Batman and Robin (1997)

... What can I say about this movie that hasn't been said a billion times over. This movie is just... just...

So many people have reviewed this movie before that I probably will not be saying anything original here. However, to keep with tradition, I'll review it. 

Here's a trailer for you

From the very first line of this movie, you can already tell this movie is going to blow. Just Robin saying, "I want a car, Chicks dig the car" and Batman saying, "this is why Superman works alone." This line says everything about the leads. First it says, Robin is going to be the most annoying motherfucker in the world. Secondly it says that George Clooney is going to give the most lack luster performance he's ever given because he knows A) Val Kilmer didn't want to do this movie, so why the hell am I? B) I'm the only one who's career isn't totally destroyed by this movie. Now I'm not bothered by the fact he mentions Superman as a lot of critics are. Yes Superman exists in that universe and yes it doesn't make sense that he's not there. This is a Batman film though. What good would it do if Superman appeared. This scene is more bothersome because older incarnations of Batman wouldn't say a line like that or be tagging along an annoying as fuck Chris O'Donnell with him. What happened to that Batman?

Basic premise: Batman and Robin team up to fight the team up of Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze. Mr. Freeze wants to freeze the world, Poison Ivy wants to cover the world with killer plants. All the while, Barbara Wilson(?) the niece of Alfred, Bruce Wayne's butler, comes to visit. Also Alfred is dying by the same disease Mr. Freeze's wife has. Also Poison Ivy has a henchman named Bane (believe me I will get to this) who is basically a steroid induced body guard (oh believe me, I will get to this).

The first big complaint with this movie is the overall mood of the movie. Yes, Batman Forever was a little lighter and a little more kid friendly but it at least looked like they gave a flying fuck. The thing is, this movie could have been paying omage to the very early Bob Kane comic books, you know the ones where Batman and Robin are playing baseball? But even if it was, which it's not, why would you pay omage to that? yes it was a piece of Batman history but it's not something that needs to be remembered on film. Also, the whole feeling of Batman in this movie is brought into the open. No longer is Batman a superhero of the shadows, he's just a superhero. This movie forgot the one thing that makes Batman awesome, the fact he has no powers. This movie tried to make him seem super, even though Batman doesn't need to be super to be an awesome hero. But I think one of the greatest insults is summed up in this video. 

A Bat credit card kind of really is an insult to Batman fans all over. Fans didn't want this to be a comedy, they didn't want it to be making fun of Batman, they wanted to see Batman. Sure he had lost a little bit of his dark edge in the last movie but there was still room to save him... and then he pulls out the Bat Credit Card. 

Not only is this movie too bright and too campy, its just downright lazy. The writers had to be sitting writing this and said, alright well what does he say next? Oh lets do another one liner about Ice.

And thats the other, every other line in this movie is a one liner. It's not just Schwarzenegger, it's EVERYONE! The one liners in this movie are absolutely ridiculous. I could go into more but thinking about this movie too seriously is hurting my brain.

Well lets get into the characters. 

Bruce Wayne/ Batman

Like I said before, Val Kilmer was no longer playing the role of Bruce Wayne. It might have been a scheduling thing, maybe disinterest, or maybe he didn't get along with Joel Schumacher. Regardless, George Clooney was hired to take over the role. 

Makes sense right? He's handsome, he's built, he's a good actor. What else do you need?

Well first off, you need to give a shit. 

Seriously, this performance was so phoned in its just insulting. And the sad thing is, I want Clooney to be a good Batman. It just makes sense for him to play Batman and had he been cast in the first one, I bet he would have done better, and I bet it would have set Clooney's career in a different direction. It's a bold claim but I know Clooney can do better than what he did in this movie. 

Also he has a girlfriend in this movie named Julie Madison. Who is she? It doesn't matter, she's an awful actress and she barely shows up in this movie. I'm so glad the woman who replaced Nicole Kidman was a throw away actress that you forget after a while.

I mean why would Bruce Wayne let this go?

This movie focuses more on the relationship between Batman and Robin, Bruce Wayne and Alfred, and the importance of "family"... gross...

Robin / Dick Grayson

Pretty much just see the comments I made on my Batman Forever post. Robin is whiny, annoying, and pointless. I don't know if its Chris O'Donnell's fault or how his character was written. It's probably both. All I know is that this incarnation of Robin has pushed the credibility of Robin back another 20 years. Robin will not be given a live action movie for a good long time and its because of this attempt here. Everything I said about Robin in my Robin post, its because of this guy. 

Bat Girl / Barbara Wilson

I don't know why they decided to make Bat Girl, who is suppose to be the daughter of Commissioner Gordon, the niece of Alfred... but I guess they had to fuel that pointless side story. 

This casting isn't bad, considering the movie its a cast for. In any other Batman movie, if the casting director said, "Let's hire the girl from Clueless!" the director would fire them on the spot. But this movie, it made sense. Want a dumb movie for kids? Get a dumb actress for kids! Now I have nothing against Alicia Silverstone personally. But she never really did anything other than Clueless. And Clueless and Batman do not mix. 

Alfred

I guess I should give the movie some "credit" they kept Alfred. They could have pulled a Billy Dee Williams and gotten another old man to play Alfred. But they kept Michael Gough. He had a substantially bigger part in this movie that the last three but unfortunately, it was too little too late. 

Focusing on the relationship between Bruce and Alfred is a goldmine when it comes to Batman. A perfect example is in the Dark Knight Trilogy, an example I will mention in future posts. But Michael Gough spent 3 movies being barely a secondary character and when they finally put him in a place for him to actually do something, it was in one of the worst movies ever made. 

I like Michael Gough as Alfred. He's no Michael Caine but there's a sense of nostalgia when you talk of Michael Gough. He was the funny conscious of Bruce Wayne who always told him to go get the woman. Did he have a part? No. Did it matter? No. He's Alfred!

I did think it was funny he had a brother that was named Wilfred and was also a butler... but that was a pointless story arc so... who cares?

Poison Ivy

Now in a movie like this, pretty much any character is going to be impossible to be good and a lot of characters have the potential of being bad. Uma Thurman is a very good example of this. Poison Ivy speaks only in one-liners and looks like a villain from Power Rangers. She's not funny, she's not sexy, she's just... stupid. Again, nothing against Uma Thurman personally, she just wasn't good. I mean at all!

Mr. Freeze

Now Poison Ivy was bad, but she was the Tommy Lee Jones kind of bad. Alone she was awful, but with a decent villain partner, you could kind of look over her flaws. 

Mr. Freeze is not that ideal partner. 

I mean for god's sake, its Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you put him and a Batman movie together, make him blue, and give him a script of one liners, how can that end well? 

He's really bad... that's all I'm going to say.

But it begs the question, what were they thinking with this movie? Did they finish filming and just say, "Eh, I guess it'll work?" Somebody had to see this coming together and just wonder, "What the fuck am I watching?" 

The semi good news is that this movie is really so bad that its one of those movies you watch because its so bad. You have to watch it not as you would watch the 1989 Batman, believe me they're nothing alike, and watch it as if you were a child. You just got all the Batman action figures and you want to make a story. Sure it doesn't makes sense, but that was the wonder of being a child... and that is also why children don't make major motion picture sequels to beloved Superhero franchises.

You see Batman and Robin is really a one of a kind bad movie. It's something that happens once a decade. It's something I would tell you to watch... just so you can experience the pain I have experienced. Its the kind of pain that is so horrible, it unites people in pain. Then soon, they are just united.

So that is the end of the first go at the Batman Franchise.  I'll do a wrap up post after this one but for now, I need to nurse this headache I have... this movie is that bad.

So have you seen Batman and Robin? Do you enjoy bad movies? What do you think of the first four Batman live action movies? Comment below and let me know.

Batman Forever (1995)

This is the 3rd part to my series on the Batman movies since 1989. So after the just bizarrely dark Batman Returns, Warner Brother studios wanted to go into a different direction with the Batman franchise.

They pushed Tim Burton into a production role and replaced him with Joel Schumacher. Audiences thought Batman Returns was too dark and the studios wanted a more family friendly Batman. What's interesting about Schumacher is that he has a dark side as well. Obviously not to the level of Tim Burton but he did Flatliners, The Lost Boys, and everyone knows St. Elmo's Fire was dark as hell (sarcasm of course) But jokes aside, we often forget this man brought the live action film of Phantom of the Opera. Not saying it was a good movie but it was by no means a light movie. It was just... different. The same can be said about Batman Forever. 

The basic premise is, Batman's doing his thing but now played by Iceman from Top Gun (Val Kilmer). When a disgruntled employee of Wayne Enterprises finds new brain manipulating technology, The Riddler is born (played by Jim Carey). He along with Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (played by Tommy Lee Jones) are out to make trouble for Gotham City. All the while Bruce Wayne fights his double life with the added drama of a psychologist (played by Nicole Kidman) who he has a thing for, but she like's his alter ego better. 

The first thing I have to say about this movie is that Gotham city had a face lift. 

A CGI face lift

Now this may have looked good and cool in the mid 90's. Now it just looks stupid. (Maybe it looked stupid then, I don't know) What also confuses me about this set is that there are multiple scenes where the set is in actual locations that look nothing like the bullshit above. Lots of the times, the sets look real and realistic, and others it looks like a unicorn threw up a rainbow on the city. 

But believe it or not, I didn't mind it all that much. Yeah the CGI looks really shitty, but this looks like Gotham. The Gotham I imagine is very gaudy on the surface but you get to the lower levels, that's when things get weird, that's where the crime is, that is what Batman is fighting. It's the duality of world Bruce Wayne lives in. I don't know maybe I'm looking too into it than I should but the bottom line is, despite the crappy CGI, I didn't mind this Gotham. It looked like a cartoon, or dare I say, a comic book. It didn't look like Nightmare Before Christmas Gotham, it looked like Gotham, the way we knew it was suppose to be.

The second thing is you may realize that I didn't mention Dick Grayson in the summary. Well that's because it takes this movie a while to bring Dick Grayson into the mix. When he comes in there is a parallel between Grayson losing his family and Bruce Wayne's memory of his. But I will talk more about Dick Grayson later.

Bruce Wayne

Now if you've read my earlier posts, you may be wondering what I thought of Val Kilmer as Batman  in comparison with Michael Keaton. The answer to that question is... kinda? I think Michael Keaton is a better actor than Kilmer, but I am kind of the opinion that Val Kilmer was a better Bruce Wayne/Batman combination.
Keaton was good at Batman, but I never really felt him as Bruce Wayne. With Kilmer I think he did a little bit better of a job portraying a millionaire with a little bit of a grounded personality. He's not a snobby rich guy, he's a down to earth kind of guy that happens to be rich. With Keaton, he just felt out of place in Wayne Manor and he never struck me as a businessman.
As Batman, Kilmer fills out the costume a little bit better. Batman actually looks like a force to be reckoned with. In still pictures he looks like of silly but don't let that fool you. I think he looks better than Keaton at least.

What I liked about this movie was that they actually explained why Bruce becomes the Batman. I thought that this was really lacking in the first two films as villains were often overshadowing Bruce Wayne. Lots of times Burton just created his crazy world and the put Batman in. He didn't always fit, especially in Batman Returns. Did Kilmer do a great job portraying the inner struggles of Bruce Wayne... kinda? I knew what they were doing and the script allowed me to understand, even if I wasn't totally convinced.

Now with all the praise I've give Kilmer's performance, I will say Kilmer is not a great actor. There were several moments where he had the same exact expression on his face no matter what he was talking about. He never seemed to open his mouth when he talked.
And then there was this...

That smile is just creepy

 And then there was a line that just confused me. Bruce Wayne is talking about Dr. Chase Meridian (Oh and believe me, we'll get to her) and he tells Alfred that he's never been in love before... Really Bruce? You've never been in love before? Are we just pretending that Vicki Vale and Selina Kyle never happened? Well no because at one point Dr. Chase mentions that rumors had floated around that Batman and Catwoman had a thing. But Vicki Vale? Did that ever happen?

This brings up another problem with this movie. It kind of forgets a lot of the events of the last movies. Yes the movie had a new director but that doesn't mean that you drop all the cannon from before. It's a small line but it kind of bothered me only because I kinda liked Vicki Vale from the first movie. In fact, I really liked the first movie. Don't you dare just forget the first movie, that movie is why you're in existence, without that movie you wouldn't be here right now.

Batman continues to seem to have an open relationship with Commissioner Gordon which in the second movie threw me off but in this movie I was used to it. Batman works with the police but it still seems like a secret relationship. And I think in this universe, it works.

I'm not really sure why Val Kilmer didn't return as Batman. Rumors say he had other commitments, other rumors say he had difficulties working with Schumacher. Either way, from what I've heard, Kilmer dodged a bullet by not being in Batman and Robin

Dr. Chase Meridian

As much as I liked Vicki Vale as a romance interest to Bruce Wayne, for some reason Nicole Kidman plays that role a lot better. And I feel like a psychologist is a perfect match for Bruce Wayne because obviously he has some serious issues that none of the actors that have played him so far have been able to latch onto.

Nicole Kidman plays this character similar to a lot of characters she plays. Overtly sexual. And that's... that's pretty cool. She's almost too sexual which again confuses me about this movie. It's suppose to be more family friendly and Kidman just wants to get it on with Batman. I'm not complaining, just an observation. Kidman epitomizes the sexy girlfriend of the 90's and she is a champ at it. And Dr. Chase is a badass. An over the top badass, but a badass nonetheless.

She's like Jessica Rabbit... but real

Kidman plays a character drawn to both sides of Bruce Wayne. Him and the Bat. She also plays a role in the discovery of why Bruce Wayne became Batman.

But beyond that... she doesn't really do anything in this movie. Commissioner Gordon brings her in to help with situations with Two-Face and the Riddler but she doesn't do much.

Regardless of the lack of action she has, I love Nicole Kidman in this movie. I'm not a big fan of her other work but this movie gets a pass in my book... Chase Meridian is one smoking love interest.

The Riddler

The Riddler gives me a confused reaction. On one hand, I love Jim Carrey as the Riddler, and on the other hand I really hate Jim Carrey as the Riddler. Maybe I just love the idea of Carrey as the Riddler and I don't like how he was executed.

Regardless the Riddler was not what I expected. Like a lot of comic book characters, I don't know the complete origin of the Riddler but I do know that he cannot kill his victims without challenging himself. I watched a documentary on Batman villains and the Riddler is actually a kind of sociopath who wants to get caught. He creates a series of puzzles for Batman to figure out. The riddles are his gag. Unfortunately, this Riddler doesn't do enough riddles. They're there but they're not prevalent enough. This Riddler is more focused on manipulating brain waves with his machines. He's more of a scientist rather than a genius mastermind. His genius isn't even his, he steals people's IQs with his machine. Even when all the riddles he's given amount in the end, Batman figures them out in the most rushed way possible its insulting to the entire character of the Riddler unfortunately.
And then there's the costume...

The costume started out so great... Once he took off his hat I just said... The Riddler's a ginger?
More importantly, the skin tight body suit was just... weird.
Edward Nigma was just odd... He works for Bruce Wayne and he is obsessed with him. When Bruce shoots down his ideas, he calls upon the help of Harvey Two-Face Dent to build up a fortune and build his brain sucking machine.
Before I go into that duo, I want to talk about Nigma.

He starts out looking like this. When he gets money, he looks like this

I feel like this Edward Nigma can still be an obsessed sociopath without looking like a crazy person. And then there's performances like this:

Spoilers: Duh

 There is actually a line where Carrey asks if one of the actions he did was, and I quote "Was that over the top? I can never tell." No Shit Jim... No shit. Lots of times it just feels like you're watching Jim Carrey in a Riddler costume, not the Riddler.

That being said, I like how they made the Riddler dark. Was it the dark I wanted? No. Do I think Tim Burton could have done the Riddler better? Oh hell yes. Would it have been really really weird? Probably but that's okay. Overall I guess I like Jim Carrey's Riddler. It's not an Oscar Winning Performance but it'll do for an entertaining Batman flick

Two-Face

and then there's Two-Face...

Tommy Lee Jones really went in a weird direction with this character. I love Jones but I have no idea what he was doing with this role. Now it's not his fault they decided to make him look like half the jolly purple giant in drag but still... the performance is just... odd. I get that it had to fall into the theme of there is always two sides to a person... like Batman. But they made the two sides of Two-Face painfully obvious. Also is it not kind of funny that Drew Barrymore was one of Tommy Lee Jones's nameless whores?

But seriously Tommy Lee. Did you just have to pay some bills or what with this movie? I mean its good to know that Jones has a fun side and hopefully he took the job because he wanted a fun role... or maybe he needed a paycheck. 

Either way, I've probably been spoiled by the Dark Knight Trilogy because the origin story of Harvey Dent is so overlooked in this movie its sad. They go over it in a TV clip, it was so rushed. Probably because he's not a complex character... even though he really could be... if he was Billy Dee Williams.

In case you forgot, Billy Dee Williams played Harvey Dent in the first Batman movie. His contract expected him to be in sequels and eventually become Two-Face. Warner Brothers had to buy out that part of the contract to hire Tommy Lee Jones. 

It's not a huge deal as the character was nothing important. In fact it was probably good for Williams. Maybe I just want Lando Calrissian in more stuff. 

Now the funny thing is, the two kind of work well as a team... and then on the other hand, I just kept thinking this many times. 

There's a lot of moments where these two oddly close...

That's really the only complaint I have of them. They're over the top, sometimes they just laugh, shake, scream, and jump around for no reason but they're not bad villains. It doesn't really make sense why they're working together but I guess it works for this movie. 

Robin

And then there is Robin. Dick Grayson is the son of a family of trapeze artists who are killed by Two-Face. Grayson then vows revenge by killing Two-Face. When he realizes that Bruce Wayne, the man who took him in after his parents are dead, is Batman, he insists he be his partner in crime, fighting bad guys and eventually getting to Two-Face.

The problem with this is that it has nothing to do with the main story. Sure Dick Grayson is in a similar situation that Bruce Wayne is but beyond that he serves no purpose. They could have done this entire movie without him and it probably would have been better. Chris O'Donnell is really not a good actor so he doesn't give Robin much beyond what we expect him as, a whiney addition to the awesomeness of Batman. 

My point is, Robin did not have to be in this movie... plain and simple. 

However, the Holy Rusted Metal Batman line, although stupid... was a little bit clever that they added that nod to the movie. It gives me a little bit of comfort to know they cared enough to put in fan service like that and Grayson almost calling himself Nightwing. I appreciate that. But overall I just didn't see the point of Grayson in this movie. I'm not going to delve into it anymore than that. He was stupid, whiny, and had no point. Nuff said.

Despite the pointlessness of Robin, the ambiguous gayness of Riddler and Two-Face, the subpar acting of Val Kilmer, and the kid friendly tone, despite Batman killing multiple nameless henchmen and Nicole Kidman's sexual overtones, I liked Batman Forever. Is it my favorite 90's Batman movie? No. Was it the worst? Absolutely not. That is reserved for the next movie in line...

Overall the movie was fun, worth a watch if not only for Nicole Kidman... damn..

And hey... at least it was better than Batman and Robin...

So have you seen Batman Forever? Did you like Val Kilmer? Jim Carrey? Nicole Kidman? Who am I kidding, who didn't like Kidman? Who is your favorite Batman villain? Comment Below and let me know

_____________________________________Update______________________________________

One other great thing that came out of this movie was the music video from Seal's Kiss From a Rose...

What a douche...

Batman Returns (1992)

Man if I thought Batman was a strange movie... I did not see Batman Returns.

This is part 2 of my new Batman series as I go through all the Batman movies made since 1989.

And what can I say about Tim Burton's Batman Returns?

I'll rephrase what I said before that Batman was dark but 80's dark. I now take that back and say that Batman is not dark, its Burton Dark. And Batman Returns takes that to a whole new level. This movie looks like the live action version of Nightmare Before Christmas... with Batman. In fact, in many places, Batman looks like he is out of place in this movie.

Part of the reason people didn't think this movie was as good as the first one was due to the incredibly dark storyline and dark overtones.

Now I like dark movies, however, this movie is just... weird...

There's so much that I can say is so strange about this movie. For one, Burton really likes his clowns. I don't quite get why but he does.

This was probably the part everyone figured out this movie was going to be weird

A combination of the clowns, Catwoman, the Penguin, Christopher Walken and Danny Elfman, this movie is just a whole level of odd. I cannot stress how many "What the fuck"moments are in this movie.

The movie starts out with a couple abandoning a baby in the sewers. This baby eventually is... raised by penguins, I'm not making this up. This baby turns out being the infamous Penguin, played by Danny Devito. He eventually comes to the surface and is able to charm Gotham with his sad story, all hiding a criminal organization with the help of a businessman Max Schreck, played by Christopher Walken, who wants the Penguin to run for Mayor and help his shady business dealings. All the while, Selina Kyle works for Mr. Schreck as a clumsy, introverted secretary. After a deathly fall, she is revived... by cats? And becomes Catwoman. Batman must stop their plans to further their crime but they have other plans in mind.

You may notice that Batman really isn't in that plot very much. The truth is he's not. The story mainly focuses on Oswald Cobblepot and Catwoman much more than the first movie ever focused on the Joker's origin. Like I said before, this movie is very much Tim Burton's world with Batman just put into it. They try to squeeze in the romance between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne and a little bit about how Catwoman and Batman are "the same" but its shoe horned in at the end very quickly.

Casting: The cast of this movie is actually spectacular... for the kind of movie it is.

Michael Keaton returns as Batman and there's not much I can say about him. Frankly anybody could have played Batman in this movie because he's barely in it. He doesn't strike me as a businessman, or a billionaire, he's just Michael Keaton. As Batman, I guess I can say there was an improvement. The costume looked a little bit better and there were less scenes of him just walking around like a stiff board.  Strangely enough, Batman and the police have a good relationship in this movie. Commissioner Gordon actually depends on Batman in many cases. I thought it was strange that Bruce Wayne has a bat symbol shine into Wayne Manor, wouldn't that be a little suspicious?

Michelle Pfeiffer is Selina Kyle, a clumsy, frankly depressing secretary who discovers some shady info on her boss. Her boss tries to kill her by throwing her out a window. She's thought to be dead but she's magically survives and goes completely bananas. There's no explanation, no reason she turns all crazy, she just does. She paints her entire apartment black for some reason and makes a leather costume for her to roam around in trying to find a way to destroy her boss, Batman, anybody who gets in her way. Like I said before, there's a romance between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle that is very forced. But Michelle Pfeiffer gives the movie a lot of those What the Fuck moments. I've mentioned a few already like the random mental breakdown or the getting resurrected by cat power but then there's the moments she acts like a cat. She almost eats a bird, she starts licking herself saying she's cleaning herself. Her split personality is so odd that you just have to ask... what the flying fuck is going on?

Then there's Christopher Walken. He plays Max Schreck, a business man in Gotham. The name and character is suppose to spoof a German actor. Why? I don't know, I guess it was an inside joke on the part of the writer.

Now apart of me says, of course, Christopher Walken is perfect for a Tim Burton movie. And then I look at this and again its a "what the fuck?" The hair, the makeup, the outfit, it just looks strange. Other than that, I thought he did an alright job. I didn't actually know Walken was in this movie when I first started watching it and after watching it... I still am not sure if Christopher Walken was actually in that movie. He's a very forgettable character. At one point he just disappears for a good half hour. Not a bad performance, just forgettable.

And then there's Oswald Cobblepott, or the Penguin.

Played by Danny Devito, the Penguin is kind of a tragic story of a disfigured baby who is abandoned by his parents and grows up in the sewers... by penguins. (only Tim Burton) Well by manipulating the people of Gotham, he becomes the "golden boy" and decides to run for mayor by the influence of the corrupt Max Schreck. The Penguin runs a gang of rogue circus performers and creates unrest in Gotham.

The strange thing is, there is suppose to be a sense of sympathy towards this character. You're suppose to feel bad for him and the strange thing is, you kind of do, even after he kidnaps all the first borns of Gotham, even after he bites a guy's nose off. In a weird way you do and in a weird way you really don't.

Danny Devito does a really good job at making the Penguin a menacing villain but giving him a relatable edge to him. I actually really liked Penguin. Yeah he and Catwoman lead the charge in the WTF moments, like how he likes raw fish, and actually was raised by penguins but in a weird way, the Penguin was a tragic figure.

The movie really didn't focus on any more characters beyond those four. Alfred of course returned but was still the butler. Commissioner Gordon had a very small role and any other character I have already forgotten about and its only been about an hour since I finished the movie.

Overall, I understand why Tim Burton was kicked off the next Batman movies. The studios wanted to take Batman in a different direction. Although that direction is not the direction I think they should have gone, Tim Burton was just getting weird with this franchise and he needed to be taken off.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Tim Burton personally. He has accomplished a lot more than I have in my life. But his style is not the style needed for the Batman universe. I want to eventually review a Tim Burton movie I did like but I don't think Batman and Burton mix. Do I think he did a better job than Schumacher? Yes I do, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a grown man and I probably will have nightmares from this Batman movie. And that's not suppose to happen. Some people have said this movie blends Superheroes with Noir and I just don't see that. Noir takes its inspiration from morally gray characters and Batman may be a dark character but he in no way is morally gray in this movie. He is the clear cut good guy and nothing really takes away from that notion. However, I did notice in this movie and in the first one, Batman does kill people. Maybe not directly but he gives a bomb to a clown, throws him in a hole and walks away when he blows up. Just another example of how this movie just gave me this reaction.

So what did you think of Batman Returns? Did you like it? Do you like Tim Burton with the Batman films? Let me know.

Marvel news

I feel as though I have given a lot of attention to DC and 20th Century Fox. So much that I almost feel like I've betrayed the studio that really got me going on my Superhero summer and has really been keeping my interest in comic book movies alive for the past few years: Marvel/Disney.

I'm sure nobody is saying they didn't bring it at Comic-con because I think they did. But its hard when a live action movie about two of the most iconic superheroes facing off is coming out in a different studio. I get that.

Now to clarify, I did not attend Comic-con this year. I haven't ever attended a Comic-con. This year has made me regret that decision. This has been a great reveal year and I want to go next year.

But I feel I should pay my respects to the people who's shit has always been together and talk about the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron and everything that is going to lead up to it.

I think Marvel is going to do exactly what they do best and prepare for this movie just like they did for phase 1. We've already had Iron Man 3. We're going to have the sequels to Thor and Captain America. But then there's going to be Guardians of the Galaxy.

The Guardians of the Galaxy is the wild card in this mix. I heard someone online say that its Star Wars if Marvel had taken it on. Its a team of misfits that make the Guardians of the Galaxy. You've got Starlord or Peter Quill, Drax the Destroyer, Gamora, Groot (basically an ent) and then you have Rocket Raccoon.

This character I think basically epitomizes the peculiarness of the Guardians of the Galaxy. For people who do not read comic books on a regular basis (myself included) this movie just seems very odd and out there. What isn't known often is that the world of sci fi and superheroes mix more than expected. The truth is, Joss Whedon is taking this next Avengers movie into a totally new direction.

Before I move on, I must say one thing about Rocket Raccoon... the hell is that thing? I hope they're going to imagine him as similar to Conker in that he's not a lovable comic relief character, no, Rocket Raccoon better be my favorite character in this movie. Otherwise he's going to end up like the Jar Jar Binks of Marvel and I will not stand for that.

One thing that I will say I am very excited for when it comes to Guardians is the fact that Karen Gillan (Doctor Who) is going to be in this movie. She actually shaved her head for the role of Nebula, a space pirate. When I saw she pulled off a wig at Comic-con, I got a little more serious about this.

Moving on, Joss Whedon came out and announced the new title for the new Avengers movie.

2015 is going to be a phenomenal year for comic book movies.

Now this movie suggests that Ultron is going to be the villain for the next Avengers. I originally had no idea who Ultron was untill I looked it up. Apparently Ultron is a maniacal robot created by Hank Pym (or Ant Man) as a project gone wrong.

However, Joss Whedon also made the announcement that Hank Pym, or Ant Man is not going to be present until the third phase of the Avengers series. He also announced that there is going to be a new origin story for Ultron. Now for me, I don't really care, but I understand how this might make some fans angry.

Now the question is how is Ant Man going to fit into this movie universe? Creating Ultron is a perfect entrance into the universe but thats not how its going to turn out. There have been talks of having Tony Stark create Ultron.

Regardless, the next few Avengers movies are going to change the tone of the franchise. Its going to be darker but it will go more into a sci fi arena. I think the direction of Joss Whedon can make the sci fi element relatable to a lot of audiences that usually wouldn't like it, but I think they're going to lose some movie goers who don't like Super heroes going too sci fi.

But who needs those guys. The next phase of Avengers is going to be awesome.

Hank Pym: My picks might be Armie Hammer. The big hope that a lot of people want is Nathan Fillion. Frankly I don't know the background of Hank Pym so I don't know if either are good choices. I just hope that Ant Man is a character correct for Fillion. I want him to get his part and Ant Man doesn't always strike me as that part. However, I could be very very wrong.

What do you think of Marvel's Comic-Con announcements? Do you like the direction Whedon's taking the Avengers? Who do you think should be Ant-Man? Let me know

1989 Batman

I'm going to be starting a new "series".

I have access to all the Batman movies since 1989. Unfortunately I haven't seen all of them.

I was born in a time right when Batman was not really cool again yet. I was alive when Batman and Robin came out but I never saw it. But believe me, I will get to Batman and Robin.

Batman originally came out in 1989 under the direction of Tim Burton. Burton who was, at the time, a relatively new director. Now when it comes to Burton and this movie, it mainly is about the set. Gotham city is a very fascinating environment in this movie because its exactly what you expect as a Gotham city made by Tim Burton. I don't know what it is about Tim Burton but he always has to have his cities and environments look like it was farted out by fairies on a very psychedelic acid.

The thing about Batman is that Burton was going into uncharted territory with this movie. The only other Superhero movie that had been this well known was the Superman films with Christopher Reeves. Those movies were upbeat, hopeful, and sometimes comedic. That doesn't exactly fit the bill for a subject like Batman so they needed to take it in a different direction. Ergo Tim Burton.

Here's the basic premise of the movie. Batman, a masked vigilante, is fighting crime in Gotham, a city that suffers by his high crime rate. When a new foe dawning the name of the Joker comes to town, poisoning cosmetics and wanting to cause chaos, Batman must stop him before innocent people in Gotham die.

Tim Burton delivers a very dark representation of Batman... now when I say dark, I mean 80's dark. The movie is very comic booky and looks pretty good... for a movie made in 1989. It is fascinating to see the costumes and approaches used by Tim Burton early on in the comic book movie game, but lots of the time it just looks silly and something you might see out of the Adam West TV series.

And that's basically what this movie accomplished I think. It bridged the gap between the campy, not dark at all TV show that was the only basis for the subject of Batman on a screen, and the new age of Superheroes in movies. It made Batman the dark, edgy, caped crusader that he is today. And for that I have to give the movie credit.

However, the costumes are the things that get me the most. The Batman costume to me looks really silly. And Keaton wearing it looks even more silly.

Maybe I was spoiled by the awesome looking costume of the Dark Knight Trilogy but there were several moments where the costume just looked silly on Keaton. There's a moment where he's running in the streets with Vicki Vale and the way he's walking, the cape and just the entire costume looks really silly.

And I suppose that gets me into Keaton as Batman himself.

I should probably give Keaton more credit, he was the first actor to play a serious Bruce Wayne. And considering he came from comedic movies like Mr. Mom before this movie, thats a pretty good range. But Keaton just doesn't sell it for me. First as Bruce Wayne. They tried to make Bruce Wayne this down to earth guy even though he's a multimillionaire, and Keaton does an alright job at that to a fault. He does it almost too much that there is no room for this Bruce Wayne to have a darker side he hides from everyone else. The movie tried, but it just didn't work for me. Along with that, I didn't buy that Keaton was a multimillionaire. He played the down to earth guy so well that he just seemed out of place in Wayne manor. Which again, that's what they were going for, but he needs to at least look like he has millions of dollars just laying around.

And as Batman, Keaton doesn't really look it. The suit just looked big on him and like I said before, it looked silly. Keaton also didn't have that fear tactic that I think of when I think of Batman. He raised his wings sure but that wasn't really scary. And when he said He was Batman... it was just like he read the line "I am Batman." I don't know, maybe I'm not being fair to Keaton. I think it was good for its time and as a transition from the Adam West Batman, but I don't think its a role that survives the test of time.

Speaking of roles that stand the test of time, I'll get into the Joker, played by Jack Nicholson.

I found it interesting the correlations with the origins of the Joker from the comics this movie made. One of the alternative origins is that the Joker was once a criminal that went by the name of the Red Hood. During a heist in a chemical factory, Batman accidentally caused the Red Hood to fall into a vat of chemicals. The chemicals disfigured the Red Hood making his skin white as if he was wearing clown make up. Thus, the Joker was made. Now in the movie Jack Nicholson is not the Red Hood, he is a unbalanced mob lieutenant sleeping around with the boss's woman. He's framed during a heist and Batman inadvertently sends him into the vat of chemicals. Thus making him the Joker.

What's interesting about this role is... well what isn't interesting about it? It took the campiness of Cesar Romero and gave it a really, really dark edge. Jack Nicholson still is an incredibly silly Joker... I mean there's an entire scene where he's twirling a baton to a Prince song, he always has a guy following him with a boom box, and a gun with a huge barrel he pulls out of his pants. But at the same time he disfigures his girlfriend's face and makes her follow him around with a creepy mask, he kills people with a gas that makes them laugh so hard they die with a smile on their face, and he kills Bob for no reason. Its an incredibly fascinating character.

The downside is that they don't delve into that Joker enough. There's not enough explanation on either sides of the coin in this movie. The movie doesn't delve much into why Bruce Wayne becomes Batman or why the Joker wants all this chaos.

I may be going a little hard on this movie but the truth is I really liked it. It's interesting to look back at where our current looks at Batman originated from.

The other characters in this movie are pretty good. Vicki Vale screams a lot but she was a very good romantic interest. I'm not the biggest fan of this representation of Commissioner Gordon but again, I've probably been spoiled by the The Dark Knight Trilogy. Although Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent is awesome! I'm so sad he didn't stay on that role. It definitely looked as though that character was going to get a bigger role in sequels to come but Burton ended up not going that route. But who knows maybe Billy Dee had other things to do, like commercials for Colt 45.

The only other thing I'll say about this movie is... fucking ninjas. I don't know how they did it but they made it so the Joker's henchmen were Ninjas... cool? Again, very comic booky. Not in a bad way... just comic booky.

I'm looking forward to Batman Returns. Let me know what you thought of the 1989 Batman. Do you like Keaton? Nicholson? Comment below.

Heroes: Where did you go wrong?

I've been trying to figure out how to write a post on NBCs Heroes.

Heroes came out in 2006 and ran until it was cancelled in 2010. I was one of the few that watched the season all the way through until the very last episode. The first season was fantastic. Was it the best show on television? No, but I loved it nonetheless. It was a show about Superheroes... what is not to love?

It felt at the time like an original idea and I went along with it... and then the later seasons started popping up.

I am also one of the few that didn't hate the second season. I just think it was a season muddied in unfortunate circumstances. The original intent of the show was to have each season be about a different cast of characters. But after the characters of the first season were taken to so well, the writers had to continue their story arcs. That, along with the Writer's Strike in 2007, threw the series into a slippery slope it never really recovered from.

In my prior drafts I've tried to take on the entire show all at once, I tried breaking it down by character. But then I started watching the 8th episode of the third season. This episode was named after the title of the volume: Villains. It was then I realized, this one episode epitomized the pile of shit Heroes had thrown itself into in the third season.

The whole construct of the episode is that Hiro Nakamura is in Africa and he goes on a "Spirit walk" to see how things got the way they are. Don't ask me what they mean by spirit walk because I don't know. Hiro and Ando go to Africa to bring in this African guy who can paint the future... and somehow they end up getting high and seeing what happened in the past.

This brings in the first problem with the direction they took Heroes. Hiro and Ando. They go on these quests that originally were their own journeys, set apart from the main story. They'd show up every once in a while with the main characters but they had their own goals to achieve and ways to go about saving the world. In Volume 3, I'm guessing they didn't know where to go with Hiro even though all the fans wanted to see Hiro actually use his power. We wanted to see this Hiro.

We wanted to see a Hiro that could control his power with crazy skill, we wanted to see him wield a sword, go all Matrix on the world. What is he doing instead? Chasing after a formula he stupidly lost in the first episode. Hiro never left his role as bumbling fool comic relief. It was cute in the first season when he couldn't speak a lick of english but he's supposed to be a little more mature now. That never happens.

It also brings up a big problem in that the future versions of these characters never were realized. There's an explanation why the Hiro above never comes because that Hiro was cold due to Ando's death from the bomb in New York. The bomb didn't go off so this Hiro doesn't exist. But then there's this guy.

Somehow this guy still exists in these wacky, dystopian futures Heroes made. You'd think sooner or later, Peter would have an incident where he gets a scar. Nope, 4 seasons and he never cuts his face up or anything. And the future in the 3rd seasons never are clear what causes them. Is this Peter going to stop Nathan from revealing people with abilities? And since he did doesn't that me this Peter no longer exists? And if he does still exist, how does he know the future ends up being a future where everyone has abilities and Sylar where's an apron?

I'm digressing a little bit here but its a major problem with Volume 3 that has to be addressed. The time travel didn't make sense. In "Five Years Gone" still one of my favorite episodes of TV ever, there is a clear explanation as to why people with abilities are being hunted down. Nathan blames Sylar for New York bomb, people with abilities are contained and branded terrorists, simple. It also made sense because it was far enough into the first season that we had an idea of the path these people could take to get to the circumstances in that episode. "I Am Become Death"was so early in the third season that we had no idea how this future was going to come to fruition. Not only would we never see that process because we assume its going to be stopped, the writers didn't even try to create a path that would logically lead to that future unless it was stopped.

But... I digress

The episode is divided into 3 storylines:
Meredith Gordon and the Company's
Arthur and Angela Petrelli's
Elle and Sylar

We'll start with Meredith and the Company

I don't like Jessalyn Gilsig. She has a very high, irritating voice and her acting is horrendous. I'm not just talking about Heroes but it was also the case in Prison Break and Glee. She always seems to be whining and its annoying. Nothing against her personally (except the voice thing) I just don't think she's very good. But they dedicated an entire story arc to her and her hillbilly brother.

They're out committing crimes. Why? I don't know. When suddenly this guy comes in and shuts them down.

I'm sure I could find this actors name, but I'll refer to him as Batman mobster

Now this guy was always brought in as a bad guy. He's always been by the book, no questions asked, straight up company man. He's also been introduced as a bastard. Even Noah Bennet turns on him putting one in his head at the end of the first season. 

Well Meredith and her brother are captured and Meredith is given a proposition by the Batman mobster. He says she can work for the Company, or she can rot in a cell. Which brings up a problem. Since when did the Company offer jobs to people they bag and tag? Every other episode where we've questioned the morality of the company has led us to believe that they bag and tag these people and they're never heard from again. Suddenly Meredith is given a job? And why? She's not incredibly special. She can shoot fire out of her hands, its not like being invisible or canceling out people's abilities. And Claude and the Haitian were, as far as I can tell, not fugitives before they were given jobs. 

But I digress...

Meredith helps the company out for a little bit but eventually breaks her brother out and escapes. Now at the beginning of the third season,

Hillbilly Joe here is in custody. But at the end of the episode he escapes and Meredith is caught. When did he get brought back in? And another question, who the hell is he?

We know two things about Flint here. He can shoot fire out of his hands, and he's Meredith's brother... that's it. Are we suppose to care about this character? Is he a well thought out character? The answer to both of those questions are no. Flint is a minor example of the writers of Heroes bringing in and writing characters based on their abilities. That's not a character that's just something cool to look at.

Flint is a small example but a better one is this doof.

Yeah we weren't suppose to care about Flint but we're suppose to care about this dumbass. Dalphne is introduced at the beginning of the third season. What do we know about her? She has super speed and she's a thief... that's it. And this girl was suppose to turn out to be Matt Parkman's wife. Based on a "spirit walk" (again, I have no idea) Matt Parkman had, he's suddenly in love with her and apparently the audience is suppose to too. There is actually a line where Matt is explaining how they're going to be together because of this vision he had. He says, "We're going to love each other" He should have just said, "Hear that audience? This quirky girl you barely know? You're going to love her dammit!" It was just so force fed and its not just Dalphne, its a lot of characters. If they really wanted us to like Dalphne, this villains episode should have given us a little bit of background on her.

You don't think Dalphne is a good example? I've got a better one for you.

At the beginning of the series, Mohinder was a scientist hell bent on finishing his father's work and helping people with abilities. His motivation was discovery, doing the right thing. He had desires to get revenge for what happened to his father but it was never conceived the only way to do that was to acquire an ability. But what does Mohinder say when he's faced with the decision of what to do with this convenient formula that can create abilities? If I had had an ability, I could have stopped Sylar. This will be a scientific achievement, why wouldn't I be apart of it. Well which one is it? And why is this just coming up now? 

Suddenly, Mohinder wasn't the scientist, he was spiderman, he was the guy with super strength. His entire character was thrown out the window and replaced with an ability. The writers no longer cared about where these people came from to develop who they were, they were just making their abilities the vehicle to their development

I'll get into that some more when I get to Sylar and Elle but again... I digress...

The end of the episode ends with the Batman Mobster and Meredith jumping off the train that Claire happened to run into in the first episode (pointless connection) and Batman mobster about to take her in. Then Meredith's hatred of the company is brought up... randomly... and she mentions Claire. Batman Mobster realizes something and just let's Meredith go... why? I don't know.

This brings up another problem

Is that suppose to be toilet paper coming out of the P... is that suppose to be a joke?

This is the Company started by Angela Petrelli, Linderman, Adam Monroe, etc to control anything related with people with abilities. They want to make this company so morally grey and so questionable but to what avail? Again, this will be gone into in more depth with the Elle and Sylar storyline but why does Thompson (Batman mobster) let Meredith go? He's all by the book, he's all Mr. Company. Why let her go? What does her being free benefit him? Why the change of heart? We'll never know because he's dead. Why have a change of heart in a character if it doesn't lead to anything? Thompson is the bad guy in the firsts season, there was no change of heart, letting Meredith go had no point.

Also this is a very small complaint... but once the third season comes around, nobody is ever at Primatech. Those halls are always empty. There's an episode where Dalphne says she's going to find a nurse... but nobody is in the building... again, a very small plothole...

Next we'll talk about Arthur and Angela Petrelli

These two are the most conniving parents in the world. Angela (played by Cristine Rose) was already a puppet master (revealed a little too quickly in retrospect) but it turns out the evil mastermind behind it all was Arthur Petrelli... this random plot hole that was thrown in a few episodes before Villains aired.

Before I go on, I don't hate that they brought in Arthur Petrelli. The whole faking his death was kind of clever and had he been a developed villain he would have been awesome. But he really negates a lot of what was already built in the first two seasons.

                                                                Or this Guy?













Remember this guy?

The way that Arthur Petrelli was introduced totally negates any status these two characters had obtained in earlier seasons.

In the first season, Linderman wasn't introduced until the last act of the season. They spent the entire season saying, Linderman, Linderman, Linderman and we just wanted to know who he was. When he was finally introduced he was awesome. He was like the godfather with superpowers. He was awesome. But in this episode he's made off to be a mere lieutenant of Arthur Petrelli. We were meant to think that the bomb in New York was Linderman's baby but it was just stolen by Arthur Petrelli.

Now the same could be said about Adam Monroe when its said that Linderman was a disciple of Monroe's (which now that I think about it doesn't make sense) but at least Monroe didn't take credit for the plots given to Linderman in the first season. And Monroe is made the most insignificant character in the world when his powers are inexplicably taken away an episode after he's brought back in the 3rd volume. Every shred of awesomeness either of these two had was taken away by Arthur Petrelli just existing. Linderman was consumed by an idea of the greater good. Monroe thought he was a god (a story arc never fully developed in this show) Arthur Petrelli didn't earn the status he suddenly had in Heroes and that's why he wasn't a good villain. You didn't like to hate him, you just hated him.

I actually kind of liked Sullivan

Now this guy had his problems. But he at least managed to create a threat to follow the villain before him (which was... Nathan? Sylar? Someone, the fourth volume is a whole other level of confusion) without negating his status as a villain. He orders Danko to be killed that didn't diminish what Danko did in the fourth volume. It just cleared him out of the way so new management could come in. Arthur Petrelli claimed to be the management all along with an ability. He took Peter's power out of convenience. In fact, this episode, Arthur is a telepath but says nothing about his power absorbing abilities. Where did he get that power?

Which brings me to the moment that I think destroyed the Heroes television show.

I should have just ended it right there

Why take away Peter's abilities? Peter was your main character. Whether the writers want to believe it or not, this story was glued together by Peter. To be totally honest, the only reason I kept watching was because I wanted to see Peter get his powers back and become even more powerful then before... it never happened. 

The good guys needed a power house. They needed a Superman. Peter had room to develop, they proved it in season 2. He has all these powers but how was he going to control it. And when he did control it, that's when he was going to be amazing. That's when we were going to see Peter become the awesome Peter we saw in "Five Years Gone". But like Hiro, that never happened. 

It also destroyed a beautiful relationship that never fully developed.

In the first season, Peter was the ying to Sylar's yang. The Batman to Joker, the Superman to Lex Luthor, the Neo to Mr. Smith, Peter Pan to Captain Hook. The perfect match up of good versus evil. We got a taste of it in the first season but we wanted to see more. We wanted to see these two go toe to toe again... and it never happened. With Peter's ability gone, Sylar was a power unchecked, especially with Claire's ability. 

I think Superman is only cool if he has a challenge. If Batman can defeat him, if Lex Luthor can find another scheme to incapacitate him. Without Peter, Sylar goes off unchallenged and if he's unchallenged... what's the point? 

There is so much I'll talk about in the Elle and Sylar storyline but for now... once again... I digress. 

In this storyline we see the opposite side to what we saw in "Six Months Ago" in the third season. We see that it was Arthur Petrelli, not Linderman who sent the guys after Nathan causing his wife's paralysis. (Again, totally negating Linderman, I mean how can you do that to the great Malcom McDonald!?) Meanwhile, Angela Petrelli realizes that Arthur tried to kill Nathan and she freaks out. Arthur erases her memory pushing the idea that Nathan has to die for the bomb in New York to go off.

Which confuses me. First of all, Angela Petrelli was very on board with the bomb in New York plan in the first season and this episode makes it seem like she has nothing to do with it (Negating her character and manipulation as well) Also, it begs the question, if Arthur was so convinced that Nathan breathing was going to destroy their entire plan, a plan that was SOOOOO important that his very son absolutely needed to die, why does Linderman end up healing Angela's mind and having her stop Arthur? And how is killing Arthur going to stop Linderman from not going forward with his plans that apparently Angela has no knowledge of. 

This episode was suppose to fuel a struggle between Angela and Arthur Petrelli, a struggle that just seemed forced and out matched. Angela doesn't even really seem to stand a chance because apparently, Arthur can tell that you're dreaming about him. How? I don't know, but if you are you go into a comma... or worse...

but I'm getting ahead of myself. Arthur just negates all the authority that we believed Angela Petrelli to have. And yet they keep pushing her as the mastermind behind everything, they make her out to be so conniving, but if she keeps getting pushed over by men, what is the point of her?

So its revealed that Angela actually killed Arthur, he didn't die of a heart attack. But jokes on her because he didn't die. He conveniently finds a random doctor (or some doctor he knows... I don't know) to cover up him being alive and keep him in his comma state until he's ready to hatch his evil plan... which has nothing to do with what he's doing in the third season. In fact, what is Arthur's purpose? He wants to recreate the formula that gives people abilities? Why? Now that I think about it, this is never established. Nathan says he wants to "save the world" but how would that happen by giving people abilities? Arthur spends so much time gathering his team to fulfill his quest... to be the bad guy... I guess? But he teaches Sylar to use his powers via empathy... for some reason.

Arthur Petrelli is an example of writers trying to make Arthur seem like he think's he's doing the right thing. But I never felt that way. The third volume based so much on moral greyness that you never were sure who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. Which in theory is a good idea but it was just poorly done in practice.

Another problem with this storyline is the horrible family dynamics created in the Petrelli household. The third season created this plot hole that both Arthur and Angela make Sylar believe that he's their son... why?!?! This made no sense whatsoever. There is so much I'll dive into when I get to Sylar in this episode but it also happens between Arthur and his kids. It is very prevalent that these people are related through the stupid dialogue. I swear to god, there is an episode where Arthur says to Peter as he is in captivity that he is "Grounded"... that actually happened.

But finally, I get to Elle and Sylar

"Villains" opens up a time right before the events of the first episode of the series where Gabriel Gray is trying to kill himself because of what he's done to people with abilities already.

Right there I say... Bullshit!

Assuming this scene takes place after the moment where Gabriel shows off his ability to Chandra Suresh, he's feeling pretty good about himself. He finally feels special, the way he wanted to feel in the first season but its not enough. He has a mission, why would he want to kill himself?

Well Elle saves him and the two become friendly. All the while its revealed that Elle is working with Noah Bennet. They've known that Sylar has killed some people. Elle asks, "Why don't we just bag and tag him right now?" Bennet responds with some bullshit about whales but the short version is they want to figure out how he can take other people's abilities, but they can't do that with him in custody so they need him to actually take someone's ability so they can study him...

My question is... why is Bennet doing this? He's not a scientist. Just watching Sylar take someone's head off isn't going to help him understand how he takes their ability. Later in the episode Bennet says, "Mr. Grey is a killer, we know that. The question will we witness the act, or will he do it in a dark alley somewhere?" WHAT?!?! You know he's a killer? and you're letting him kill again? The company has always been morally grey but this doesn't make sense. We're going to study him so he knows how he kills so when he kills again, we can stop it. It's like Wiley coyote capturing the roadrunner so the roadrunner can make a trap for herself so Wiley can catch her again. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If Bennet was expecting to take Sylar in, he just needed to see how he takes his abilities, that would make sense. But Bennet doesn't. He's so amazed by how Sylar takes abilities that he just lets Sylar go.

This is a reoccurring theme in Heroes. Many times characters will ask the obvious question. Usually this happens because there's an explanation to why they can't just do the simple road. But in this situation and many situations like it, the explanation doesn't make any sense.

And then we get to the relationship between Sylar and Elle.

Them having a thing in the episode makes sense. Them having a thing later in the season doesn't make sense at all.

I'll remind the reader that Elle saw her father's head wide open. She's seen everything that Sylar has become and yet she falls for him. Why? Because he's empathetic. That's it. It doesn't matter what her father did to her, she forgives Sylar in a matter of seconds the minute he seems to have a sensitive side and not be all murdery. That isn't romantic, that's just dumb.

And this happens a lot. People are so willing to forgive or forget Sylar's murdery ways very quickly even though he's terrorized them, their family, their loved ones. A character will see another character working with Sylar and say, "What are you doing? That's Sylar, he's a crazy motherfucker." The other character will be like. "I can explain" Sylar will be like. "It wasn't me who killed _____ it was my power." BULLSHIT!

Anyway, Bennet orders Elle to bring in another person with abilities. Sylar gets jealous and kills that guy giving Noah the information he wants. But again, Sylar gets away. The moral of this story is that it wasn't Sylar's fault he became so murdery, it was Elle's fault, the Company's fault. Why do they do this?

Well they're trying to make Sylar have a soul and make it not that he's a psychopath, he's all murdery because of his ability. His ability gives him a hunger to cut people's head open. A desire to understand how things are broken. But let's take a step back and think about the reason Sylar was a serial killer in the first season, why he first killed Brian Davis.

Gabriel Gray is the son of a watchmaker who confides in Chandra Suresh saying, I've always felt as though I was meant for something more. Beyond being the son of a watchmaker. I've always wanted to feel special. And when he's about to kill Brian Davis, he realizes, "you're broken." He sees Brian Davis's not deserving his power in his mind and he thinks Brian Davis is broken. The answer must be in the brain and so to fix it, he opens his head.

This is why it doesn't make any sense why he's trying to kill himself in the beginning of the episode. It's the same reason why he initially was scared to be the bomb, regressing back to his mother. It wasn't because his ability was telling him he didn't want to kill all those people, it was his logical nature. It didn't make sense to him to kill innocent people as the bomb until he realizes that being the bomb would be a way to be the president and be someone important. Be more than just the son of a watchmaker.

The Elle romance arc changes all that. Instead of a psychological reason to how Sylar's rational fulfills his desires, it makes it seem like the only thing that Sylar needed to reign in his hunger was to get laid. It took away the interesting part about Sylar and said, "Nope, it was just his ability and the Company that made him who he is today. It wasn't his fault at all." Suddenly the killer becomes the victim in a gross, irrational way. It tossed everything that Sylar was in the first season, which was why we loved him in the first place, and instead gave the explanation, it was his power.

Sylar was no longer the disturbed serial killer, the plot that actually made him human and interesting. He was the misunderstood redemption story. He wanted to understand who he was instead of making who he was. He was now the figurehead in a pointless Oedipus Complex with Angela Petrelli, conveniently also fueled by Arthur Petrelli (Even though there was no way beyond Arthur somehow reading Angela's mind that he knew that Angela had told Sylar he was their son) and that ultimately lead to nothing. So many motivations and goals were driven by the idea that Sylar was a Petrelli and when it wasn't actually true, it made all those stories pointless. He was the on again off again sociopath anti hero that randomly kills off Elle, the one person that could give him back his humanity. It was so convoluted and pointless, like everything in the third season, that you soon forget that it ever happened.

BUT... I digress

The episode ends with Hiro waking up from his "Spirit walk". Arthur kills the random African guy and takes away Hiro's memory. He doesn't take away his ability... like he does later... he sends him back to his 10 year old self. This leads to the whole "Catalyst" part... which didn't make any sense. What is the Catalyst? I don't know. What does it do? Complete the formula. How? I don't know. Who has it? Claire... well first it was Hiro's mom and then it was Hiro so that's how Arthur got it. Why would Hiro's mom give the catalyst to Hiro? I don't know. How did Arhur get to the past to take the Catalyst and Hiro's powers? I don't know. Was it it Arthur from the past or the future? I don't know. If he was from the future, again, how did he get to the past? I don't know. If he's from the past, how does he know who Claire and Hiro are? I don't know. And if he's from the past how does he know Claire will go back and tell Angela that he won? I don't know. And if he's from the past, why does he teleport to what I guess is the future? I DON'T KNOW. ITS A HUGE PLOT HOLE

BUT I DIGRESS!!!!!!!

And that leads to the Eclipse. Well why did the Eclipse take away their powers? I don't know. Did it give powers in the first place? No Nathan could fly before the first eclipse we see. Did it take away powers after the first eclipse? Well no because Hiro was able to teleport Kensei in Feudal Japan. Well then why does it take away powers in the third season? .... I don't know. 

BUT I DIGRESS!!!!!

And when its all said and done the second half of the third season is Fugitives. I'm going to try to be as quick as I can on this point but it is a point that is very important. 

Adrian Pasdar is a great actor. I'm surprised he hasn't been in more than Heroes. Nathan Petrelli was a great character in the first season. He played jump rope with the line of, was he a good guy or was he a bad guy. He epitomized the slimy politician stereotype but there were times that he actually was a nice guy. It's soon revealed that its an internal struggle. He has conflicts with himself on whether or not he's going to be a good person. This struggle is not fulfilled until he lifts his brother up into the sky so the impending doom Peter is about to unleash onto New York does not happen. Its a perfect act of redemption. They had already gotten this right with Nathan I don't know why they felt they had to do it with Sylar. 

But then Nathan survived...

Like the season itself, Nathan wasn't bad in the second season, but he didn't do anything. He was just along for the ride for the most part. But suddenly in the third season they put Nathan right back where he was in the first season. He's tempted by power and this time he takes it, he gives in... but in a stupid way. 

Suddenly he feels hunting people with abilities is right. You know until Danko calls him out on his bullshit. And yet Nathan still ends up a good guy in Fugitives. 

But I actually digress, the point is Nathan cheats death in every season. Putting an emphasis on the sad fact of Heroes, one of the main reasons it bombed. 

Nobody dies!

Here's something to put that into perspective. The original cast was this

Claire, Mr. Bennett, Issac Mendez, Simone Deveaux, Matt Parkman, Nikki Saunders, DL Hawkins, Micah Saunders, Hiro, Nathan, Mohinder and Peter.

Now look at this promotional poster:

This was a poster for the last season. You've got 8 of the 12 original cast members still alive and the other three cast members in this poster are characters introduced in the first season. (Save Robert Knepper's character)

I'll put this into even more perspective. At the end of the battle at Kirby plaza, 5 characters are feared dead. (Sylar, Nathan, Peter, Matt, and DL). Next season, everyone survived it. Granted DL was not alive when the second season started but that was another plot point that ended up not making sense.

The truth is, a show like Heroes you are going to have characters that can cheat death. (Ex. Claire and Adam Monroe) Second truth is, there will be people with abilities to bring people back from the dead. But then Heroes started bringing people back in very odd ways.

Unexplainable resurrection - Yeah they thought nobody would question how Nathan miraculously survived being shot by Peter in the third season. For a while we're meant to believe it was Linderman who did it but it turns out he's a ghost... so unless Maury Parkman magically could heal Nathan, that is a giant plot hole right there.

Twin sisters - I cannot believe this was actually a thing. Ali Larter was good on the show but not THAT good. When they decided to kill of Nikki Saunders, Ali Larter stayed on as Tracey Strauss, her identical twin sister... yeah bullshit!

The Ultimate Jedi Mind Trick - In theory it sounds really cool that Matt Parkman planted the idea that Sylar was Nathan into his head and if it had been at another time, another character and executed in a better way I would have liked it. But by the time that it happened, I was just fed up with Nathan staying alive!

All these resurrections, along with the countless times people have been resurrected by Claire's blood or that characters ability to heal just numbs you to the whole concept of death. "Oh that character died, well chances are he'll probably heal. He can breath underwater? Who cares? He'll probably still heal."

My guess is audiences loved these characters too much. This is why the show lasted so long, because you cared about the cheerleader, you cared about the police officer who could read minds, you cared about the dreamer and his politician brother. And chances are the writers loved them too much too. Chances are these actors and actresses became so close through Heroes that none of them wanted to leave.

But if you don't kill any characters, you can't make room for new ones. and that would be okay if you developed your core characters, which you stopped doing. And if there's no room for new characters, they don't become develop. And if they don't develop, people don't want them on the show. At one point, the writers of Heroes stopped developing characters correctly which was what they did best in the first season.


There are other things I could say about this show. I could say that they overused poorly written child actors.

Like This Guy

But I've rambled on for too long. The fact of the matter is, Heroes was a sad case where poor circumstances along with poor writing were mixed and an atrocious outcome came to be. I will say the first season and second season are actually really good watches. Just watch the second season fast forwarding through the scenes with the guy above or her and its actually a fun watch. 

There are rumors that Heroes is going to be picked up again. The rumors say it'll be a new cast with a few cameos from the original cast. I say as few as possible. I think Tim Kring can learn from his mistakes and make something really good. Because there's not enough superheroes on TV these days. Heroes, I think, has been the closest...

That is.. unless these guys prove me wrong...