Roger Ebert's funniest, sharpest review in a long time....

Roger Ebert has been back as a full-time writer since reviewing Shrek The Third in May of 2007. And while it's great to have him back, many of his reviews have had a certain rote quality. Not bad, but almost like they could have written by many other critics. And he has been sloppy here and there. For example, his four-star Dark Knight review blatantly revealed the climax of the movie and got a key plot detail wrong (that of The Joker's back story about his father being a lie). It's not the first time he has tossed off a film ending spoiler (thank goodness I had seen Frequency at a sneak preview the week prior to opening), but I expect Ebert to get plot details right.

It's a little like seasons 10-15 of The Simpsons or seasons 5-7 of Scrubs... still good stuff, better than most, but far below their own obscenely high standards. Although this probably isn't his fault, the headlines for Ebert's reviews on the Chicago Sun Times page are really terrible. They are on the noise, lengthy, and often juvenile.

Fortunately, I'm not here to complain. I'm happy to report that his review for Sex Drive is a whiff of the ole, a concise, sharp, and hilariously adult and snarky review of a movie that probably doesn't deserve the effort. And, of course, it also gives me a solid idea of whether or not I would like the movie (a good review doesn't just say whether I liked the movie, but whether you would). The second to last paragraph is especially droll, and the final sentence almost feels improvised, if such a thing is possible in the written word. It's the first time in a long time that I have laughed out loud while reading film criticism.

Also of note is his one-star review of Tru Loved, arguably the only film review I've ever read that actually contains a plot twist at the end. Follow that up with his blog entry dealing with certain ethics of film criticism. Enjoy and discuss. It's good to have the most famous and finest film critic in history back in prime form.

Scott Mendelson

PS - Truth be told, the shocking nature of his current appearance is less his slight facial deformity and more the fact that he no longer wears his trademark glasses. It would be like Gene Siskel suddenly sporting a toupee.

Obama and McCain at their best - The Annual E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner

The annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is political event of sorts,a charity event organized by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York for the benefit of needy children. It's usually a night where the politicians spend time practicing their stand-up comedy skills often at each others' expense. Barack Obama and John McCain were both in top form last night. They were both very funny and John McCain was almost touching when speaking of his respect and admiration for his opponent (3:45 - "political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other"). Obama was razor-sharp, spending most of his time making fun of himself ("Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the planet Earth ..."). It's long, but worth watching for both men at their most heartfelt and most humorous.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Slumdog Millionaire
2008
120 minutes
rated R (language, adult situations, violence)
opens November 12 in limited release

by Scott Mendelson

There has been an ongoing debate for the last several years about the very concept of knowledge. With the advances of the internet and billions of people literally having any piece of information at their fingertips, what is the real benefit of knowledge? Why teach children facts when they can look them up in five seconds on Wikipedia or Google? Why devour trivia books (such as Uncle John's Bathroom Reader) when any random fact is available upon request? While there will always be such people as myself who take pride in knowing as much as possible about as much as possible (I'm not a 'know-it-all', I'm a 'want to know-it-all'), what practical purpose remains for storing facts, dates, names, and events when the answer key to the world is sitting at your fingertips?

Loveleen Tandan and Danny Boyle's delightful fable Slumdog Millionaire suggests that our lives can be considered a sum of our knowledge. The more we do, the more we experience, then the more we know. Hence, the more we know, the richer our lives have been and can be. The film concerns a single life, up to the age of eighteen, told against the backdrop of an event that could transform that life forever.

The plot - Jamil Malik (Skins' Dev Patel) has lived a tough and brutal life as an impoverished child in Mumbai, India. But now, through luck and perhaps intent, he sits in the winner's circle of the Indian version of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?'. As he awaits the final question that will award him 20 million rupees, he is arrested and detained by Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating. Doctors, lawyers, and scientists have never won as much money on this show, so how could a poor kid from the slums possibly know so much? With his life possibly hanging in the balance, Malik tells his interrogator the story of his life up to that point, with highlighting key events that will explain how be came to know the answers to the questions thus far.

That's all you get, and that's all you want going in. The film is a simple one, and the life of Malik sometimes flirts with cliche. But the movie succeeds as a sum of its parts, and its slow-building power becomes intoxicating. The film looks absolutely gorgeous, with widescreen vistas of India contrasting with sharp, intrusive closeups during interrogation scenes. The scenes set on the game show itself are both electric and claustrophobic, with Boyle doing his best to approximate the feeling of being on that once legendary show.

The acting is uniformly excellent, but it never stands out never overpowers the narrative. Each of the leads is played by three different actors as they age, and each young actor blends seamlessly with the one following or proceeding. Of the case, only Anil Kapoor stands out. He has fun playing the game show host, a seemingly jovial man of shifting motives and complicated feelings about having his spotlight stolen by this genuinely interesting young man.

And, unlike several other Danny Boyle pictures, the film actually has a compelling third act and an emotionally involving climax. No spoilers, but the film does not go sliding off the rails in the manner of 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and The Beach. Granted, he was loosely adapting Vikas Swarup's novel Q&A, but I was genuinely fearful that Boyle would once again drop the third-act ball. No worries, the last act is, if anything, superior to its somewhat dragging initial first act set-up.

In the end, Boyle and Tandan have made an enchanting story about the power of knowledge, knowledge gained from experiences and gained from life itself. The film sneaks up on the audience, slowly building emotional investment until the moviegoers are playing along with Malik and holding their breaths at the end. It is easily one of the more charming and original movies of this year and is absolutely perfect family entertainment for anyone over the age of ten. It is a celebration of not just the usual triumph of the human spirit, but a celebration of the human experience. For it's not just what you know, it's how you came to know it.

Grade: B+

Donnie Wahlberg - less famous than Mark, but a far superior actor.

I've made no secret of my dislike for the thespian talents of Mark Wahlberg, and the advance buzz on Max Payne, plus that wonderful SNL sketch seems to indicate that I may not be in the minority much longer.

I made mention in my review of The Happening back in July that Donnie Wahlberg would have been a much better choice for the lead role, that of the down-to-earth science teacher who encounters lethal forces beyond his explanation. I've always found Donnie Wahlberg to be a far superior actor and a more convincing screen presence. Whether giving gravitas to horror films like Saw II, or making crap like Annapolis vaguely watchable, he improves any project he's in, which is the mark of a great character actor. Rent the first season DVD set of Boomtown to see him at his best.

I didn't think about it till just now, but I wonder what Donnie thinks about his brother taking a lead role in a Shyamalan film. After all, Donnie Wahlberg's acting career was born the moment he took a three-minute walk-on role in The Sixth Sense and ran with it. He lost sixty-pounds and completely dedicated himself to what should have been just a random part, a plot device to start the movie and set the story in motion. I have to wonder about how Donnie feels about his more famous brother taking a lead role for the director that made him, and then botching it. Random thought.

Scott Mendelson

"Marvel, can you spare a dime?" Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard in Iron Man 2

While Marvel has previously tried to shortchange the Iron Man sequel over the summer (forcing the film to be ready in two short years, trying to deny director Jon Favreau a raise and/or replace him), it seems that another major component of the film has been altered by (allegedly) Marvel's penny-pinching ways. As of yesterday, Terrence Howard has been replaced by Don Cheadle as Tony Stark's best pal Jim Rhodes, the man who would be War Machine. According to The Hollywood Reporter, negotiations fell through over 'financial differences among other reasons'. So, it would seem that Howard wanted a raise and Marvel said no.

While I'm not the world's biggest Terrence Howard fan, and Don Cheadle is by far the superior thespian, I can't help wondering if Howard was asking for so much extra money that Marvel was willing to risk continuity-comfort to find a replacement, or whether Marvel was just being the dumb-asses they seem to be of late. Point being, for the sake of flow (and hustle?) and keeping the universe intact, Howard was worth at least a couple million bucks. There are only three major actors of note who's characters are still alive. You basically have Tony Stark, Pepper Potts, and Jim Rhodes (if Nick Fury has more than a cameo, then toss him in too). So it seems odd that Marvel would be so willing to cast aside literally 1/3 of the recognizable actors.

To be fair, we don't know exactly what happened. Terrence Howard is a somewhat odd person and an alleged egotist. He may well have demanded $10 million plus points and a producer credit. I'd be more willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt if not for their history of terrible decisions. Aiding and abetting the butchering of Daredevil. Forcing Sam Raimi to include Venom in Spider-Man 3. Rebooting The Incredible Hulk with their own money and then forcing Edward Norton and director Louis Leterrier to shorten and dumb the film down, resulting in a movie that actually made less than the original. Playing chicken with the creative forces behind Iron Man 2, the movie that built your snazzy new movie studio in the first place.

Regardless of how much better an actor Cheadle may be then Howard, it is always distracting to have a new actor step into an established role for a sequel. It was darn distracting watching Maggie Gyllenhaal replace Katie Holmes in the Nolan Batman pictures. Although that was partially because The Dark Knight basically backed Dawes into the corner of cliched love interest, the prize to be won in a romantic triangle (in Batman Begins, she was a three-dimensional character, the moral compass for a young Bruce Wayne). I wonder about how different a Jim Rhodes replacement Don Cheadle will be. Howard's Jim Rhodes was a relatively weak character, which made sense as someone who could stand by Tony but not stand up to him (it was rather similar to the House/Wilson relationship). Cheadle does not usually suggest passivity and indecisiveness, so we'll see if he can play this new shade.

We'll see how this affects the new film. Make no mistake, Don Cheadle is an upgrade in pretty much every variable. But, it's a darn shame that, like Nolan's Batman pictures, the Iron Man series couldn't maintain pure character continuity for even a single sequel. It makes you appreciate the miracle that is the Harry Potter series and Chris Columbus's casting acumen - eight films, one cast change caused by the death of actor Richard Harris, everyone else ready and willing to finish off the story.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Quarantine (2008)

Quarantine
2008
089 minutes
Rated R (bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language)

by Scott Mendelson

It is somewhat ironic that a week before seeing this film, my wife and I found ourselves walking through the Quarantine maze at Knott's Scary Farm (Knotts Berry Farm does an annual October makeover, where all of their rides become insanely intricate haunted houses... quite impressive). I say ironic for two reasons. A) The film Quarantine is probably the closest thing I've seen on film to the experience of walking through a haunted house attraction. B) The maze is quite a bit scarier on a pure visceral level than the film itself.

Not to say the film is bad. It's actually surprisingly affective in the opening acts, setting up a frighteningly plausible scenario and plausible slice-of-life characters. Only in the last twenty-minutes or so does the film become an unwieldy fright fest, with incomprehensible action and an almost complete lack of pay off.

Some plot - Angela Vidal and Scott Percival are reporter and camera man from a local news network, sent to do a puff piece on the local fire department. After a quick get-to-know ya interview segment or two, the department gets called on an actual emergency and the reporters tag along. When they get to the apartment building in peril, they quickly discover that the emergency is note fire-related, although they'll soon wish it was.

The entirety of the film is shot as if it were the running video footage from Percival's camera. For the record, this remake of a 2007 Spanish horror film ('REC') is much cleaner and less grainy than Cloverfield and far less disorienting than The Blair Witch Project. But we still have that 'something horrible happened just off screen' bit along with the swirling camera that occasionally denies us key plot details or major moments.

There are surprisingly few cheap jolts, so the ones that are there are brutally effective. The biggest advantage that the film has is a cast made up of veteran character actors and television performers. Our favorite grizzled Croatian Rade Serbedzija plays the landlord. Steve Harris, best known as defense attorney Eugene Young on The Practice, plays the cameraman (while his face is rarely seen, his voice lends a gravity to the proceedings). Fleshing out the cast is Greg Germann (from Ally McBeal), Dana Ramirwz from Heroes, film character actor Jay Hernandez, and Dennis O'Hare (longtime Law And Order fans will recognize him as guest-starring as four different characters in four of the best episodes of the series' run). These veterans help flesh out what would otherwise be stock horror film characters. Everyone is intelligent, no one is particularly heroic, and they all just feel like real people trapped in an inexplicable situation (even Steve Harris is allowed to break down a little after committing a violent act of self defense).

Alas, after an hour of solid character interplay and potent shocks, the film turns into a somewhat substandard 'run from the monster' cliché. Because of the video-based narrative, much of what unfolds in the last act is difficult to follow and thus hard to appreciate. And, truth be told, there really is no climax as none of the characters have any real arcs.

In the end, the film reveals its true intentions. Regardless of the high caliber of acting and the subtlety of the writing, the film is merely a haunted house ride. That's no sin, but the film at first appears striving for something greater, so its descent into ordinariness is all the more unfortunate. As far as that lack of pay off, the film basically just ends arbitrarily, with only the barest hint of explanation as to what just occurred. So much of what came before is rendered thematically meaningless and our investment in the characters is rendered moot.

So, in the end, Quarantine is worth seeing for its solid first two acts, some terrific acting by some favorite character actors, and a several solid spook-show scares. But it has no real reason for its existence and its final irrelevance renders the experience rather hollow.

GRADE: C+
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOTE - SPOILER!!! Shame on Screen Gems for spoiling a major climactic moment of the film, both as a button for the trailer and commercials, and on the poster art. I more or less knew ahead of time, and thus was annoyed. My wife had no idea and was downright furious as she slowly realized how the film was going to end because she hadn't seen 'that scene' yet. Not since the trailer to Cast Away have I seen such blatant spoiling, made all the worse because most moviegoers won't know that a major element has been revealed until they're already into the movie.

Free Tip - Don't withhold critic screenings if your movie is actually GOOD!

With Quarantine now sitting at number 2 at the weekend box office, this would seem to be another case of a critic-proof genre picture that was not screened for critics and scored based on the aggressive and intense marketing. Fair enough, but waltz on over to Rotten Tomatoes. You'll notice that the film has a shockingly positive 65% fresh rating. Granted, it's only 26 reviews thus far, but that's still a surprisingly high average for A) a horror film and B) a film that wasn't screened for critics.

As more and more studios opt out of the pre-screening biz, especially for genre entries, we may have to redefine what it means when a film isn't screened for critics. In the olden days (like three years ago even), only the very worst movies were withheld from critical scorn, and it was a sign of the studio's absolute lack of faith in the quality of the film. For example, The Avengers sealed its bad-buzzed fate in August 1998 when it was hacked to bits (from 135 minutes to 89 minutes) and then withheld from critics. The film flopped hard and the reviews that did seep out were nothing short of ghastly.

Nowadays, studios almost routinely negate critics screenings from their marketing strategy, or often times set them up so late in the week that the reviews will appear after opening weekend for many print publications (Fox is allegedly doing this with Max Payne next weekend). In early 2006, Sony had a whole slate of crap (among others, The Benchwarmers, When A Stranger Calls) that they withheld from critics and most of the movies were financially successful anyway. Sometimes its because the movie is truly terrible, sometimes its because it's a movie that they know only appeals to a specific demographic so why bother (re - Tyler Perry movies). What used to be the film equivalent of the 'walk of shame' (you usually got worse press for your movie by not screening it than by screening it and getting bad reviews) is now brushed off with 'eh'.

So, in this world of instant word of mouth, it can perhaps be more harmful to have pre-screenings, but what about when your movie is, I dunno, good? Don't you want the red badge of critical approval in your corner on opening weekend? Sure horror films, sequels, and genre pictures are often critic proof, but positive notices can't possibly hurt a movie, right? There has been an odd trend over the last few years of withholding movies from critical scrutiny, movies that turn out to be pretty darn good after all. Surely these movies would have benefited from the box office dollars of the few film goers left who do read and trust critics?

So just why did Fox wait till two days before opening day to screen Live Free Or Die Hard, the Die Hard sequel that was riding a wave of bad buzz due to its PG-13 rating? That buzz turned around almost immediately once people, including myself, actually saw the film, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive (it now sits at 81%). I remember writing and sending off my positive review and thinking I was going to be in the slim minority, only to check on Rotten Tomatoes and discover that everyone else liked it too, many more so than myself. The movie did $48.2 million in five days. Wouldn't it have done a little more if the opening was proceeded by a week or so of positive reviews and word of mouth?

Arguably the dumbest 'no screenings' movie was Snakes On A Plane. After spending goodness knows how much extra money to geek up the movie and try to market it as the mother of cult films, New Line Cinema withheld any and all screenings until the Thursday at 9pm national paid sneak. So the film went into opening weekend with the label of being a geek-cult film that was so goofily bad as to be entertaining. Needless to say, very few people showed up, since most people prefer not to pay for movies that they have been told is going to be lousy. So imagine the surprise when the film ended up with majority positive reviews (with 150 reviews total, it now sits at 70%).

While the film certainly had a glass ceiling due to its genre and quirkiness, I can't imagine that the movie would have not opened to more than $13.5 million with the benefit of positive reviews to go along with its geek trappings. I'm sure Roger Ebert would have adored this movie (although he was on medical leave at the time), and I know of several other critics who would have too.

Now Quarantine has made $14.2 million for a solid second place finish. I can't imagine having a bevy of positive reviews, many of the 'I'm shocked at how good it was' variety, would have done anything other than boost that number. I'll be seeing the movie this afternoon. Because of my wife's affection for any and all horror films, I really don't have a choice. But, because of the reviews, I am actually looking forward to it.

Scott Mendelson

Oh my God, they killed Gary (Oldman)!

Here is the just released trailer for the David Goyer supernatural thriller, The Unborn. As you'll notice, an oddly clean-shaven Gary Oldman plays a professor or religious figure of some kind. Spoiler-alert - Gary Oldman is killed. I have not seen the movie. I know very little about the movie. But you're just gonna have to trust me. If only one person dies in this film, it will be Gary Oldman. For whatever reason, Gary Oldman has arguably the highest proportional death rate of any above the title star working today, especially one who doesn't almost exclusively play villains (like, say, Danny Trejo). This is something I noticed a long time ago, and the pattern just kept bearing fruit. If Gary Oldman is in a movie, regardless of his role and the genre, he probably will die. Obviously, spoilers for Oldman pictures from here on out.

He has played a large number of historical figures in his career. Needless to say, they all got it in the end. He got his big break playing doomed punk rocker Sid Vicious in Sid And Nancy. As most of you know, Sid Vicious overdosed on various drugs (long after stabbing his girlfriend to death in a drug-fueled mania). He has also portrayed playwright Joe Orton (bludgeoned to death), Lee Harvey Oswald (shot in the chest), Count Dracula (stabbed in the heart then beheaded), Ludwig Von Beethoven (lead poisoning), and Pontius Pilate (natural causes). He has played many villains, all of whom met their theatrical demise. He was vanquished by heroes true in True Romance (shot in a scuffle), The Professional (blown up by grenades), Air Force One (tossed out of an airplane and hanged by his own parachute), The Fifth Element (blown up), Quest For Camelot (uh... don't remember), Lost In Space (the evil future version of Dr. Smith got tossed into a pit of doom or something), and Hannibal (fed to giant hogs).

Now that's an impressive body count for any actor. And, to be fair, Oldman occasionally allows himself to live, although I'm sure there is an alternate ending to The Contender where goodie-two-shoes liberal Joan Allen flings conservative muckracker Oldman off a roof in a blinding rainstorm. And I'm pretty sure he survived his guest appearance on Friends (the episode is not called 'The One Where Gary Oldman Dies'). Ironically, his character in The Scarlett Letter lives in the movie despite dying in the book. There are several items in his filmography that I know little about, so I can't vouch for every screen appearance. For the record, he also dies in State Of Grace, The Firm (1988), and Backwoods (arguably his most gratuitous death ever). He dies in the video game True Crime: Streets Of LA, although I can't vouch for his safety in Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead.

And, you can be damn sure how the contract negotiations for Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban went down*. It certainly can't be a coincidence in terms of which of the many many characters that Oldman could have been picked for. And let's not forget the Batman series. As soon as Oldman was cast as Jim Gordon, I immediately assumed that at some point either Gordon would fake his death or a Scarecrow-hallucination would show Batman seeing Gordon die in front of him. Needless to say, I was pretty dead-on on the first guess. And I can't imagine that Oldman was too happy when he got to the end of act two in Nolan's screenplay.** And I'm still expecting him to bite the dust in part 3.

So yes, as we've demonstrated here today... It may be a big blockbuster movie where Oldman plays a villain, it may be a biopic where Oldman plays a doomed character of history. Or Oldman may just get in in the eyes for no good reason. But if Gary Oldman is starring in the supernatural thriller The Unborn, then Gary Oldman will be probably killed in the supernatural thriller The Unborn. I'd bet his life on it. For what it's worth, Oldman is lending his voice to a star-studded cartoon of A Christmas Carol that comes out next year. He plays Tiny Tim. Oh dear...

Scott Mendelson


*The Never-Before Revealed Contract Negotiations with Gary Oldman for Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban:

Gary Oldman: Well, this is a wonderful opportunity and a lovely role, but I'm afraid I just can't do it.

Alfonso Cuaron: What? Why the hell not? I mean, it's a major franchise, lots of money, and you've practically been blacklisted since that whole Contender squabble. What on Earth would make you turn this down?

Gary Oldman: Well, you see, I live at the end of this picture.

Alfonso Cuaron: Excuse me?

Gary Oldman: I'm still alive at the end. I'm Gary Oldman, I have to die!

Alfonso Cuaron: You're kidding right? You're going to turn down this role because you don't get killed?

Gary Oldman: I've already turned down this role because I don't get killed. Sorry, Alfie.

Alfonso Cuaron: (Sigh). Umm... ok, here's the thing. Can you keep a secret?

Gary Oldman: I guess...

Alfonso Cuaron: None of this 'I guess' business. Can you keep a secret or not? Because if you squeal than Rowling will have your family murdered, and probably mine just for sport! So, can you keep a secret?!

Gary Oldman: Well, yes. Yes I can.

(Alfonso reaches into his bag and pulls out a tattered manuscript. He places it in front of Oldman. Oldman reads the front page).

Gary Oldman: Harry Potter And The Order Of The... wait a minute, is this...?

Alfonso Curon: Page 708.

(Oldman turns to page 708 and scans the text. His eyes light up).

Gary Oldman: Well, dammit man, I'll do it!


** Never before-revealed private phone conversation between Gary Oldman and Chris Nolan, circa Feburary 2008.

Chris Nolan: So, I heard you just came out of the movie, what did you think?

Gary Oldman: You fucking tease. You had me so excited, and then you go and bring me back to life! What a cheat!

Chris Nolan: Oh come on, Gary, you didn't really think I was going to kill Commissioner Gordon, did you?

Gary Oldman: Well, you had me going, and then you pull the rug out. I mean, it doesn't even make any sense. Did he just improv faking his death? Did no one notice his body is gone after the crowd clears? Was there a fake autopsy? How the hell do you expect the audience... oh never mind. The point is, if you're not going to kill me, you shouldn't taunt me like that!

Chris Nolan: Come on, I was just having fun with you. It's our little in-joke, so it doesn't have to make sense.

Gary Oldman: Well, Chris, I did the second movie even though I didn't want to. Couldn't I just stay dead? Please?

Chris Nolan: For Pete's sake, you're Commissioner Gordon!! I can't kill Gordon! Why don't I just kill Batman?

Gary Oldman: Well, you killed Harvey Dent! You killed Commissioner Loeb! You killed Rachel Dawes! Hell, you kept The Joker alive. How's that working out for you, Chris? That was a brilliant call, wasn't it?

Chris Nolan: Oh fuck you, Gary! (hangs up phone)

"It's the Movie, stupid!" (Body Of Lies 'dissapoints' because it didn't look any good, not because of false star power)

With the would-be third place opening of Body Of Lies, you can expect a torrent of articles in the next few days about the death of the star vehicle, the breakdown of the star system, and how the studios should just stop paying such exuberant star salaries. Hell, Patrick Goldstein Of The LA Times preemptively wrote such an article last week, agreeing with John Horn's correct prediction that Beverly Hills Chihuahua would again take the weekend and that Body Of Lies would come in second place. Of course, Quarantine opened number one last night, but the top-three are tight enough to presume that the horror flick will experience more drop-off and front loading than the popular family film and the adult thriller.

The finest in political discourse (Batman debates The Penguin). Plus does Batman Returns predict the current political landscape?

Delightfully timely, as I presume it will always be.

On that note, you have the climactic Penguin speech from Batman Returns. In a weird way, it's story was way ahead of its time. The Penguins whole arc is that of a completely substance-less freak, using the strength of his biographical narrative, riding a wave of sympathy and naivety to political power. Pay attention to the speech The Penguin gives as Wayne and Alfred are preparing to mess with his sound system. It's absolute gibberish, full of political cliches and empty rhetoric. I've always found it hysterical.

Alas, right as the speech ends, about 35 seconds in, the maker of this clip decided to add his own obnoxious music. It was the only clip of this scene I could find.

Scott Mendelson