more.

On another note, Monroe could ACT. This movie came out the same year as Gentleman Prefer Blondes and before her blond bombshell, sex kitten persona was solidified. I wish she’d had the time to grow and expand her repertoire, and avoided the drugs and other poor life choices.

All told, this isn’t one of my absolute favorite old time movies, but there aren’t many movies from this era I would condemn as a complete waste of time. While I think it could have been better, it was still a funny movie that provided an entertaining ninety minutes. Unless you have a husband like Tim who will watch romantic comedies, especially if they are in black and white, this is a good movie for girl night with popcorn and your favorite beverage. You remember those sleepovers as a kid where you watched silly girl movies and ate far too much junk food and soda? That is this movie.

TIM SAYS:

This won't be a very dramatic or marriage-threatening blog entry, because I pretty much agree with Angela. It's a silly and entertaining film, but could have been much funnier if it had given more time to Monroe and Gable, amping up the screwball feel of the whole story. What we get is good and there's a steady supply of good laughs, but nothing ever reaches the "gut-busting funny" feel that seems to be hiding right below the surface.

Monroe's character is a perfect example of this. Pola Debevoise is blind as a bat, but refuses to wear glasses because she's convinced they make her look unattractive. This allows us to see that Marilyn did indeed have a talent for comedy and slapstick, but we just don't get enough of it.

Her scene on an airplane with David Wayne's character is perhaps the best in the film. It's very funny. But also, it's the only time in the movie that we feel one of the girls is really connecting with her guy. David Wayne was an excellent comedic actor and he plays off well against Monroe, giving them a chemistry that the other guy/girl match-ups in the film never quite achieve.

So I'm glad Angela picked this one and I enjoyed watching it, but it does leave an aura of WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN behind. 

Tim Makes Angela Watch: Maverick: "Relic of Fort Tejon"

 

Maverick "Relic of Fort Tejon" Aired November 3, 1957. Starring James Garner. Written by Jerry Davis. Directed by Leslie H. Martinson

TIM SAYS: 

Angela had me watch the 1994 movie version of Maverick, a movie I had always been reluctant to watch because I didn't think anyone else by James Garner could bring Bret Maverick to life. 

And, though I did end up enjoying the movie for what it was, I still think this is true. In the episode we watched--"Relic of Fort Tejon"--Garner brings wit, intelligence and cleverness to his portrayal of Maverick. Though Mel Gibson did fine as an alternate universe version of the character, Garner is the only true Bret.

In this one, Bret wins a camel in a poker game, though he thought he was gambling for a horse. (The camel's previous owner merely described the camel as a "full-blooded Arabian mount.") Bret has to bribe a farmer into taking the camel off his hands, but the beast has, by now, fallen in love with him and just won't stay away.

This, in the end, proves fortunate. Brett gets involved in a high-stakes poker game that he knows is crooked. But he keeps winning anyway, because he knows all the tricks the cheaters use and continually out-tricks them. In the end, the owner of the crooked house simply shoots Bret and claims self-defense.

Brett, though recovers and now it is a matter of pride to confront the crook. There's a wonderful scene in which he bluffs a super-fast gunfighter into giving up without a fight. This is typical of Maverick--if he can use his brains to get out of a direct fight, then he will do so. With style.

More shenanigans ensue and Maverick ends up pursuing the crook across the desert. When Maverick loses both his horse and his water supply, it turns out that knowing a camel with a crush on him just might save his life.

This is a great episode, highlighting everthing that makes Maverick a classic Western character.

ANGELA SAYS:

I feel a little bad reviewing this episode and comparing it to the movie. They are based on the same character and ideas, but it’s a little like comparing apples and oranges. A movie has the budget and time to do things that a single episode in a series cannot. This is especially true when the only option for original viewers was to see missed episodes via reruns. This meant a series could not have a story arc that crossed episodes. Additionally, the movie was at the end of TV Western history while the series was at the beginning. All these things combine to provide very different experiences.

So, with those caveats, here goes. This was a fun western episode; it had the typical ingredients: shootouts, a desert chase, gambling and a bit of a love triangle. While Maverick and Donna weren’t true love interests, they definitely made up two sides of a lover’s issue. And here is where I do a bit of Donna bashing. She supposedly knows Maverick, his reputation and character; yet she doesn’t believe him when he says her fiancé is crooked. Her “but I love him” just makes me want to knock some sense in to her. Carl even slaps her and it leaves no impression. It would make more sense if she showed some doubt in “honest” Carl, but she is determined to be oblivious, and stupid. For me it would have worked much better if it were a random town girl who had no previous knowledge of Maverick.

I have to say, I loved the twist with the pure bred Arabian mount. The camel was a perfect sidekick for this episode and was used well. The way she kept showing up throughout the episode was spot-on, and her arrival in the nick of time to save the day was perfect (if expected). Although, apparently, poor Fatima will forever wear that saddle!

I found the movie funny and even laughed out loud in a few places. In comparison, I found this episode to be just amusing. The episode was much slower paced although it was probably more of a “true” western than the movie. Overall, I enjoyed the movie more than the episode; though that might say more about me than the episode. I’m not going to rush out and binge watch all five seasons, but I wouldn’t say no to an episode now and then.

ANGELA MAKES TIM WATCH: Maverick (1994)

 

Maverick (1994), starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster and James Garner. Written by William Goldman (based on the TV series created by Roy Huggins). Directed by Richard Donner.

TIM SAYS:

I'd admit I was somewhat reluctant to watch this movie, which was based on the classic TV series that ran from 1957 to 1962. James Garner's portrayal of Bret Maverick in the series is indeed a classic. Garner, in fact, created a one-of-a-kind character that could never truly be recreated by anyone else. Imagine someone other than Peter Falk as Columbo, for instance. Sometimes, an actor fits a role perfectly and that perfection can never be recaptured by someone else.

But I was able to enjoy the 1994 movie. Mel Gibson was good in the role of Bret and if you take the movie on its own--disconnected from the series and set in its own parallel universe--than it gives us a fun, enjoyable story. 

The plot involves Maverick trying to get to a massive poker contest and also raise the last few thousand dollars he needs for the contest entry fee. Along the way, he falls in with a very pretty thief named Annabelle Bransford (Jodie Foster) and an aging lawman played by Garner. They have a series of mini-adventures, with Annabelle trying to snitch Maverick's money on several occasions. The various situations they encounter shows Maverick's skills as a gambler and a con artist, as well as showing us that he can use a gun if he absolutely has to AND that, if push comes to shove, he actually has some moral sensibilities. The entire movie builds up to a series of funny plot twists to bring everything to a satisfying conclusion.

I enjoyed the cameos featuring actors who made their names in Westerns (Robert Fuller, Doug McClure, Denver Pyle, etc), but I did think a Danny Glover cameo with a shout-out to Lethal Weapon was a bit too heavy-handed. 

The ambiance of the movie is more action-oriented than the TV series usually was and Gibson's version of Maverick will never be the equal of Garner's original version. But I enjoyed Maverick regardless. 

I am going to make Angela watch an episode of the TV series, though. 

ANGELA SAYS: 

I saw this adaptation of Maverick fairly soon after it came out and really enjoyed it. It is an easy going, hilarious movie, that doesn’t take itself too seriously. I don’t recall seeing any reruns of the original series, but I know the premise was Garner playing a gambler/conman; except his cons were always to make sure the bad guys didn’t win each week. The character came across as a little bumbling and inept, yet always won the day before the credits rolled.

The movie starts with Maverick desperately trying to get the final $3,000 needed to enter a high stakes poker game. Most of the movie romps through western tropes; caravan attacks, savage Indians, runaway stagecoaches, show downs in the street, double crossing outlaws and gamblers, lots of gamblers. Along the way, he is conned and manipulated by pioneer missionaries, “savage” Indians and Annabelle Bransford. Ultimately, Maverick wins the money and the girl; or does he?

Bad language in movies is a hot button of mine, especially when it isn’t necessary, and this movie has some. Fortunately, it wasn’t enough to spoil my enjoyment, just enough to make me wish they’d left it out. Overall, I thought it lived up to expectations. And it was fun to see all the cameos by old time western actors and country music stars. Some of the shout outs pushed the envelope a bit, but they succeeded in generating a chuckle so they did their job.

I was a little apprehensive when I suggested this. I know Tim considers Maverick one of the classic tv westerns and he can tend to nitpick; particularly over anything that might spoil a beloved childhood favorite. I knew he would like the movie, but I wasn’t sure how he would take Gibson in the role of Maverick. I’m glad he was able to enjoy it as much as I did. In return, I agreed to watch an episode from the original series – that should be fun as well.

TIM MAKES ANGELA WATCH: The Maltese Falcon (1941)

 

The Maltese Falcon (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart & Mary Astor. Written and directed by John Houston. Based on the 1929 novel by Dashiell Hammett. 

TIM SAYS: 

Dashiell Hammett pretty much invented the hard-boiled school of fiction. (Other authors contributed as well, but Hammett is the guy who turned it into a legitimate form of literature.) His short stories were brilliant and when he began to produce novels, they were even better. 

The Maltese Falcon was adapted in movies in 1931 and 1936, but its this 1941 version that really strikes gold. Houston's script is 98% faithful to the novel in both plot and dialogue. His direction and the cinematography was influencial enough to help eventually usher in Film Noir. 

And the cast could not be more perfect. Humphrey Bogart's career is stuffed to overflowing with iconic roles, but his portrayal of Sam Spade is arguable his best. Mary Astor is the prototype femme fatale, while Peter Lorre, Syndey Greenstreet and Elisha Cook, Jr are among the best bad guys ever.

Angela and I were going to see it in the theaters a month or so ago when it played as one of TCM's Big Screen Classics. But I no longer have Free Will and so, when Angela decided to pass on it, so did I. But I insisted we watch it at home and, because she is an Awesome Wife, she agreed to this. 

One thing that stood out to me as we watched it together was the interesting fact that Gutman and Cairo (Greenstreet and Lorre) obviously think of themselves as master criminals. But when it comes right down to it, neither are really competent. Their careers as criminals--as far as we can see--is one failure after another. Elisha Cook's Wilmer parallels this--he thinks of himself as a top gunman, but he's really just a loser that Sam easily disarms multiple times without effort. 

Sam Spade, in the end, is the only person in the movie who really knows what he's doing, even when he doesn't have all the facts. He is often improvising as he looks for the Falcon and tries to solve the three murders that take place during the story, but he always does so intelligently. The villains think they can wrap him around their fingers, but it's Sam who has the upper hand.

ANGELA SAYS:

I put off watching this movie for a couple of weeks because I wasn't really looking forward to it. I enjoy old movies and Humphrey Bogart is great, so I knew I wouldn't hate it. BUT, I wasn't very impressed with the Maltese Falcon when I read it. I know you can't call it cliched since it created the cliches, but Brigid just annoyed me. I couldn't picture her as a classic femme fatale, and I felt like Spade half believed her, or at least wanted to.

I have to say, the movie impressed . For me, this is one of the rare times when the movie is better than the book. Mary Astor was masterful as Brigid O'Shaughnessy. She played the damsel in distress well enough that she had ME wanting to believe her. Bogart did a good job of leading her along just enough to make her think she was succeeding before cutting her off. It was clear he doubted her from the lost sister story at the beginning to the assertions of love at the end.

The twists and turns of the story were fun to follow and all the supporting characters worked well. The henchmen were hilarious in their ineptitude. And you begin to feel sympathy for Wilmer in his role as scapegoat. I know he killed two people; although he couldn't manage to finish the job with Captain Jacoby well enough to get the Falcon. He tries to be dangerous, but will clearly lose his weapon to pretty much anyone he faces.

Finally, I loved Sydney Greenstreet in the role of Kasper Gutman. You could see his theater roots in the way he over emoted a bit, but he did an excellent job. He gave the impression of a favorite uncle who would indulge your whims, but he was clear in his willingness to cast Wilmer as the scapegoat. His subtle facial expressions and humorous attitude clearly hid a devious mind.

So to conclude, this movie worked for me MUCH better than the book; maybe it was the addition of the video, since the script and dialogue was nearly identical to the book. Regardless, the cast was excellent and the pacing, lighting and directing pulled me into the story. I kind of hope there are still people out there searching for the Falcon.

TIM MAKES ANGELA READ: Hands in the Dark (1932)

 

Hands in the Dark, by Walter Gibson (using the house name Maxwell Grant). First published in the May 1932 issue of The Shadow Magazine. 

TIM SAYS:

There are two distinct versions of the Shadow--the one who appeared in the original pulp magazines beginning in 1931 and the protagonist from the radio show that premiered in 1937. The latter was supposedly based on the pulp character, but was different enough to be essentially a new character. 

Both characters are awesome in their own ways and I was introduced to both of them about the same time in my teens. I ended up owning an LP that contained two episodes of the radio show (which I saw at a record store and whined about until my Mom bought it) and a paperback reprint of one of the pulp stories, which I bought off the book rack at Winn Dixie, probably with paper route money.

Over the years, I've read scores of the Shadow stories, but that paperback--reprinting the 1932 story "Hands in the Dark"--will always be one of my favorites simply because it was my first. It begins with a bang--a kidnapping followed by a murder. This is all part of a plot to obtain an obscure clue that will lead to a fortune in stolen loot.

(That clue, by the way, is featured on the magazine cover above. I don't remember figuring it out the first time I read the book and I've always wondered if I would get it if I were to read the novel for the first time as an adult.)

Soon, the Shadow is on the trail of the gang of villains who are responsible for all this intrigue and violence. The plot moves switfly and logically, with spurts of violent action seeded throughout the story. Towards the end, there's a wonderful confrontation between the Shadow and the surviving crooks in a dark attic, followed by a gunfight when a remaining killer is trapped in a railroad car as he shoots it out with the cops. 

"Hands in the Dark" is a great example of the best of pulp fiction--a strong story with a clever plot and exciting action.

And, of course, it stars the Shadow, who is 100% pure awesomeness, with an awesome outer coating and an awesome filling in the middle and with awesome sprinkles on the top.

cover art by Jim Steranko

ANGELA SAYS:

The little I know about the Shadow is from the 1994 movie starring Alec Baldwin. I have been told that it's a mashup of different incarnations of the Shadow and not the “proper pulp magazine version.” Overall, I enjoyed the look and feel of the movie so I wasn't sure what to expect from the novel. As it turned out, I enjoyed it. The mystery was well crafted and I enjoyed following each step along the way. While a series of minor characters are used to move the story along and provide the next clue, each one is given enough development that their murder, or attempted murder, generated anger at the callous mobsters and sympathy for that character.

It proves that chapters of background information is not necessary to create a three dimensional character that readers care about. Series' written by different authors under house names can be hit or miss, but generally, they lasted because most of the writers turned out well developed stories that fit into the universe. I often tease Tim that; while his Goodreads list may have 200+ books for a year, 90% or more are under 200 pages. But there is some truth to his argument that a well crafted, tightly written story doesn't need to be any longer. Many of today's authors turn out books of 300-400 pages, but the stories often aren't as well constructed and developed.

I had some criticisms of this book, though. The conversation when Moose Shargin was warning Wing Toy of the abilities of the Shadow and dangers of facing off against him was rife with cliches. I don't know if gangsters in the early 30s really talked like that, but it felt contrived to me. Also, Toy says the gas for the trap would kill, but later he said it just knocked out the victim; the killing came later. Lastly, three different minor characters pulled guns on the gangsters and all three failed to make use of their advantage. Granted, they were all elderly, and at least one was nearly blind, but I felt like yelling “Either pull the trigger or don't pull out the gun”. At least two of them would likely have survived if they had done so.

Finally, I'm torn about the Shadow himself. In this book, at least, he almost feels like a minor character. Granted, he is orchestrating a lot behind the scenes and is often listening in the shadows (pardon the pun). But I'm not sure if it's just a judicious use of an almost mystical character or the uncertainty of how to best use and develop him. Perhaps I should read further stories to see how he is used across several novels. (Shh, don't tell Tim; I can't set the precedent that he's right about such things).

SPECIAL BONUS: A video Tim made on how the character of the Shadow was created:

 

ANGELA MAKES TIM WATCH: Sabrina (1995)

 

SABRINA (1995), starring Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond. Written by Barbara Benedeck & David Rayfiel. Directed by Sydney Pollack.

TIM SAYS:

Well, this version of the movie doesn't include Humphrey Bogart, Harrison Ford is not playing either Han Solo or Indiana Jones and it's not in black-and-white. All these things should be unforgiveable. But, though the 1995 film does not hold up very well when compared to the 1955 original, it is (as one critic wrote) "a pleasant diversion."

Aside from what I mentioned above, the movie has a few other points against it. It's 20 minutes longer than the original (and seems to be a little longer) without needing to be. And it depends too much on drama while dropping much of the comedy that gave the original its charm. 

But the cast does their jobs well and the movie's big denoument scene (in which Linus is forced to admit he loves Sabrina and follows her to Paris) is arguably done a little better. And the part of David's fiance is more fleshed out here and more important to the plot than in the original. 

All this allows it to make up a few points, but the original is definitely the superior film. If only Harrison Ford had been allowed to use a blaster or a bull whip at some point. That would have saved it for sure. 

ANGELA SAYS:

I’m torn on this one. I like things about both versions of the movie so it’s hard to pick a true winner.

Original

PROS

1. Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart – need I say more?

2. The script does a better job of showing Sabrina’s teenage, over the top, despair at David’s inattention

3. Hepburn’s fashion display is much more “Paris”

CONS

1. Hepburn doesn’t look frumpy at the beginning – just younger. I don’t know if it’s the studio’s aversion to making their stars ugly, but I didn’t see much transformation between the New York and Paris Sabrina’s

2. Elizabeth Tyson is just a place holder, with no personality or development to make us really believe she’s enough to reform David Larrabee

3. The “take charge” David in the dénouement doesn’t feel believable

4. Bogart (53 to Hepburn’s 24), just looks too old to be accepted as a valid love interest. Although the black and white film somewhat softens the extremes.

Remake

PROS

1. Ormand is much more believable as the frumpy ugly duckling who transforms into a swan. The makeup and costuming at the beginning makes the transformation much more believable.

2. David Larrabee is a more fleshed out character than the original. I can believe Elizabeth Tyson is capable of reining in David’s excesses, and she won’t put up with his playboy ways

3. This version of David is much more believable in the dénouement;I can accept he’s secretly kept up with the business. Even though he isn’t likely to be up to the day to day running of the company; he seems able to fill in, with the help of his mother and the rest of the staff. I can believe that the two brother’s will have a much better relationship when Linus returns

CONS

1. Ford and Ormand just aren’t the same as Hepburn and Bogey.

2. The extended Paris scenes where Sabrina “finds” herself are too long and unnecessary. It slows the pace of the movie and doesn’t have the charm of cooking school Sabrina in the original.

3. The age difference between Ford (53) and Ormand (30) isn’t quite as wide, but it still looks “off” on screen.

4. And, for Tim, there isn’t a bullwhip or blaster in sight.

Overall, I’d say the original 1954 film edges out the remake, but only just. There is a lighthearted, ethereal charm to it that is missing in the later one. I don’t know if it’s the black and white aspect, but it just has more of a fairy tale feel. I can see it beginning “once upon a time…….. and see Cinderella set in modern times.