Change Your Image
tbuchalski
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Midsommar (2019)
Midsommar: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Florence Pugh's performance really holds this film together. The men in the cast do okay to support her, but she is really the shining star of this film. The pain from her recent tragedy and how that pain makes her fear of loneliness and acceptance so much worse is made real by her stellar performance. Without Pugh the film would fall flat as most of its themes find their outlet directly through her. The alternative horror subplot provides suspense as Aster's reputation precedes him into this film, but the shock value of certain "unexpected" moments is unimpressive and forgettable. Pugh is the reason that this film has any real value, particularly for value in repeat viewings.
The Bad:
Although Aster's work on Hereditary (2018) places him in a place of arguably refreshing critical praise among horror directors he does little in this sophomore feature outing that isn't predictable. Hereditary had a few surprising moments that grounded the film in the horror genre while still experimenting with the conventions. Midsommar does little to accomplish that feat again. Each "scary" or thrilling revelation is terribly banal as with each one's coming and going the audience is left thinking, "Yeah, that makes sense, rather than "I can't believe what I just saw!"
The Ugly:
The appeal of Midsommar lies primarily in its revelations of the Other and what audiences might see as cult-like behavior. While Midsommar moves slowly and predictably almost entirely throughout - the first act tragedy being the exception - Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin, 2011) explores the darker, and arguably scarier parts of those themes with more effect in a more unpredictable way. John Hawkes horrifies in limited screen time as the audience unexplainably knows exactly who he is and what he's capable of. The similar predictability of Aster's Swedish village is more expository than it is terrifying, and thus misses the mark.
The 'Burbs (1989)
The 'Burbs: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
This film presents a late 20th century critique of the Treaty of Paris, wherein Germany, among others, was required to demobilize and disarm, and take responsibility for the losses from World War I. In the film three suburban American families suspect their new neighbors, perhaps Slavic immigrants, of foul play. The three patriarchs of the American families played by Hanks, Dern, and Ducommun can be interpreted as the three major players from the Allied Powers in the peace negotiations - France, The UK, and the US. And, the Klopeks with the repeated references to their Slavic roots can be seen clearly in opposition as Germany and other Slavic nations that helped make up the Central Powers. Hanks & Company are intensely nervous about what their neighbors are up to pointing to Germany's militarization in the years between World Wars I and II. Furthermore the subtly Jewish surnames of Hanks & company point at an historic hindsight wherein global tragedy might have been avoided if the Allies had focused less on punishment, and more on a continued peace. After all, some of the greatest physical pains of the film are inflicted on Hanks, the tacit leader of the neighborhood, when the film is over. It's this new interpretation of the film that adds to the layers of its value after 30 years.
The Bad:
There is little narratively to support the behavior of Hanks and his neighbors. And, there is more here to be explored in gender relations and equality that is left on the table as the wives in the film, played by Carrie Fisher and Wendy Schaal, try to insist that their husbands not let their paranoia get the best of them. So, even as their attitudes are more rational and cool-headed, they are still found to be incorrect. There is almost an insistence that the more illogical choice must be the right one, and that fear-driven paranoia is the best course regardless of the pain and suffering it will inevitably cause. This film is ultimately a fun romp and an 80's comedy classic, but outside of the obscure yet interesting interpretations related to xenophobia and The Treaty of Versailles that I've introduced above, there's little else that sets this film apart.
The Ugly:
No other film presents the critiques of suburban American paranoia quite like this film, but there are a few that did it differently, and arguably better. Disturbia (D.J. Caruso, 2007) is a more exciting presentation of the subject matter because it ascribes to the tropes and conventions of a thriller genre film. With a little comic relief from LaBeouf as was trademark for his films of the time his suspicion turned to paranoia turned to fear and panic takes the driver's seat in this film as the stakes double down as each act comes and goes. Similar suspense is intentionally avoided given the comic nature of The 'Burbs, so greater and more exciting elements of the story are muted and opaque.
Rocketman (2019)
Rocketman: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
With a spate of jukebox musical tributes to 20th century masters coming to theaters in recent years Fletcher offers up Rocketman about the early life and career of Elton John. Rather than break up the drama with re-enacted performances, Rocketman infuses elements from classical Hollywood musicals. By telling the story through a series of flashbacks the film benefits from being seen through the creative and sometimes imaginative memory of John himself, so the presentation includes musical set pieces of song and dance and bits of fantasy. These deviations from strict realism remind us that John is perhaps an unreliable narrator and add vibrancy that's absent in contemporary musician biopics that are stale and generic by comparison.
The Bad:
With a British actors cast in most of the British parts, Bryce Dallas Howard's casting to play Elton's mother, Sheila, is perplexing. Her star status is quite jarring from her first appearance on screen. While her performance is perfectly dastardly at times, her transformation is somehow incomplete. Because her role is less and less prominently featured as the film goes on, the overall effect of her presence is diminished and the film suffers less as a whole. To say the least of this film is this poorly cast, but well performed, role is a testament to the film's composition and the other performances.
The Ugly:
Although it's not a biopic, Across the Universe (Julie Taymor, 2007) exemplifies the jukebox musical in its showcase of some of the Beatles most popular songs, and the inclusion of classical Hollywood's most successful musicals. The musical set pieces of Rocketman that lift it above other biopics, like Bohemian Rhapsody, are almost exclusively how the music of The Beatles was showcased in Taymor's film. Rocketman would have certainly benefited from taking a similar tack, but because Elton John and his real-life performances were so colorful and ostentatious, the set pieces used early in the film fade in favor of performances re-enacted.
Toy Story 2 (1999)
Toy Story 2: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Pixar realized the need to expand on all aspects of this film, because they knew technology available improved and the end product needed to reflect that. And, as a sequel they knew there would be an expectation to raise the bar already set fairly high by the first film. To help achieve that higher goal Pixar truly doubled down on the scope of the narrative. Woody, Buzz, and company spend their time in a variety of locales and are subject to the dangers of the outside world significantly longer than in the first installment of the franchise. By leaving the bedrooms of Andy and Sid, and the arcade of Pizza Planet, Toy Story 2 ramps up the stakes by adding depth to the question "Will they or won't they succeed?"
The Bad:
A more ambitious and complex story also requires more diligent storytelling to ensure that continuity standards carry over from the initial installment to its sequels. Perhaps there's a good excuse in the narrative failings of this film in the production complications, but there are failings in the storytelling nonetheless. Most glaring of the film's misses are inconsistencies of the film's physical reality. Even as animated films typically benefit from their ability to stray from the laws of the natural world, Toy Story didn't establish these kinds of deviations for the franchise. And so, without an understanding that the Toy Story universe differs from the real world even in small extraordinary ways, when toy horse, Bullseye, can match speed with a passenger plane, or when a bowl of cheese puffs spills and covers the entire floor the thematic depth of the film takes a backseat and leaves the audience asking "How?"
The Ugly:
As with the first film of this franchise this film is likely only truly surpassed by its successor, Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010). Pixar increases the thematic depth once again from film to film showing its evolution not only in available animation technology, but with storytelling. With Toy Story Pixar presented is with a simple story of jealousy, friendship, and purpose. Those themes return in Toy Story 2, but also includes more about discovery of self, self-worth, and the pitfalls of ego. Stellar narratives are not singular to the Toy Story franchise among Pixar films, but as these films released Pixar demonstrated its ability to craft a franchise through deep emotional connections between the characters and the audience.
Yesterday (2019)
Yesterday: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
In a cast made up primarily of caricatures and walking genre tropes Himesh Patel shines as an acting talent and musical performer. Without much to play against Patel plays the role of a conflicted and lovesick musician perfectly, and his often emotional renditions of the songs of The Fab Four help make up for the middling performances of the rest of the cast. While it's still not enough to lift this movie out of the disappointingly average place it finds itself if, it is refreshing to find a fresh face with real talent among bigger stars phoning it in.
The Bad:
Because the movie doesn't feature much of The Beatles catalog prominently, it relies heavily on the romantic storyline between Patel and James, and their chemistry. Unfortunately, their chemistry falls short, and is confused by early dialogue that suggests James is uninterested, and that their relationship, romantic or otherwise, has always been driven by her, not Patel. With their lackluster romance in place, the comic relief of McKinnon and Fry, and the reserved inclusion of Beatles songs performed by Patel just aren't enough to ensure the success based on reinvigorated nostalgia that is clearly the aim of the film.
The Ugly:
For a nostalgic look back at The Beatles catalog there is no better film in its execution than Across the Universe (Julie Taymor, 2007). As a jukebox musical it's pretty generic. But, for Beatles fans it puts the music and the history of the band at its center without complicating its sensibility by trying to tell a narrative so separate from the music that the audience is left wondering where the two meet. In fact, the close parallels between the romance between the main characters, and the personal and career trajectories of The Beatles enrich the story in a way that Yesterday's imagined narrative apparently separate from any influence of The Beatles could never achieve.
Toy Story (1995)
Toy Story: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Toy Story set the benchmark not just for the animated films that Pixar would produce in the decades since, but for films from other animation studios like Dreamworks and Disney Animation. Most importantly, this film ushered in an era of animation that is truly fun for the whole family. Rather than filling the time with cute animals, catchy songs, and a story that caters to the lowest, or youngest, common denominator, each of these elements is subtly accentuated and elevated so adults in the audience can appreciate the humor, themes, and well crafted narrative alongside the youth in the audience that are the film's target demographic.
The Bad:
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to find fault with this film. Since it's release, Toy Story has been lauded for every aspect of its production by critics, industry insiders, and audiences at large. But, the years that have past since the film's release have become its biggest drawback. Pixar has released 20 films since Toy Story graced the screens at the time of this writing, including 3 direct sequels to this film. With each new film Pixar has released they've innovated the technology and techniques to define the ever-evolving standard of computer animated films. With each new benchmark in the genre this film has fallen further and further behind looking less and less like the state of the art film that it was in 1995.
The Ugly:
To piggy-back off of my "Bad" for this film, it's hard to find a film that did it better than this, but perhaps we can look to the direct sequel, Toy Story 2 (John Lasseter, Ash Brannon, and Lee Unkrich, 1999). This follow up did everything to one-up it's predecessor. It expanded the world around Woody, Buzz, and company outside of a few simple settings and added an exposition for Woody that accentuates a part of what was good about the first film. Adult viewers at the time of release might have been taken back to their own youths and the corporate studio television shows with toy tie-ins like The Mickey Mouse Club and Howdy Doody. With growth and maturity in the studio's ability to create engrossing stories and improvements in animation in the four years between releases, this film further entrenched the franchise, and solidified Pixar as the premier computer animation studio.
Swinging Safari (2018)
Swinging Safari: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
A more uncensored version of the coming of age story. There are no poignant flashbacks of a better time for Elliott. Inept parents are ignorant of their misguided children running amok in their Australian beachside suburb. As the younger children constantly cast themselves into new dangers making stunt films, and the older children experiment with sex the adults cling with every ounce of their energies to their own misspent youths. This film presents an interesting, but altogether tragic vignette of 20th century history wherein assumptions about nature vs. nurture left cases of depression and other mental health disorders among children largely unnoticed.
The Bad:
Narrative elements are awkward and fit together about as seamlessly as the clips from Jeffrey's Super 8 "stunt films." Perhaps the disjunction of the narrative style adds to the chaos and banality of real life from moment to moment, but the technique of mirroring real life on screen confuses the real power of this film. Without narrative consistency or comprehensible character arcs any message, intended or otherwise, is lost or muddled at best with nonsensical plot points. As the film draws to a close it's just too difficult to see what it tried to do, because what it did do it did so poorly.
The Ugly:
Cohesive narrative. Complex characters with nuance and subtlety. These traits that we hunger for from Swinging Safari are well crafted in The Perks of Being a Wallflower (Stephen Chbosky, 2012). While I've been critical of Logan Lerman in a previous review, and am unconvinced about his acting ability in general, his performance as the mysterious and confused Charlie is certainly among his best, if not the best. Perks better exhibits the difficulties of childhood, especially when considering trauma and mental illness, because of its adherence to certain dramatic conventions familiar to the majority of audiences.
Aladdin (2019)
Aladdin 2019: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Disney's latest live action remake is a Colorful, and nostalgic imagining that does justice to the animated original. The use of colors in the 1992 was selective and mainly isolated to the film's main characters set against the sand tones of the desert and of Agrabah. But, in Ritchie's selection the settings and costumes both pop with color reminiscent of the films of Bollywood. With little in the way of expanded story, or more complex characters than its predecessor, this film is vibrant and kinetic and speaks to the cinematic value of live action over animation.
The Bad:
With about 38 minutes more runtime than the animated original, this film didn't add much to set itself above, or even apart from, the original. While it has obviously proved successful for the studio with other live action remakes, like The Jungle Book (Jon Favreau, 2016), and Beauty and the Beast (Bill Condon, 2017), these films are little more than cookie cutter copies of their originals. A few new songs wrapped in all of the familiar ones, and a lot of rehashed dialogue veils an almost complete lack of originality in a film that doesn't accomplish much more than repackaging an animated classic for box office receipts.
The Ugly:
One of Disney's first forays into direct adaptation of one of its earlier animated classics is Cinderella (Kenneth Branagh, 2015). Smartly, Disney dispatched with the mice and songs of the original and focused more on the characters of the story in this remake. While Cinderella's step-sisters are still very much caricatures, the evil step-mother played by Cate Blanchett is fleshed out more than her animated counter-part. Whether it's the expanded storyline, the removal of the Disney animation tropes like talking animals or catchy tunes, the impressive performance of Blanchett, or the direction of Branagh, Cinderella championed Disney's then new trend of remaking its animated classics in live action.
The Russian Five (2018)
The Russian Five: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
As a documentary, this film succeeded by invoking popular tropes from successful narrative fiction films - some based on true stories. It has the espionage intrigue of Spy Game (Tony Scott, 2001) with tales of locker room conversations in Russia under KGB surveillance. It has the front office machinations and calculations of Moneyball (Bennett Miller, 2011), wherein a General Manager from an already successful team is brought in to turn around a franchise circling the drain. Most importantly it has the kinetic excitement and tale of adversity of a hockey film like Miracle (Gavin O'Connor, 2004), and ironically enough The Russian Five has one of the same players as that "miracle on ice" story.
The Bad:
The story is inconsistent in its delivery. Early on, there are elements of intrigue and ingenuity, but those fade in favor of a more conventional, less exciting teleological point of view. Perhaps it's a drawback associated with tying documentary talking head interviews, and archival footage with narrative films, but there isn't a throughline of thought concerning what kind of story is being told. The film's greatest strength is perhaps its greatest weakness. Is it a story of intrigue with late night state department phone calls? Or, is it a film about the genius, or collective geniuses, required to build a championship contender? Or, is it a film about the triumph over adversity, even when a team can be at the top of its sport?
The Ugly:
Documentary style with shades of Ocean's Eleven (Steven Soderbergh, 2001), The Cove (Louie Psihoyos, 2009) begins and ends with a cohesive story. Psihoyos introduces an old dolphin trainer with a broken heart who reveals what could possibly be the greatest inhuman injustice known to contemporary consciousness. The steady rise to the film's climax and the constant suspense as Psihoyos and his crew of crack filmmakers set the stage is excellently orchestrated. The Russian Five tells a nostalgic story of a great era in the history of a storied hockey franchise, but The Cove better exemplifies the callbacks to narrative genre films that both films rely on for success in their storytelling.
Free Solo (2018)
Free Solo: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
The film is an incredible character piece about a man seeking not only to challenge himself, but to best a looming foe that has taunted him psychologically for years. Alex Honnold grapples with his own personality and the desires of the people in his life as he prepares for what will be the most important climb of his life. Alex is well-established as the perfect person to accomplish the titanic feat of climbing El Capitan through the talking head interviews of those closest to him, and to the sport. True to form, this sport documentary also sets across from Alex a complicated and dangerous opponent, El Capitan. El Capitan is well-known both for its beautiful grandiosity, and for the breadth of challenges that it presents to climbers. Who will succeed? Will Alex conquer El Capitan without ropes? Or, will El Capitan ask the ultimate price for Alex's failure?
The Bad:
While the camera crew, as friends and members of the climbing community, provide worthwhile exposition for the task at hand, the constant presence of cameras in the frame removes the audience from the experiences of Alex's training and preparation for his climb. With the cameras ever-present throughout Alex's training and repeated discussions of staging for the actual event the film impresses the importance placed on documenting Alex's feat over the significance of the feat itself. The contrary purposes of Alex, and the filmmakers confuses the overall intent behind the film and its subject. Is it a film about the Alex's goal to be the first to free solo climb El Capitan? Or, is it a film to showcase the technology and skill required to film such an event?
The Ugly:
Any dangerous activity when well-practiced becomes less dangerous. The danger of Alex's task seems paramount to the filmmakers of Free Solo. But, as they show Alex training and preparing both physically and mentally, they dilute the real danger that he faces. Although it's not a film of direct observation, like Free Solo, Touching the Void (Kevin Macdonald, 2013) really impresses the consequence of mistakes made while climbing. With a similarly notorious mountain to climb in Siule Grande in Peru, and an equally notorious descent once the summit is reached, Touching the Void made its subject not the characters at its center but the repeated dangers that both climbers face up, and down, the mountain.
Spotlight (2015)
Spotlight: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Spotlight excellently sets the stage for the shocking stories that the quartet of Boston Globe reporters sometimes seem only to stumble into. As the film unfolds, the world around them foreshadows both the giant revelations that they uncover, and the sweeping network of moral horrors perpetrated by The Catholic Church in Boston. A character goes so far even to point out a church, and playground, in the background as he tells the story of his repeated molestations as a child and how that further confused his already delicate sense of sexuality. In that moment, while unnecessarily obvious, The Church's stranglehold of a city and its people is made clear so in every other sequence the hidden symbolism of the same becomes more ominous and slowly bubbles to the surface as the moment of The Globe's publication approaches.
The Bad:
The film is unnecessarily preachy at times. Each principal actor is given a moment where they expound on the grave moral compromises made by those involved both inside and outside the Church. The film assumes an audience that's unaware of the controversy that The Boston Globe helped to uncover, or that has already sided with the film's antagonist. To combat the naïveté or predeterminations of that assumed audience the film gives us lapsed Catholics outraged as they realize the scope of what the priests of their community have been doing for decades. The outrage on its own is to be expected given the subject matter, but when the script explicitly calls attention to it, it does a disservice to its audience by not allowing it to come to those same conclusions naturally through the investigations and exposés built into the narrative.
The Ugly:
Spotlight superbly re-introduces the potential of journalism ride-along films. A genre best introduced by All the President's Men (Alan J. Pakula, 1976). Like Spotlight, Pakula's film elaborates on a recent controversy by chronicling the actions of investigative journalists and their editors that stumble upon the greatest contemporary scandal of modern America. Rather than telling the story of Watergate and the ensuing scandal, the audience uncovers the truth through an interrogation of the facts much like Woodward and Bernstein did throughout 1972 and 1973. Most significantly this film does the job of retelling the investigative uncovering of a major scandal better than its 2015 counterpart chiefly by refraining from any opinionated commentary. The audience of the day understood the gravity of the scandal having experienced it in real-time only three years prior - much like Spotlight - and the filmmakers understood their responsibility to present a narrative grounded in the truth without a diegetic commentary that would push an individual interpretation one way or another regarding the consequences of Watergate.
Tremors (1990)
Tremors: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
The monster movie is brought out of the darkness and into the light. Tremors injects some comedy into a familiar genre while still keeping the mystery and suspense of survival and escape going from start to finish. As the story unfolds it engages the audience with a pair or unlikely heroes in Earl and Valentine, partially inept "handy men" scraping by for something bigger. They get their wish in an undesirable way when the small town of Perfection, Nevada turns to them to outwit a prehistoric zoological nightmare that hunts based on sound. With heroes poorly suited to lead a town or save their own lives everyone's survival is suspect, and their dim-witted comic relief effectively makes light of their dire circumstance.
The Bad:
With little to work with narratively the performances don't do much to elevate the simple story. Even with the lighter tone of the film and the necessity of the comedy to establish that tone the two-dimensional principals fail in delivering believable portrayals or mastering comedic timing. Still though, even as it misses the mark in its attempts to deliver well-crafted or complex characters, they are easy to identify with. Even though there isn't an incredibly deep story it is exciting until the end. And finally, while the attempt at offering a comedic sensibility to lighten the mood is comical in itself there is enough there to make this film more an adventure of survival than typical horror, or monster, fare.
The Ugly:
Films with mysterious monsters of the natural world peak our interest because they reveal to us something that is normally hidden from us. Tremors invents a prehistoric creature to capture interest, but perhaps that is at the root of its failings. The audience knows that the monsters at this film's center aren't real, so their willful suspension of disbelief is harder to attain. In that, Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975) captivates its audience because the threat is of the real world. In part based on a series of attacks in the early 20th century this film reminds the audience that the subject of the film is all too real. To paraphrase a tag line from the film, it's not safe to go out into the water.
Batman & Robin (1997)
Batman & Robin: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
This film came at the wrong time chronologically among Batman's film and television appearances. Whether it was too late or too early is unclear, but there was obviously once a place for the camp and self-reflexivity of this film in the canon. Maybe there will be a time for it again, but for all its failings and criticisms, this film is a gem in Batman's big screen run between 1989 to 1997. The best film franchises establish longevity in embracing formula, and entrenching established conventions. This film was too heavy handed in these practices, and was too ambitious in its referrals back to earlier iterations of the franchise, leading to the criticisms of its over the top camp. But, camp and color are a part of Batman's history so the nod to the comics, the 1960's tv show and film earn a fitting place in Batman media after nearly six decades of crime-fighting adventures.
The Bad:
This film was as close to cast for star power rather than for real acting chops as could be. George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, and Alicia Silverstone were all rising stars at casting and release. As it turned out, however, their combined star power wasn't enough to launch this film to an acceptable box office to produce another follow up film. The poor performances are the largest contributor to the film's failure to deliver on camp as an acceptable franchise convention moving forward. Worst of the casting choices for this film was replacing Val Kilmer with George Clooney as Batman. Keaton and Kilmer both played men conflicted about the nature of being both Bat and Bruce. Clooney only plays a man nostalgic about his youth as he's confronted with Alfred's mortality in between flashes of his rehashed character from E.R.
The Ugly:
When the camp of the caped crusader was popular on the small screen, 20th Century Fox brought Batman to the big screen as a ready example for the franchise fit of Batman. Individual films can fail, but the staying power of a true franchise hero can shine through time as is the case with the Dark Knight as he's made appearances in print and on screen across eight decades. Batman: The Movie (Leslie H. Martinson, 1966) began the big screen obsession with Batman and his ongoing quest to right wrongs, and constant entanglements with the likes of The Joker, The Penguin, and Catwoman. Because Uma Thurman's performance in Batman & Robin is so obviously an homage to Merriweather, Newmar, and Kitt opposite Adam West's Batman, it cannot be understated that this early film established Batman as a box office juggernaut even if it underperformed at the box office, and the television series waned in popularity through the second and third season effectively shelving a sequel.
Batman Forever (1995)
Batman Forever: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Schumacher hits on something that Christopher Nolan prioritized with his films that injects some realism in an otherwise overly stylized film trying to hard to shed the dark tone of the Burton films and refocus on the aesthetic of the lighter tone comics, and tv and movie appearances that came in the 60's and before. More exterior location shots appear in favor of the nearly exclusive use of sound stages in Batman and Batman Returns. In taking the film out of the studio for small bits here and there and into the real world Schumacher reminds us of the outside world, and posits briefly that Batman could exist in that world alongside us. That is, rather than in the excessively ordained and colorful world of the film when Bruce Wayne puts on the mask and we're drawn back into the Expressionistic production design still popular for these films through the shift in directorial talent.
The Bad:
Above all else Batman is an action hero. He doesn't have the alien biology granting him super powers. He hasn't been infected by some chemical or radioactive element that enhances his ordinary abilities to superhuman status. He is a well trained and highly educated warrior that relies on his physicality to accomplish his goals. His films should reflect this in their focus on the action set pieces by showcasing well-choreographed fight sequences, seamlessly staged car chases, and special effects that leave the audience in awe as they conclude and the story resets for the next stanza. This film poorly puts together a story that moves from one dangerous predicament to the next. And, the action awkwardly connects to the narrative that is, on its own, poorly conceived. In shedding the darkness of Tim Burton's earlier Batman films Schumacher's first iteration concerns itself more with visual titillation than with an exciting story that makes sense.
The Ugly:
It's difficult to land on a film that does it better than this one because there aren't many other films, if any, with similar content, tone, or intent. There are, however, several super-hero films serving as the third installment of a series on a particular hero, or hero groups. The various films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that fit that category fail because they rely too much on their interconnectivity to one another, and by telling partial stories to be concluded later. They fail in that they draw audiences based on some false sense that you can't miss one or you've somehow missed them all. In the end the film that does it best, is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Paling in comparison to its direct predecessor The Dark Knight (2008) it does what Batman Forever could not. It tells a more cohesive story. It takes stylistic subjectivity out of the equation and grounds itself in reality.
Batman Returns (1992)
Batman Returns: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Much of what makes this film unique is wrapped up in Tim Burton's aesthetic that was still somewhat new upon release, and yet to be as defined as Burton's films have done in the decades since. But, as I address below, because this film is more a Burton film than a Batman film the stylistic choices detract from the film's tone and content rather than complement them. Danny DeVito's performance is the only real bright spot of this film. While critical reviews vary on his turn as The Penguin, it was even, committed, and criminally lecherous. DeVito really delivers on Burton's intent for the character even if Burton doesn't finish with his own delivery for the film as a whole.
The Bad:
Burton's choice to replace Furst as Production Designer for this film, Bo Welch, continued with the established German Expressionism aesthetic of Batman (Tim Burton, 1989) in a much bigger way as might be expected of a sequel. The film goes as far as making literal nods to the film and art movement of the early 20th century in the character and costume design of the film's chief villain, Max Shreck. Visually, this film benefits in the same ways as its immediate predecessor, but fails in that it's more a Tim Burton film, as had been and would continue to be established, than it is a Batman film. And, the detachment is more than the film can sustain beyond its initial box office run.
The Ugly:
The easy choice for a film that's done it better is The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008), and it's the easy choice for a reason. It did everything a sequel needed to do, and it did everything a Batman sequel needed to do. Christopher Nolan's trilogy grounded Batman in reality, which hadn't yet been done, and that added level of excitement to the narrative as it unfolded that the fantasy and stylized nature of previous films negated. With the right director finally at the helm of a Batman film the cast really shines, Heath Ledger in particular. The debate on the better Joker can rage for eternity, but there's no real comparison between Ledger and Nicholson. Ledger is the darker and more convincing psychopath that Batman's conflicted duality needs as its opposition.
Batman (1989)
Batman: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
Tim Burton was the obvious choice for the kind of aesthetic required for Batman's first box office outing since the comics took a darker turn than that off the colorful and optimistic outcomes of the Adam West's television portrayal and the comics of the 1960's. Burton and Anton Furst, The Production Designer, superbly create an atmosphere in Gotham of a city torn apart by crime while police and government officials scramble in their inefficacy to solve the problem. Enter Batman.
The Bad:
While Tim Burton's film is stylistically spot on for Batman's first big screen outing since the 1960's, Burton's Batman falls short in telling a cohesive story and carrying over similitude from the source material. Even when attempting to judge the film on its cinematic merits alone it's impossible to exclude how it and the comics might inform one another. Excluding the canonical differences in the film and the comics that inspire it, the forced narrative devices in the second and third acts to help the film fit a more typical Hollywood three-act structure are enough to distract from what looks like a great comic book film.
The Ugly:
As the best choice for a Batman film and perhaps even a comic book film, Tim Burton appears to have had no equal in the aesthetics and stylistic choices necessary for making a film that looks like an actual comic book. That is, until Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston, 2011). A lot of focus is given to spectacle and the depiction of the unreal or surreal in comic book films with little attention to how the films actually look. Burton's Batmans, and Johnston's Captain America are among the only films with the look of a comic book on the big screen.
Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
Robin Hood: Men in Tights-My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
This film is probably the last of Brooks's great comedic projects for the big screen. The over the top acting, and immature humor are trademarks of Brooks's well represented here. Similarly, Men in Tights is excessive in its self-reflexivity. None of the performances are particularly good, but each player fits perfectly in their role. Any clear star would have ruined the integrity of the comedy as the poles at genre conventions are really what generate the laughs.
The Bad:
Oddly enough, what is best about this film is also what's worst. Mel Brooks is nothing short of a legend in film and in comedy, but much of that comes from making the sort of over the top spoofs like Young Frankenstein (1974), Blazing Saddles (1974), and Spaceballs (1987). That legacy has a truly great place in the annals of film and comedy history, but falls short of truly great film. Still though, I can't resist giving the films of Brooks's canon a watch at every opportunity.
The Ugly:
A third time is probably the charm, but no one really does it like Mel Brooks. Not ever, and probably never, will there be a comedy genius like him. So, to find a film that did it better, I focused on the subject matter. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Kevin Reynolds, 1991) told an exciting story, and contained some fantastic performances. Greatest of all, it could be argued, is that this film's success drew the attention of Brooks and his men in tights.
The Happytime Murders (2018)
The Happytime Murders: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
While it is an underwhelming turn for Melissa McCarthy, she does share a few moments of razor sharp comedic wit and timing that has made her so popular since Bridesmaids (Paul Feig, 2011). Her biting insults and one-liners are reminiscent of the same that made Vince Vaughn a must-see in his films from the mid to late 2000's with the frat pack. Ultimately, this film functions as a worthwhile distraction as it pangs with the nostalgic adult with fond memories of daytime television from youth loaded with puppets and cartoons while also playing to desires for a more mature kind of humor.
The Bad:
It's a puppet movie. While I admire the effort and time it took to build a movie where actors and puppets occupy the same diegetic space, the film never really made me forget that. It was more an examination of how filmmakers could tell the same raunchy jokes with puppets as a new gimmick, than a film with a solid story and good performances. It's clear from start to finish that this film is concerned more with the shock value and raunchy humor of R-rated puppets than it is with a well-rounded narrative made more nuanced with puppets.
The Ugly:
It's hard to argue artistic value of a movie with puppets, but a movie that did it right as "right" as it can be done is The Muppets (James Bobin, 2011). It's safe to say at this point that films with puppets have been more successful, at least in terms of popularity or box office success, as films for all ages. Muppets was cleverly funny with jokes flying over the heads of children that their parents or other adults understand. And, the story was well structured to keep you from thinking "this is just a film with puppets," even while making self-reflexive pokes at the films that established the conventions.
Fury (2014)
Fury: My Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Good:
War films often look at the machines of combat as cold and impersonal tools. Infantry soldiers mount and dismount trucks and carry themselves from mission to mission on foot. The reality of modern combat, though, is more mobile, more mechanized. But, even though machines can be cold and impersonal, and can remove soldiers from the visceral and traumatic nature of war real intimacy and feeling isn't removed from combat. The film spends a good deal of time inside the tank trying to depict the close bonds that form between a group of men in close quarters put in life and death situations routinely, and it does it well. Although the personalities sometimes clash and we can see the real animosity that exists between them, truer moments shine through when they're asked to fight for each other and against perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known.
The Bad:
The worst part of this film is probably the largely uneven or lackluster performances. Brad Pitt is Brad Pitt, which is regrettable because as the film''s biggest star one would hope for more of a star performance. Jon Bernthal is Jon Bernthal, which is unsurprising. Logan Lerman is Logan Lerman, which is predictable. Michael Cena could have shined, but was given only an awkward monologue that doesn't really connect well to the rest of the film. Shia LaBeouf similarly isn't given much of a showcase in the film, but he does well in the moments that are written for him. He should have had more.
The Ugly:
A deeper scan of a list of World War II films would likely generate at least a short list of films that better did what this film tried to do, but the first film that comes to mind for me is Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998). Although Ryan doesn't deal directly with tank combat, it certainly showcases how soldiers in combat can establish deep relationships without regard for the character of brevity that their lives have assumed. All that being said, the performances are also immeasurably better across the board.