Ranking the Batman Movies: #5 - "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012)

Lets continue our Bat-tastic countdown by doing the first of the top five and the final entry by Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight Rises.

#5 - The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises had a tough job to do when it was coming out. All throughout late-2011 there was hype as far as the eye could see. Even after three years, people were still reaming from how awesome The Dark Knight was, and with its long-awaited sequel coming out people were, of course, pretty anxious. I'll admit; I was pretty curious to see how they'd follow up not just a classic Batman movie, but such a classic comic book movie.

Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan return for their third and final Bat-venture as Batman and the director, respectively. After two previous attempts, Bale still never got a less-than-laughable Bat-voice. Though I will say there is one line he utters in the movie, as Batman, that serves as a perfect example to what his Bat-voice could've been. Near the end of the film when he's talking to Selina Kyle before the final battle begins, he says the phrase "There's more to you than that", which sounds awesome. The rest of his lines are his typical throat cancer-y deliveries that make you really question how he's not shredded his vocal chords yet.

Tom Hardy as Bane

Speaking of ridiculous voices, Tom Hardy has been cast as our villain for the film, Bane. An interesting choice considering Bane is actually one of the younger Batman villains. While his performance is intimidating and menacing, I find this Bane to be lacking for a couple reasons. The first of which is his voice. Making a character hilarious by ruining his voice seems to be a running gag on Christopher Nolan's Bat-sets and Bane was no exception. While he's supposed to be a menacing terrorist deemed unstoppable by the local police, he sounds like Sean Connery talking into a Darth Vader voice changer toy. Each of his S's makes a "Sh" sound, and some of his vocal pitches are laughable as well. When he's giving the speech in front of Blackgate prison, he hits a couple of high notes on par with an Adam Sandler performance. How are you supposed to take him seriously when he squeals like a clown? Sure his physique and fighting prowess makes up for it, but your fighting an essentially beefed-up Bozo the Clown soundalike. The second reason I find his Bane to be lacking his because it's the Joker. We haven't talked about The Dark Knight yet, but believe me when I say that having the Joker be in that movie and be the homicidal, unstoppable lunatic worked great for his character and his quest for chaos. Bane on the other hand, looks to be just following in the Joker's footsteps. I know we couldn't have a second Joker performance by Heath Ledger due to his tragic passing and there was absolutely no recasting him, so what we're left with his Bane, talking out of a mask that looks like a robotic lobster with a goofy Adam Connery Sean Sandler impression committing the same-level of terrorism that the Joker had in the previous film. Original in one light, but also a copycat in another light.

Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle / Catwoman

Joining Tom Hardy's casting is Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, or Catwoman as the comic book fans know her by. She's pretty much just playing Selina Kyle, and when she's in the outfit, she's playing Selina Kyle in the outfit. The only way she relates to a cat is because of the way her goggles fold up to resemble cat-like ears. Other than that, no cat relation. She may have a cat in the apartment, but there's never a shot of it. They may be playing off of the "cat burglar" motif, but it's not strong enough to warrant the naming of "Catwoman". Come to mention it, I don't think she's even referred to as Catwoman in the entirety of the film, but I could be mistaken there. The other villain is John Daggett, another former Batman character brought to the big screen. He's essentially useless. He's a big-time corporate magnate rival of Bruce Wayne who has little impact other than he funds Bane's assault on the stock market. Other than that, a dead end character. The other villain (pretty sure that's four) is Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate--er--I mean, Talia Al Ghul. She's the overall true bad guy as she's orchestrated the whole overtaking of Gotham and commands Bane, even though they're lovers. She was alright in my opinion. She had a good strong presence and it was great to have her around, even when she was evil and supposed to piss me off. 

One of the huge plus sides in the movie is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake. I really liked his inclusion into the movie. It's clear he competes with Bruce Wayne as having the most character development and the largest arc. He goes from being a beat cop, to being a street detective, to being the next caped crusader of Gotham City. At the end, when he receives a bag of climbing equipment, it's filed under his apparent legal name of "Robin", which I thought was a pretty cool nod. Other people in the theater were disgusted with it, but I liked it. Robin was never going to get any love in Christopher Nolan's movies anyhow, but this showed that he at least got a nod, being Bruce/Batman's sidekick for the whole movie.

Marion Cotillard as Miranda--er, I mean
Talia Al Ghul

The movie's story resembles that closely of a couple other Batman stories, as is the Christopher Nolan Batman movie way. This one, while having original story arcs and concepts in it, also borrows heavily from Batman: Knightfall and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Batman's return is done in the style of The Dark Knight Returns and seeing played out on the big screen is so cool. Many of Batman's scenes are still cool and played out in the same fashion as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. While the movie's story is interesting in nature, it does lag a little bit. I mean the movie's two hours and forty-some minutes. Once Batman loses the first fight to Bane, the film stops dead for a few minutes and completely switches gears into what feels like a completely different story.

Obviously there are the not-as-subtle complaints, such as how in the name of ass did Batman's back get fixed? A vertebra was protruding from his spine and it had to be put back, so the guy he shared a jail cell with punched it back into place? With his HAND?! Suck it, modern medicine! If you're finding yourself in a wheelchair, just have some close friend punch you in the back and you'll be A-OK. Incorporating this aspect of the Knightfall story was dumb, especially if you're just going to have him bounce back from it. In Knightfall, Bruce Wayne was crippled by Bane, and it was Jean-Paul Valley who became the new Batman who had to then fight and defeat Bane. Granted Bruce's spine eventually got fixed in Knightfall, but in way more ludicrous standards that couldn't be shown in The Dark Knight Rises. Omitting the back-breaking entirely would've also robbed Bane of a truly ominous screen presence, so it really was a no-win situation. The way it could've been done, which would have continued to sell Batman as more of a symbol than a man, is to break Bruce's back, take him permanently out of commission, and then have Blake take up the mantle of Batman to fight and ultimately defeat Bane. That would've been great in my opinion, but the movie wasn't going to be four hours long so there was no hope of that. 

On top of that, the movie is riddled with plot holes, such as Bruce's rapid return to Gotham following his escape from the Pit, without any money, a passport, or even another change of clothes. More complaints can be made for the people of Gotham taking Bane's reading of Gordon's letter seriously as incontrovertible evidence regardless of prosecution, Batman's huge refusal to kill anyone until he shoots Talia's truck and...well, kills her, the trapping of the entire Gotham City Police force underground so conveniently so that the overdone climax can continue to be well overdone; it's all just a giant, hasty mess to wrap up the trilogy in this film without letting it expand any further. Christian Bale's hefty forty-million-dollar contract isn't going to carry over to other films, guys.

So, to sum it up, is it worth it? Yes, it is. However, being tasked with following The Dark Knight and with wrapping up a major motion picture story in a convincing way, the movie feels like a misstep. It's like Nolan was balancing the franchise on his nose and then sneezed. I'm not saying the movie's bad, but it was doomed from the very beginning. The hype, the loss of Heath Ledger meaning the exclusion of the Joker, and again, having to be the goddamn sequel to The Dark fucking Knight, which is like trying to be the sequel to The Empire Strikes Back. The Dark Knight Rises can easily be compared to Return of the Jedi. It was never going to be the superior follow-up or even maybe the adequate follow-up, but it was going to be the end, whether your liked it or not. So take it as it is. It's satisfying and wraps up the arc, but clunks and stumbles along the way... 

Ranking the Batman Movies: #6 - "Batman Begins" (2005)

Ahh, here we go. We've hit the first of the three Nolan Batfilms on the list.

#6 - Batman Begins (2005)

What can I say about the Nolan Batman movies? They're the most popular rendition of the Batman character of the past generation The trilogy of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises stand as their own staple as to how comic book movies should be made. They're unique in that director Christopher Nolan wanted to present the films in a realistic light, like what would happen if a billionaire actually wanted to dress up like a bat and fight crime. The steps he'd take to do so, how those close to him would react, and the types of fights this person would probably come across.

Bat-Bale

The first Nolan entry, Batman Begins, was produced and released in 2005. Christian Bale does the first of three portrayals as Batman. He does pretty well. He's menacing to look at in the suit, but a common criticism of Bale's Batman is that his voice is near-indecipherable. It's like if before every take Bale swallowed a grown cactus and then Christopher Nolan yelled "action!" He snarls and growls even the softest and most meaningful of his lines. I can however safely say that this film is the one where his voice is the least choked up and ridiculous. Perhaps that they just hadn't fleshed it out yet.

Supporting Bale is a slew of phenomenal talent. Liam Neeson plays Ra's Al Ghul, one of our two main villains for the film. He doesn't have very many defining characteristics other than that he's Liam Neeson, and that's pretty much it. His immortality is barely hinted at, perhaps even blown over entirely, so he's pretty stock considering we've gotten the same thing in 50's and 60's Japanese Samurai films. Neeson, however, is backed up by Cillian Murphy as Jonathan Crane AKA The Scarecrow. Having gone through the original Batman film series from 1989-1997 without a single hint of the Scarecrow appearing, (though he was rumored to appear as the villain in Batman & Robin's would-be sequel Batman Triumphant in 1999-2000) I can say he's done well in this movie. Cillian Murphy's portrayal is not only creepy and sinister, but also very gentlemanly. The problem is that the real Scarecrow, that is Crane going by the moniker of the Scarecrow is only in the film for sixty seconds before Rachel Dawes, played by babyface extraordinaire Katie Holmes, zaps him with a taser. You'd better enjoy Scarecrow quick, because sixty seconds later he's gone.

Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul

Michael Caine and Gary Oldman are both brilliantly cast as Alfred Pennyworth and Sgt./Lt. James Gordon. They both bring masterful performances to both characters and really deliver. Both characters are so hard to ignore whenever they're in a scene. Each one is too good to watch. As the love interest, like I said, is Katie Holmes. I don't have much to say about her other than she's playing the part like she's still in an episode of Dawson's Creek. Still goofy, lighthearted charm. Because she's got the babyface going on, whenever she tries to become serious and have a straight face, she looks almost laughable. I'm actually of the small band of fans who thinks Maggie Gyllenhaal did the role more justice in The Dark Knight.

As the movie goes itself, it's a pretty good adventure flick. It shows a young Bruce Wayne suffering his parents' murder, going to Asia and Europe to develop a life of crime, join the League of Shadows and get trained by Ra's Al Ghul, and then return to Gotham and debut the Batman, a vigilante persona to strike fear in the hearts of criminals everywhere. As with the other two Nolan films, Batman Begins draws its narrative heavily from existing Batman stories from the comic books. The main source for inspiration is Frank Miller's Batman origin story Batman: Year One. Everything in some shape or form stems from Year One, right down to the orange-ish hue the movie is filmed in and the Joker cliffhanger ending. Some of the characters even come from the graphic novel itself, such as Detective Flass.

The fight scenes are the worst part about the movie. In a movie that's two hours and twenty-one minutes long, some action scenes are necessary to keep the audience invested. Two and a half hours of exposition would be nuts. However, the action scenes we're given, the fight scenes especially are pretty lackluster. The suspense scenes where Batman's hunting the criminals from the shadows and drawing fear out of them are pretty cool, but the fight scenes are super-cut to shit. Each fight scene has about a thousand cuts in it and you can barely tell what's going on. Even a two minute fight scene could have five hundred cuts in it and each cut only lasts about a quarter or even an eighth of a second. Full-fledged punches are rarely scene, unlike the two sequels The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, where fights are shown with minimal cuts. It all stems from uneven pacing; the dialogue slows the movie down but the fight scenes speed it up far too quickly, and then when the fast-as-hell fight scenes are over the pace stops dead in its tracks.

While the runtime is a drag for a movie with not that huge of a story to tell (especially when something like Year One exists) and the fight scenes are nothing to write home about or even really show off to your friends, Batman Begins did its job in setting up what was to come. While the main characters do their job, the background characters are not fleshed out very well or swept under the rug entirely. The two villains are okay, but nothing too exciting. Ra's Al Ghul is pretty stock, and Scarecrow is cool for the forty-five to sixty seconds of screentime he gets. The rest is just Jonathan Crane being super creepy. I recommend it for the sole purpose of background filler of The Dark Knight. We haven't gotten there yet, so I'll explain why in due time. Until then, watch this one if you want to.

Ranking the Batman Movies: #7 - "Batman Forever" (1995)

In continuing with our Bat-fest of Movie-ness, we move onto the number seven spot, held by Joel Schumacher's better of his two Bat-entries, Batman Forever.

#7 - Batman Forever (1995)

So we already discussed the dumber of Schumacher's two movies in Batman & Robin, but what about Batman Forever? Batman Forever quite frankly, is the biggest mixed-bag you've got when you think of the Batman movies, and anybody you talk to will either decide one way or the other. Some people file it under "Schumacher shit" and just pass on it due to Batman & Robin's reputation, but others hold it to a high standard, some even higher than other Batman movies, which shocks most people.

Batman (Val Kilmer) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell)

Batman Forever was the first to really go mainstream with Batman. Tim Burton's prior two entries were very cult noire and weren't really made for mainstream moviegoers. They were made for comic book fans and fans of dark, gritty superhero movies. Think back to the 80's guys; there weren't that many superhero movies. However, by the time Joel Schumacher took over the director's chair, the darkness, the grittiness, the grim scenery and sinister undertones were all done away with. Batman Forever came out in 1995 and totally switched gears. Everything was bright and colorful and treated like a neon fireworks display. Everything was either neon, brightly lit, both, and many colors were incorporated. 

Many fans wonder why there was such a radical creative direction change between Batman Returns and Batman Forever. The most glaring clue is Batman Returns' lackluster box office returns, which many attribute to Tim Burton having too much freedom behind-the-scenes, but we'll cross the bridge soon enough. Others feel that Warner Bros. Studios were pressured by DC Comics to appeal to a wider audience than that of what Tim Burton's films were appealing to. DC was seeing slumping comic book sales and wanted to attract more people to them by giving the film more of a comic book feeling. I agree, but they certainly got carried away a few places.

So the characters are about as over-the-top as in Batman & Robin, but luckily there wasn't a Schumacher film before this to make us despise them. Top Gun's "Iceman" Val Kilmer is our caped crusader for this film, and he actually does really well. Most people don't really care for him, but I do. I really liked what he brought to the cape and cowl. I only have two gripes: His Bat-voice didn't differentiate from his Wayne-voice at all, and the Bat-nipples on the suit. For those who don't know, the Batsuit in the movie caused a bit of an uproar when it was revealed to display men's nipples on it. Schumacher's reasoning was that he wanted the Batsuit to be less technological and represent more elements you'd see on that of a Greek God statue. Suiting up with him is NCIS: Los Angeles's Chris O'Donnell, who plays Robin in Robin's first big-screen appearance since Batman: The Movie in 1966. He's definitely given a lot of backstory and buildup to the big reveal in the Batcave when you find out he's Robin and he's ready to help Batman in his final battle. Robin's one of the best characters in the movie, and Chris O'Donnell flat-out nailed the role. He is Robin. He may have gotten carried away and stupid with it in Batman & Robin, but here he's phenomenal. The story of a tragic soul who just wants revenge for his family's murder and O'Donnell played the part beautifully.

The Riddler (Jim Carrey) and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones)

Now you wanna talk about the villains? Sigh. Well, to put it plainly, they're very "Schumacher-y". Over-the-top, cheesy, and in some cases, annoying to watch and listen to. Tommy Lee Jones plays Two-Face, which is weird since you swore he was black in Batman (1989), but I digress. He's so overacted and loud that he's almost robbing from the movie. You think a performance this important would warrant absolutely no leeway on his range, but I guess Joel just let him run wild. What's terrible is that he's playing more the Joker than he is Two-Face. Two-Face laughs maniacally more in this movie than the Joker does in The Dark Knight. Now, you take that and couple him with Jim Carrey, Jim fucking Carrey from the mid-90's, coming off successes like Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask slapped into the role of the Riddler? Dear God, is the villain range in this movie way off the charts. They both overact so badly and then when they're on screen together, they try to "out-overact" each other. It's ridiculous and to this day, I still can't decide if I think it's funny or if I think it's plain stupid. One of the most ironically funny parts to me is that Jim Carrey isn't even playing the Riddler, he's just playing himself. It's just Jim Carrey being Jim Carrey. 

Really, there are good aspects of the movie and there are bad ones. Some good aspects is the acting that doesn't come from Tommy Lee Jones or Jim Carrey, the set design is really awe-inspiring and the Elliot Goldenthal score is a great piece of orchestral fortitude. However, the movie gets dragged down by being really campy, filled with dumb one-liners (though still not as bad as Batman & Robin), overacted like crazy, having costume design that looks utterly laughable in retrospect, but overall just being made really marketable. This was the safe, marketable Batman movie Warner Bros. finally wanted and got. Toys, t-shirts, and other sorts of Batman Forever memorabilia were everywhere when this movie came out, and those character posters are a hot commodity in today's swap-meet market.

Overall, I'd say give it a go, but don't expect your serious, dark-toned Batman flick. Expect a lighthearted two-hour popcorn fart that satisfies in some areas, disappoints in others. It's decent movie-going entertainment, I'm not going to say it won't entertain you, but it really is a 50/50 shot on whether or not you'll like it. It depends on if you accidentally watch Batman & Robin first, in which case you'll hate Forever with a burning, fiery Bat-passion.

There are two things to take away from Batman Forever: The color green, and Seal's "Kiss From a Rose"...catch you next time for number six of the countdown!

Ranking the Batman Movies: #8 - "Batman: The Movie" (1966)

In continuing with my "Ranking the Batman Movies" ranking of the Batman movies, we move on to number eight on the list, "Batman", produced in 1966.

#8 - "Batman" (1966)

An adaptation of the classic TV series of the same name, "Batman" starred Adam West as the caped crusader Batman and Burt Ward as Robin, the boy wonder. (Isn't it funny how the actor who portrayed Batman's ward has a last name of "Ward"? No? Okay, moving on.)

In the 1960's Batman wasn't getting as much media as he does nowadays. His only main source of exposure was the comic books. The original Batman series was somewhere in the 250-350 issue count, so there was no shortages of story in terms of print. Each and every Batman villain was getting their weekly attempts at killing Batman and lay siege to Gotham City, but it wasn't until the character got picked up for a half-hour long action series on ABC that he got all the exposure he'd ever need, and more.

The series ran for two seasons, but still amassed one hundred and thirty-some-odd episodes in that two year time frame. From '66 to '68, children all over the world thrilled to the caped crusader's adventures to beat up the bad guys and save the day. Much like the Adventures of Superman series starring George Reeves captivated children all over the world a decade before, now Batman was doing the very same. People week-in and week-out cheered as Batman and Robin repeatedly saved Gotham City and defeated the super villains of the week. The Joker, Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler (whom the series made a star villain), and Mr. Freeze all regularly caused havoc in Gotham City and Batman and Robin were dispatched to save the day. During the show's initial run in '66, Batman: The Movie was released, starring much of the same cast as the TV series. Batman's theatrical debut made its way into cinemas across the globe and continued to be adored by children and parents alike.

So it seems like nothing about the series or its companion film were anything less than glorious, right? Everything seemed to have gone right for the world's greatest detective, you think? At the time, yes. Here lately, I can definitely tell that the appeal of the series and the film has died off a little bit. The main reason for that being is that the film and series it's adapted from are both extremely campy and cheesy, and seeing as how today's Batman fans are more into the Frank Miller-esque portrayal of the Dark Knight makes it feel out of touch with the times. It's well known that the dark-nature, gritty Batman people like seeing today was completely lost on the producers of the 60's. From the bright and colorful costumes, to the *Zap!* *Pow* *Splash!* disco-font words that flash onto the screen close to every time a punch or other sound effect occurs, Batman appealed to everyone of the 1960's, but as the world changed into the 70's, and later the 80's, the release of The Dark Knight Returns, and 1989's popular Tim Burton Batman film, the appeal of the 60's series started to shift to more of a cult status. Today, people who didn't grow up watching their parents' old tapes of Batman from '66 look at the series as an outdated fad of sorts. Adam West's hammy deliveries mocked by Nicolas Cage in Kick-Ass, and Burt Ward's constant use of the "Holy ---, Batman!" catchphrase seem like nothing more but outdated gimmicks than actual exclamations. The show marginalized soon-to-be popular police commissioner Gordon, and omitted Two-Face entirely. Instead, it went on a path to create some of its own Batman villains, like Egghead, played by Vincent Price.

So does that mean that the appeal of the series is completely lost for future generations to enjoy? Well, today, watching the movie is like watching a live yearbook of the 1960's. If you've ever wanted to know how media and actors/actresses were played out, dressed, and behaved, watching this along with an old rerun of Star Trek will perfectly sum up how the 60's looked and felt. On top of that, you can most certainly guess that the series and movie were the biggest inspirations for Joel Schumacher's entries into the Batman mythos, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. The campy scenery, the over-the-top acting, the lame dialogue and the ridiculous color-coordination of the cinematography almost certainly came from viewing old reruns of Batman and Batman: The Movie. While Tim Burton wanted to do his own thing and make his own Batman stories, Joel Schumacher wanted to use the most recognized form of Batman media as inspirations for his crazy Batman films.

In my opinion, I'd say give them a try. With the series having recently been released in its entirety on Blu-ray for the first time, true Batman fans can't call themselves as such until they've watched some of it and the old '66 Batman movie. It's campy, it's dumb, a lot of it is hokey even by the 80's standards, but it's some hokey, campy, dumb TV that the world should still have some affection for. Not only was it just Batman's first foray into media that wasn't printed, but it's a pop culture staple of the 1960's that the world shouldn't leave behind. It was coming on strong at the same time as "Flower power", Star Trek, LBJ, James Bond, Vietnam, Gilligan's Island, Hippie counter-culture, The Brady Bunch and more! All TV back then was just as weird as Batman. Give it a shot, it can't hurt.


Catch me next time when I move up to #7 on the BatList.
Stay tuned!
Same Bat-blog.
Same Bat-uh...-internet.

Ranking the Batman Movies: #10 - "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016) and #9 - "Batman & Robin" (1997)

I decided to finally step away from discussing Star Wars for a while. *Wild applause*. So, as a change of pace, I'm going to do what I hope is the first of many series' in ranking all of the movies in a given franchise or criteria. Well, what better way to start off than with one of the most heralded movie roles of all time? That's right. We're ranking the Superman movies!

Wait, what? Oh we're not doing Superman yet? Well, what are we doing? Non-DC/Marvel comic book movies? Nahh, what else you got? Oh, Batman? Yeah, I guess we can rank Batman.

I mean, why not? Batman has been played so diversely over the course of his fifty-plus year motion picture career. Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale and most recently Ben Affleck ("Batfleck, if you will) have all had their go at the character with mixed results. However, we're not ranking the Batmen themselves, we're ranking the movies they've provided us. So, since we have ten movies to get through, let's go ahead and get it started.

#10 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) & #9 - Batman & Robin (1997)

So let's start out with the obvious choice of Batman and Rob--, wait a minute. Batman v Superman? I mean, I know it's gotten lambasted in the media but it's not worse than the worst Batman movie of all time, is it? Well, from a storytelling standpoint, it kind of is.

To start off with, again, we're not judging the Batmen themselves. If we were, Affleck blows Clooney out of the water. Period, end of story. We're judging the movies they were in, and I gotta tell you, I sort of prefer Batman & Robin to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. That's right, I goddamn jolly-well went there. I'm the one, people, and I'll tell you why.

Without going into detail yet, we all know that both movies fail across the board in their own fields. BvS fails miserably in story, directing, and originality, whilst Batman & Robin obviously fails in dialogue, acting, and art-direction. They both have their pitfalls that make them the bottom-tier Batflicks, but slice out of all of the bad junk for a minute. Pretend BvS isn't just a rip-off of The Dark Knight Returns and that Batman & Robin wasn't shot in the spare room of a neon night-club with an eighth grade drama class troupe. Take a step back and compare the two now. 

Still not convinced? Even after pretending BvS isn't a ripoff of the Dark Knight Rises which essentially cripples the Bat-half of the movie? Alright, let's try something else then. Let's restate my credo. What is the single most important aspect of making a movie? The setting? Not quite. The characters? Close; I'd say they're about the second-most important thing. No, if you've been following my posts, you'll know that has a movie-goer, I value story first and foremost over everything. A good, clean story, start to finish, is the most essential part of a movie and is the foundation on which to build everything else. Acting, dialogue, sets, costumes, props, and musical score all integral pieces you supply once your foundation has been erected. 

Look at Batman v Superman. It has a half-assed story that begs the question if a script was really needed. Sure there are some points in the movie that didn't happen in other forms of Batman media, but even if there were events that didn't directly happen verbatim in the comics or TV series', they've happened so many times in different forms of dialogue and settings that it almost feels like a carbon copy. Bruce being sly and coy at a gala event? That's never been done before. Bruce angrily discussing stuff with Alfred. That's never been done before. In fact, the only thing that was sort of original was Jeremy Irons' portrayal of Alfred. 

One of the biggest and most glaring problems with Batman v Superman is that it was over-stuffed. It was over-stuffed with so much story and build-up materials for future DC movies that the story suffered. It has no room to breathe. You get all of this stuff in just two-and-a-half hours that made you crazy. It's not like it was hard to follow, but it certainly felt like cramming for a final exam by reading nine chapters out of your textbook all in one night. The amount of shit that you're expected to just digest and accept is baffling. Once you take all of the build-up plot points and necessary character introductions and witty banter that points to future DCEU movies that you won't care about, you're left with a fan-fiction re-edit of The Dark Knight Returns, just with some stupid recycled Superman story thrown in. Oh what's that? Superman is a God-like being who some of the Earth is thankful to have but others of Earth feel anxious around? Haven't heard that notion in any of the comic books before...

Now, against your wishes, I'm going to ask you to look back at Batman & Robin. Sure the acting sucks something awful to the point where the only time George Clooney ever visited a Comic-Con, he took time out to visit the Batman panel and publicly apologize for the film's outcome. Sure the dialogue is so horrifically cheesy and stupid that it ruined Joel Schumacher's career as a director. Yeah...that bad. Sure the art direction consisting of the sets, costumes, and props made everything feel like a brightly-lit night club where everybody's doing blow and dancing wildly in sequin-laced nightwear. But, look at the story. Look underneath all of the shitty aspects of the movie. The story is a clean, albeit ridiculous, story told as a beginning, middle, and end. It's a standalone story with no build-up jibber-jabber referring to future sequels, no hasty dialogue attempting to establish in one movie what Marvel did in four, and certainly no crappy, sidetracking banter between Batfleck and Wonder Woman.

While Batman & Robin is loads goofier, stupider, cheesier, more ridiculous, more colorful and far more outrageous than the overly dark, lackluster, attention-losing snooze fest of Batman v Superman, it managed to take the same amount of major characters and make them all, at the very least, entertaining to look at or to listen to. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have made a God-awful Mr. Freeze, but at least you look at him with some sort of entertainment value because his Austrian accent makes all of the freeze puns quotable lines of hilarity. Everybody laughs at George Clooney's lazy portrayal of Batman, but he still gets credit because everyone remembers it for that reason alone. Uma Thurman's portrayal of Poison Ivy was so ridiculous it was actually kind of good in the sense that you couldn't tell if her acting was shit or gold. Robin was whiney and prissy and Batgirl was more punk. You remember them because they got the roles reversed. Because of all of this, the five main characters in Batman & Robin are far-more memorable with different attributes, while the five main characters in Batman v Superman are pretty much portrayed the same way. Batman, Superman, Lois, Alfred, and Lex Luthor. No one character has any defining traits. The only two that come close to being unique are Alfred and Lex Luthor. Luthor is like Mr. Freeze in that he's over-the-top stupid, but whereas Mr. Freeze is cool because he's Arnold fuckin' Schwarzenegger, Jesse Eisenberg comes off as just flat-out annoying. He'd be like if you took Arnold's Austrian accent away and gave him a whiney nerd voice. Superman is too stoic and monotone. Sure Superman is supposed to be a monolithic figure of conveyance, but at the very least emote sometimes that don't involve your mother being captured. Amy Adams, bless her soul, tried her damnedest to act alongside everyone, but the movie dragged her down and washed her out, filming most of it in a greyish hue that makes everything feel drab and depressing. Batman is the only redeeming quality of the movie, but not even the Caped Crusader can carry this ass-fest on his own.

I'm not saying Batman & Robin blows Batman v Superman out of the water because of this. It's really more of the neck-and-neck scenario. I consider Batman & Robin to only be slightly superior. Believe me; they're both horrible movies in their own right. But if you're still not convinced. If you're still trying to convince yourself that Batman v Superman was worth the wait and that Batman & Robin is still the worst, one last nugget of factual data may surprise you.

In terms of second-weekend drop-off, that is the decrease of money made between opening weekend and the second weekend of movie theater runs, Batman v Superman  saw a record-setting of horrible that was a 68% drop-off. Batman & Robin? Only a 63% profit loss.

Case closed. Catch me next time for #8, Batman (1966).