Stage Review: Batman Live (2012) feels half-measured and unsure of its intentions, cries out for musical numbers.

Batman Live is constantly unsure of what it wants to be, which renders the entertaining and ambitious production somewhat underwhelming in nearly every area.  It is not quite a stage play based on the Batman mythos, although it contains dramatic moments and a token amount of 'acting'.  It isn't quite a stunt show or action spectacular, as the stunts are few and the fight choreography is merely competent.  With its plot centering around Dick Grayson's tragic transformation into Robin: The Boy Wonder, it sometimes feels like the show wants to be Batman: The Circus, but even there it is felled by half-hearted acrobatics and a lack of high-flying adventure.  And it certainly does not want to be a musical, even as you spend much of the show expecting the characters to break out into song during any number of moments.  We constantly get the set-up for a bit of song and dance, and narrative certainly can handle a bit of emotionally-charged musical theater in that Andrew Lloyd Webber vein, but the songs never come.  The show feels like the end-results of someone merely saying "Let's do a stage show for kids involving Batman!" and neglecting to figure out what kind of show they wanted to do.  It offers a token amount of everything (except songs, natch) without excelling in any particular area.

No girls allowed? On the value of *not* arbitrarily inserting token love interests into male-centric genre films.

Let us for a moment highlight two of the many would-be Oscar bait pictures rolling out in the next couple months. Ben Affleck's Argo, which opens today, has instantly shot up to the upper-levels of many filmgoers' 'must see' list for the Fall.  Also pretty high on the list for film buffs is Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly.  Aside from the strong reviews that both films have already racked up prior to even being screened for most critics (ah, the festival circuit!), the one thing that sticks out about both films is the near absence of females in major roles.  The trailer for Killing Them Softly was notable for its complete absence of females.  Argo has few women in its trailer and seemingly only has female characters where they would make sense, be they among the Americans caught in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis or people in the government who just happen to be female (the most notable seems to be Adrienne Barbeau).  Point being, having now seen both films, both are very very good and neither of these films felt the need to shoe-horn in female characters in otherwise all-male stories, and both films are better for it.  

23 years of Batman trailers, all in one spot...

Purely for fun, here is pretty much every single theatrical trailer for every single modern-day live-action Batman film, from Tim Burton's Batman way back in 1989 to the one I'm seeing tonight.  Do enjoy, and feel free to add your own qualitative rankings.

Scott Mendelson

Who needs origins? 8 comic book films that just dove right in.

Much of the criticism hurled in the direction of The Amazing Spider-Man centers around the choice to spend the first half of the film retelling the same origin story that was rather explicitly told in Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man. It is part of a swelling debate of sorts about whether or not proverbial 'part ones' always need to retell a well-known origin story in order to kick-start their respective franchises.  But there exists at least a handful of comic book adaptations that either completely eschew or compartmentalize the origin material.  Be they successful as art or not, they represent the idea that it is possible to start (or restart) a comic book series without retelling the same origin over and over again.  To wit...

A look at the six-day opening weekend for The Amazing Spider-Man. Has Sony established a new franchise or merely temporarily dodged a bullet?

There are a number of ways to judge the six-day $137 million debut of The Amazing Spider-Man (review).  First of all, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, a film grossing $140 million in its first six days ($62 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend) is a pretty big financial success.  For the record, the film played 44% 3D and 10% IMAX.  The film earned an A- from Cinemascore and played 75% over 12 years old and 25% families with kids under 12.  Of the over-12 audience, it played 54% were male and/or over 25 years old. Of the under-12s, 73% were under 10 years old and 65% were boys. While final figures won't drop until Monday, the six-day weekend puts in between 25 and 30 among the biggest six-day totals.  It's the fourth-biggest Fri-Sun debut of 2012 and the second-biggest of summer.  On the other hand, as far as Spider-Man films go, it's actually pretty weak sauce.  Spider-Man 2 opened on this same holiday weekend back in 2004, earning a then-record $180 million in its first six days (with $88 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend, among the top-five opening weekends ever at that time).  The first Spider-Man film (audio commentary) opened in May 2002 to a then-record $114 million Fri-Sun debut, earning $144 million over its first six days of play, three of those days falling in the middle of the school year no less.  As for Spider-Man 3, it also broke the Fri-Sun record back in May 2007 ($151 million) before earning $176 million in its first six days.  So factoring in inflation (Spider-Man - $196m, Spider-Man 2 - $229m - third best six-day of all time, Spider-Man 3 - $202m) and the 3D ticket-price bump, The Amazing Spider-Man sold far fewer tickets than its predecessors over its first six days of release.  Point being, the Sam Raimi trilogy set box office records, while The Amazing Spider-Man merely exists as another relatively large-scale blockbuster amid a sea of preordained blockbusters.

Music of the Batman... 50 years of Batman themes!

Purely for fun, and purely because I was in the mood, I've compiled every relevant Batman musical theme since the 1960s.  One live-action TV show, three film themes, and four animated series themes. A few things of note.  First of all, that audio clip of Shirley Walker walking us through the Batman: The Animated Series theme is a treasure to behold, especially as she passed away several years ago (it's the last cut on the two-disc Batman: The Animated Series score collection, which yes I do own).  Secondly, and this is what inspired me to compile these in the first place, whatever misgivings you may have about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, Elliot Goldenthal's music should not be discounted.  His rip-roaring, more overtly comic book-ish theme is still a joy to listen to, successfully combining the lingering darkness from the Burton films with the more traditional Caped Crusader heroics on display in Schumacher's films (the rest of the jazzy, offbeat music for Batman Forever is pretty terrific too). Thirdly, however powerful and effective the Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard music may be for the Nolan Batman films, the themes are dreadfully challenging to hum, and I'd be lying if the Batman Begins 'action theme' didn't sound just a bit reminiscent of Jerry Goldsmith's theme to The Shadow (ironically best evidenced in this trailer for The Saint). Finally, despite the nine themes sampled below (and the fact that she's seen quite a few episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and Batman: The Brave and the Bold), my daughter considers the 1960s Batman television theme to be the only 'real' Batman theme song and gets pissed when I hum anything else.  To be fair, I'm not exactly in a rush to show her Batman Returns or The Dark Knight (although she could probably handle Batman & Robin just fine).  Please enjoy and share your thoughts below.  What's your favorite Batman music?  Is it still Elfman above all else or has another later theme supplanted it?  What music do you hear when you think of Batman?

Scott Mendelson

In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...

I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it.  The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty.  Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after.  But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott).  His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play.  And that's the pattern, it would seem.  Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.

When the private life overwhelms the public persona - Is Tom Cruise about to become the next Mel Gibson?

I don't generally discuss gossip, so I'm going to do my best to keep this film-centric.  First and foremost, there is bitter irony that this is all occurring just as Tom Cruise has reaffirmed his movie stardom.  Seven years ago, his box office bankability was put in severe doubt due to the beginning of his courtship of Ms. Katie Holmes.  Now, just as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has reaffirmed both his box office muscle and his dedication to a certain level of mainstream quality, the end of this relationship may torpedo his career all over again, be it temporarily or permanently.  Now of course the film that Mr. Cruise was promoting back in June of 2005 when he performed his famous couch-jumping was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which went on to earn $234 million in the US and $591 million worldwide, making it Cruise's highest grossing film ever on both levels (M:I4 eclipsed it worldwide last year with $693 million).  In the years that followed, we had a somewhat under-performing franchise sequel (Mission: Impossible III with $133m domestic and $397m worldwide on a $160m budget), a political drama that was never going to be a blockbuster (Lions For Lambs, which earned $15 million in the US but $63 million worldwide on a $35 million budget), an over-budgeted but well-reviewed potboiler (Valkyrie, which cost $90 million and earned $200 million worldwide), and Knight and Day, a $117 million action comedy with Cameron Diaz that still earned $261 million worldwide.  So, coupled with a crowd-pleasing cameo in Tropic Thunder, the idea that Tom Cruise had lost his luster was more about public relations and alienating some of his more casual fans than any real loss of box office mojo.  But this may be different...

Don't leave us hanging... If you want us to see a sequel, you might want to *finish* the first film.

Corey Atad wrote a great 'wish I had gotten around to writing it first' piece on Friday.  It's about well, it's called "Prometheus; or Stop Trying to Set Up Sequels!".  I've whined about this in brief or in the context of something else from time to time, but the whole 'everything's a trilogy' mindset has been quite harmful to any number of pictures over the last decade.  When you go back and look at the films that spawned successful franchises, they generally began with mostly close-ended installments.  Star Wars stands on its own, as does The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Batman Begins (heck, over the last four years I've come to admire how The Dark Knight begins and finishes its Harvey Dent business within its own 152 minute running time).  Even the first Back to the Future ended its specific narrative before offering a comedic cliffhanger that didn't necessarily need to be revolved (the producers always say they sure as hell wouldn't have had a flying car at the epilogue if they knew they were going to have to do expensive FX for a flying car all throughout a sequel).  Even Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had a relatively self-contained story that didn't necessarily require a sequel to complete its narrative.

Unconventional Wisdom: So Chris Nolan's Batman films inspired a trend of dark/gritty blockbusters? Such as?

I've discussed this a few times over the years, so while debunking the concept in question I must accept guilt for believing it uncritically on prior occasions. If you've been reading reviews and general commentary for The Avengers, you've probably read at least a few pundits talk about how Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a welcome respite from the grim/gritty blockbusters that were born from the massive success of Chris Nolan's Batman movies (the second of which is still falsely held up as a NeoCon propaganda fantasy).  It's an easy sell, as the bright, colorful, and larger-than-life super-heroics found in The Avengers are worlds away from the street-level fights and chases in the Nolan-verse.  But in the seven years since Batman Begins debuted, where exactly are all of these grim/gritty blockbusters that Nolan is constantly credited with inspiring?  In short, they basically don't exist.  Whether it be comic book films or unrelated fantasy blockbusters, the films that soared highest are still the biggest, most colorful, most larger-than-life, and arguably the most 'fun'.  Four years after The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan's second Batman epic remains not a template for blockbuster success but somewhat of an anomaly.

Feast your eyes on Benjamin Andrew Moore's awesome 'History of the Bat-Suit'.

This chart of Batman's various batsuits from 1939 to today is beyond impressive.  The artist's name is Benjamin Andrew Moore.  HERE is his site and HERE is his Twitter handle.  Click on the picture to 'embiggen'.  No more commentary, other than that I'm enough of a Batman nerd to confirm the accuracy of nearly every quote he uses, and in some case can tell you what story they came from.

Scott Mendelson

How 2001 was a film game-changer III: Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes 'reimagining' invents the modern reboot.

This is one of a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

At the time, the term 're-imagining' was ridiculed and mocked in the entertainment press.  20th Century Fox, Tim Burton, and those involved with the 2001 redo of Planet of the Apes refused to call it a remake, instead calling it a re-imagining of the classic 1968 sci-fi adventure that itself was a groundbreaking venture in several important ways (it was the first ongoing continuity-laden franchise from a major studio, the first sci-fi franchise, the first to do an 'origin' story, the first prequel, etc).  While the film was massively successful, the critical aftertaste (read - mixed/negative reviews quickly turned into general dissatisfaction) caused Fox to do, what is now a rare thing.  They quit while they were ahead.  They took their $362 million in worldwide grosses (off a $100 million budget) and closed shop on the Planet of the Apes franchise.  Despite a near-record opening weekend ($69 million) and a $180 million domestic gross, Burton was openly annoyed at the final result (it was among the first films to earn Fox a reputation as a micro manager among the big studios) and vowed not to return for a sequel.  Audiences too didn't care for the somewhat flat narrative, the blank-slate Mark Wahlberg performance, or the seemingly arbitrary shock ending.  Anyway, the film was a smash hit, but it was a classic quick-kill blockbuster that closed the book on the franchise until this very week, when 20th Century Fox is releasing Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Positioned as part-prequel, part quasi-remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the film is indeed a reboot of the beloved franchise.  Because reboots are all the rage now...

Why I'm not as excited for The Dark Knight Rises as you are...

While the rest of movie fandom hyperventilates over every bit of rumor and every bit of random casting ("Wow! The dad from Make It Or Break It will be in The Dark Knight Rises!"), I just can't quite find the passion that everyone else seems to be feeling.  Yes, I know I dealt with this a little back in December, but I don't think it's the whole 'getting old and cynical' thing this time around.  I have little doubt that The Dark Knight Rises will be a rock-solid Batman film and that it will contain fine acting, top-notch production values, and hopefully a dollop of social relevance.  I am even heartened by hints that seem to imply that it will indeed be a Bruce Wayne-centric story that will perhaps confront that whole 'Bruce Wayne acts like a selfish idiot so no one suspects he's Batman' shtick that the comics have forced on us for decades.  But, as good as it may be, The Dark Knight Rises will just be another Batman film.  Its predecessor was the culmination of pretty much everything I wanted to see in a Batman movie.  With The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan gave us exactly what we craved in a near-perfect concoction.  The Dark Knight was THE Batman film.

Actual Batman 3 news! James Pence cast as... (spoilers). Will The Dark Knight Rises even acknowledge The Dark Knight?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, James Pence has been apparently been cast as a young Ra's Al Ghul in Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. Spence, currently best known as the unlucky soul who had his face digitally replaced by Arnie Hammer in The Social Network, will apparently play a young Liam Neeson in a flashback sequence taking place thirty years before the events of Batman Begins. The only thing I have to offer about this is the following: Marion Cotillard is allegedly playing Talia Al Ghul (Ra's Al Ghul's daughter in the comics). Gary Oldman and others have claimed that it ties-in pretty directly to Batman Begins, with the League of Shadows returning and the trilogy wrapping up in a 'full circle' kind of way. So, the question is, will this be yet another part 3 that more-or-less ignores the events of the second film? Will The Dark Knight Rises be another second sequel that operates purely as a sequel to the first film rather than a third part in a continuing story?

There as no slump then, there is no slump now! Why comparing cumulative weekend box office makes no sense and hurts our desire for better movies.

Brandon Grey at Box Office Mojo called the weekend box office 'listless'. Nikkie Finke at Deadline Hollywood called it 'a soft weekend'. And Brent Lang of The Wrap called it 'sluggish'. 'Weak' was the word as three mid-to-low budget films opened with both solid reviews and decent box office. Also on everyone's mind was the fact that this weekend was down this year by about 10% compared to this weekend in 2010. We've been hearing that talk quite a bit this year, as each weekend is considered a quasi-disaster because it didn't equal or surpass the respective weekend from last year. There is a reason I never discuss how well a respective weekend performed compared to the same weekend last year or the year before. It's irrelevant. Every year brings different movies and those movies perform in vastly different ways from the year before or the year after. More importantly, it feeds into the absurd 'this year must be BIGGER' mentality, even if the product doesn't justify that. Want to know why this year's first few months have been down compared to last year? A) Avatar and B) Alice in Wonderland.