bmcmolo

I was excited to find this film on Sundance, it having been recommended to me by a friend who's no slouch in the picking-out-talented films department. I'm amazed this was done with only $160,000. I greatly look forward to the next projects of everyone involved. It reminded me of "Bottle Rocket," not so much in plot or style but in overall spirit and fun. I hope this gets the wide release it deserves, as I'd love to buy the DVD and find out more about how it was done, etc. Great film to watch with friends or by yourself. I know this review doesn't say all that much, but watching it this afternoon for the second time has made me alternately nostalgic and lighthearted, and I felt like tossing these words out into cyberspace.

When I first saw "Batman" in the summer of 1989, I was utterly enthralled. By the hype and advertising. I even bought the damn Prince soundtrack, even though I hated Prince back then. Of course, times have changed - now Prince is just fine and this movie has deteriorated with every viewing. Not only is everything about the Batman character from the comic book (before the revisionist post-film writers got a hold of him) utterly gone, the acting is horrendous (on ALL fronts) the story makes no sense, and it is, above all else, BORING. Of course, compared to the other films in the series, it's "Citizen Kane." To list just one of the many examples of anti-Batman like behavior, Batman would never drive his car into a warehouse, drop bombs and drive away. What is he, the UN? The Elfman music is just lovely, sure. But what we have is a movie that is all style and no substance. Batman comes across more like Iron Man - or a pre-frowning-90s-twentysomething Iron Man - and all of the other characters (including Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent, whom they apparently kicked to the curb for Tommy Lee Jones a little later in the series) are ridiculous and if they bear any resemblance to their comic book counterparts, it's in name only. "Bruce Wayne"s decision to reveal his identity to Kim Basinger and Alfred's decision to just let her into the Batcave afterwards remain two of the most puzzling oversights in script history. I am constantly amazed at the kudos given this film. Tim Burton is a fine director, sure, and this film SHOULD have been good but is bad at EVERY turn. My God, people, watch it again! And oh yes, when I saw this in the theater eleven years ago, the showcase had printed "The Joker" on my ticket stub. Perhaps that was a mistake, or perhaps that was a way to clue the viewer in that Batman has a supporting role in his own movie. I understand the next film in the series is going to use Frank Miller's "Year One," which, while a fine story, is also completely revisionist Batman history. I suggest that anyone who has a sincere interest in the Batman mythos, read the 70s and 80s comic books, up to "The Dark Knight Returns" and stay as far away from these cinematic stink bombs as possible.

as an adaptation of the book, "go ask alice" does a competent, if somewhat dull, job. but let's face it - you're seeing this film either because of william shatner or in the hopes of catching some drug orgy scenes. well, there isn't a drug orgy, though the music cues for the "let's take drugs" scenes are pretty funny. shatner doesn't disappoint, though he's not in this enough. in fact, don't be fooled by the cover; neither andy griffith or shatner are in this very much. bottom line: best viewed if you're a) not on drugs b) not trying to get someone to stop taking drugs c) meticulously watching every shatner film one-by-one.