SkinnyFilmBuff

VIP

8

A not-so original sci-fi feature that punches above its weight class in terms of spectacle and world building, but is lacking in the writing department more often than not. Way too many examples of ham-fisted, on-the-nose dialogue, as characters bluntly tell the protagonist how high the stakes are, how important the child is, or any number of other expositional dumps. The high-level story is also rife with clichés, with the central arc feeling familiar to the point of predictability. Now, there are moments that land effectively. I would specifically call out the early interactions between Joshua and Alphie as being among the strongest of the film. But those moments are few and far between, as a lot of the more ambitious emotional beats feel rushed and/or forced. On top of that, it seems like delivering spectacle was perhaps overly prioritized, as many sequences don't hold up to even the most surface level logical scrutiny, resulting in a lot of eye-rolling, head scratching, and ultimately the death of suspension of disbelief (e.g., suicide bomb robots seem silly when you've got a massive tank shooting precise missiles that are shown to be more effective, or standby mode somehow fooling an army of scientists, or Nomad seemingly being in multiple places at once in the final sequence). Admittedly, those types of complaints are nitpicky, and if the dialogue and big picture story had landed better, I think they would be easily forgiven. Not to mention, as I said initially, the visuals are fantastic. The Nomad's eerie beam of blue light is unique and memorable. The contrast of futuristic robots in a rural Asian setting offers plenty of striking visuals. I have no doubt that Gareth Edwards got incredible bang for his buck, stretching his $80 million budget to look on par with films that cost twice that. But in the end, the whole is less than the sum of its parts, with all of the fantastic visuals and handful of strong ideas combining into a package that was just okay.

A movie with sit-com sensibilities, as it isn't too concerned about having a propulsive central thread and focuses instead on humorous interactions involving funny people. And who could be funnier than one of sit-com's GOATs, Julia Louis-Drefus. From Seinfeld to Veep, she has mastered comedic timing and just nails every delivery. And opposite good old Elaine Benes, we have Tobias Menzies, who holds his own. He had a dryly comedic bit part in Catastrophe (2015), which is one of my favorite comedies of the last decade, so it was nice to see him in a similar role here. In fact, I enjoyed pretty much the entire ensemble. The only exception might be the son, who I felt didn't get much to work with in terms of material and ultimately served more as a plot device to draw a parallel that was a bit on the nose for my taste. This ties into a broader criticism that the final act fell a bit flat, as the titular theme never really landed as much more than a vehicle for humor. Luckily, the humor was enough, delivered in a tight 90 minute package with interesting characters, solid bits throughout, and just enough of a through line to tie it all together. As an aside, one bit that really got me was the very underplayed moment when the two sisters get ice cream and we cut to them exiting the store. Just clever/subtle writing. On the other hand, you've got the blatant Seinfeld Easter egg about the diner that I can appreciate for the exact opposite reason.

Horror isn't my genre, but I can still recognize when it's at the top of its game. This is the top of its game. A premise that feels simultaneously familiar and fresh. Fantastic production that sells the moments of slow dread just as well as the moments of explosive horror. Generally excellent performances from fresh faces (at least fresh to me). Just an impressive showing all around. I can't help but compare it to Hereditary, often cited as one of the best of modern "elevated" horror films. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this film's creators pointed to Hereditary as a direct inspiration for at least one scene (Alex Wolff smashing his head into his desk). So, how does this film compare? Honestly, I enjoyed it far more. So often "elevated" horror just feels like a license for ill defined rules where scary things happen without rhyme or reason and inconclusive or unsatisfying endings are the norm. That may work for some people, but I generally prefer a more conventional structure. It's often why the opening act of horror films is the one I judge them on most, as that's when the film still resembles the real world and I can judge it against all films, rather than just against a genre where the bar is a bit lower (maybe a lot lower). This film's pre-horror portion is fantastic, quickly establishing interesting characters/relationships with strong dialogue. But more importantly, and unlike Hereditary, this film didn't lose me once the horror starts. It enters the story in a natural way and establishes rules so that the audience has some bearings on what to expect. They even pull off a tight rope ending that is just the right balance of bad ending/good ending.

I know this review sounds quite glowing, so a 7/10 might seem inconsistent, but that's largely because horror is just not my bag. Plus, I do think Mia's character started to suffer from some horror clichés in the back half with respect to frustratingly poor decision making (I know, I know, she's basically possessed, but still).

The only thing I knew going into this film was that it starred Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and that it had some Oscar noms. As it so happens, I recently watched Don't Look Up (2021), which proved an appropriate modern companion piece, having a very similar vibe with its over-the-top satire of behind the scenes politics. However, where that film didn't quite win me over, this one did. For one thing, I'm just a sucker for showbiz, so the premise here was more compelling. The comedy also came more naturally, inspiring more consistent chuckles than the somewhat overbearing dark comedy of Don't Look Up. On top of that, I think the performances and moment to moment dialogue were stronger and helped the humor along, with Hoffman being the standout. The overall arc was excellent, with a good balance of things going right and things going wrong that made things satisfyingly unpredictable. My only real critiques relate to some of the choices for Woody Harrelson's character and elements of the finale. The twist of who he actually was didn't land for me (and also felt like a waste of Woody Harrelson's talents). And the plane crash was too over-the-top, with that whole sequence feeling rushed. Luckily, the movie sticks the landing, with Hoffman's final scene selling an excellent payoff.

Having recently done a rewatch of three of the four previous entries in this franchise (I skipped Temple of Doom because I was never a big fan), I have come to the controversial conclusion that Dial of Destiny was the most enjoyable. To clarify, I’m not considering historical context, cultural significance, or any of the numerous other factors that make Raiders an all-time classic. I’m simply saying that, for me, as a modern audience member used to the style and trappings of modern film, Dial of Destiny was more enjoyable than the rest. It’s simply too hard for me to ignore the dated and/or goofy elements of the old films or the over-the-top ridiculousness of Crystall Skull.
The de-aged WWII opening sequence was impressive, with some clever set pieces to boot (the interrupted hanging was particularly fun). The motivation for the villain was surprisingly unique given the franchise’s long history with Nazis. The McGuffin’s secret power and its effect on the plot is far more interesting than previous McGuffins (though perhaps I’m just a sucker for time-travel).
All of that said, there are still some things I could have done without. I’ve just been worn out on car chase sequences, and having it be in a tuk-tuk wasn’t enough to differentiate it. The final sequence crosses into Crystal Skull territory with some of its more ridiculous elements (e.g., kid hotwiring and flying a plane, bomber flying stupidly low so as to be shot down by arrows).

Solves my biggest problem with the first film by simply being a sequel. Instead of 30 minutes of retired Denzel and no action, this entry jumps right into badass Denzel and plenty of action. On top of that, I think the episode-of-the-week style side quests that Denzel gets up to in this film are superior to those in the original, with the Lyft driver set-up being a clever way to introduce them. The dialogue is consistently good, and Denzel is fantastic as always. As with the first, the villains in this entry have some great sequences, from the brutal staged suicide to the tense encounter in the middle of a suburban street. The plot feels a bit hand-wavey with respect to some of the details, but the big pieces are interesting enough to carry it through. The finale was also a mixed bag. I liked the setting and thought the hurricane effects were surprisingly solid. However, the villains’ strategy was a bit of a headscratcher given those conditions and the whole sequence plays out a bit too convenient for my tastes. Overall, a small, but noticeable, improvement on what was already a solid first entry. Looking forward to the third!

I've been hearing good things about The Equalizer 3, so I figured I'd go back and do a re-watch of the original (and the 2nd, which I never got around to) before going to see the third. I had previously scored this as a 7/10, but that was almost a decade ago and long before I was writing reviews, so I didn't really have much of a recollection of what I liked and didn't like.

Things get off to a slow start. I think it's an inherent downside of the "badass comes out of retirement" schtick that we've seen with things like John Wick and Nobody. In order to make the comeback feel impactful, we have to spend some time seeing our badass in his retired life, which isn't always compelling. Somehow that phase of this film feels simultaneously rushed and too long. Rushed because they are trying to get through a lot of set-up very quickly, and too long because waiting 30 minutes to hit the first action sequence in an action movie seems less than ideal. At that point I was a bit concerned that the old me was generous in his scoring and that I was in for a slog. Luckily, things improve as the plot accelerates. The biggest source of improvement was the introduction of Marton Csokas as the central villain. I didn't recognize him from anything else, but I'll have to keep my eye out, because he nailed this role as the sociopathic Russian fixer. The cat and mouse between he and Denzel carries the film, with their one on one dialogue scenes being standouts.

As far as the action itself goes, it's a mixed bag. The slow motion planning stage certainly has grown stale over the years and I've never loved overly convenient and surprisingly effective trap setting a la Home Alone (really detracted from the Skyfall finale for me), but it's all effective enough. I did feel like Denzel's side quests (cop extortion & cashier holdup/ring return) felt a little shoehorned in and coincidental, but I suppose he needed something to do while Teddy was playing detective. I'd also generally praise the dialogue and of course Denzel has a signature style that is never unappreciated. Overall, I'll stick with my original 7/10 and am excited to check out 2 & 3.

I stumbled into this as a longtime fan of Justin Long who also thought it would be interesting to see the first major effort of Sam Esmail of Mr. Robot and Homecoming acclaim. I can definitely see some common threads between Esmail's work, as Long's character shares some DNA with Rami Malek's from Mr. Robot, being too smart for his own good and socially awkward in an aggressively abrasive way. I do think the writing leans a bit too much into these elements, as the pseudo intellectual musings sometimes feel so divorced from realistic dialogue that it breaks immersion. That said, the jumbled structure does a good job breaking things up, ensuring that none of the less convincing moments outstay their welcome. Ultimately, this checks a lot of classic boxes of a freshman film: a perhaps overly ambitious dialogue driven concept executed on low budget. And for the most part, I'd say it's a success. The non-chronological structure is just enough of a twist to keep the audience invested in a relationship story that might otherwise feel familiar. While I'd hardly call the film a comedy (though it appears to classify itself as such), there were some comedic moments/dialogue that landed well. And though none of the philosophical ideas explored were earth shattering, they were compelling enough to keep me watching. As far as criticism's go, I would say that Emmy Rossum's performance didn't feel quite as natural to me as Long's, but that might be partly a writing issue, as Long had more to work with.

Despite producing some all-time classic films, the legal world has never struck me as a natural fit for the screen. Maybe it's because I work in the space, but it always feels like we're getting a watered down, oversimplified version of the strangely complex bureaucracy that is the U.S. legal system. The exercise for the filmmakers is to pick out a handful of digestible ideas to focus on, and gloss over all of the rest. That exercise is reasonably successful here, as the subject of expert medical testimony provides an interesting foundation for the legal battle. This kind of "battle of the experts", as they are sometimes referred, offers a natural conflict and clear stakes. I also enjoyed the somewhat caricatured depiction of the big law villains, with their army of attorneys working overtime to crush the one-man shop of good old Butch. Despite this, the limitations of the setting still were an issue for me, as the ending felt decidedly anti-climactic. After all, there's only so many ways a jury trial can end, and the delivery of a verdict isn't exactly an exciting affair.

Beyond the legal element, Paul Newman is his usual excellent self. With respect to the writing, while none of it was bad, and there were even strong moments laced throughout, I did find the overall story a bit basic in the end. Everything is more or less as it seems, which doesn't make for the most compelling narrative. The strong execution helps to carry things along, but only just. All in all, I'm a bit surprised at how many Oscar nominations this film received.

The premise of this film had lots of potential. I love the idea of taking a small slice of a larger story and expanding it into its own thing, and a classic like Dracula seems ripe for such an exercise. Unfortunately, the execution doesn’t capitalize on the potential, delivering an uninspired horror film, where the horror elements are bland and repetitive, and the human drama outside of the horror is too paper-thin to carry the film on its own (there also just wasn’t enough of it). The end result is a slog, where I wasn’t able to get invested in either the plot or the characters.

As an aside, I saw this film in a pre-screening a full 12 months prior to its ultimate release, so the version I saw was still a work-in-progress, with plenty of unfinished CGI throughout. Despite the potential for improvements, my primary critiques are high level, and I don’t see how much can be done to correct them between now and final release. If the movie ends up getting positive reviews (which I don’t suspect it will), my curiosity may compel me to give it another chance just to see what the filmmakers were able to change in that time.

One more specific critique, the opening I saw featured a text crawl and flashforward that I think were entirely unnecessary and could have been replaced by a prologue scene involving the preparation for the shipment. They already have a focus on the crates and use the fear of the shipping folk to nice effect, but they could have started a bit further back and come up with a horror beat that could have hinted at elements to be revealed later in the film (such as the crates with townsfolk for Dracula to feed on).

I respect a film that can pack its story into a tight 90 minutes. Unfortunately, that respect doesn't necessarily translate into a favorable review. Ultimately, 65 hangs its hat on a premise that probably worked better in the pitch session that it does on the screen. There's just no way to advertise this movie without revealing that its going to be Adam Driver versus dinosaurs, so all of the time spent before the dinosaurs show up is largely deflated of tension, as we know what's coming. It doesn't help that the opening scene is quite rough, delivering pure, uncut exposition in an attempt to create some emotional stakes. Now, the payoff for those poorly established emotional stakes are slightly more successful, but only just. The inciting incident is rough for a different reason, as budget constraints are apparent during the big crash landing sequence. In general, this movie suffers from an odd combination of high/low budget, giving the audience a sort of whiplash as we go from one to the other. The finale suffers from yet a third issue, as it just leans a bit too much into the fantastic, completely shattering suspension of disbelief in multiple respects the fact that the escape pod survived the crash, the fact that an escape pod can take off from in atmosphere, the fact that the escape pod is functional after falling off a mountain and being torn at and rolled by a T-Rex, and on top of the dinosaurs...the asteroid?!.

Now, despite all of that, the movie does have moments that shine, where you can tell that the creators accomplished exactly what they were going for. First, there's the simple sequence where Adam Driver sends a distress message out into space. That's the kind of scene that would have worked even in script form. Just solid writing. Another that comes to mind is the action sequence in the dark that leverages the hologram display tech. Just a fun idea that also doubles as a way to minimize budget. Unfortunately, those are about the only two that stuck out. To be clear, it's not that the rest of the movie is necessarily bad, just bland.

Holds up surprisingly well for a 25+ year old film. The key is that the most iconic set pieces/sequences didn't require overly ambitious special effects that would date the film as it aged. This is before Tom Cruise's propensity for stunt work drove the series toward big spectacle action. This first outing was a spy film, first and foremost. I mean, the hook of the Langley heist is literally just Tom Cruise hanging from a rope and yet it is just as tense and effective today as it was back in 1996. Of course, the finale does ramp things up and the helicopter sequence certainly shows its age, but even that holds up more than expected. It's a simple thing and probably is completely unrealistic, but the way the speed of the train is shown with Tom Cruise struggling to hold on, flipping and sliding across the top of the train was appreciated and still looks solid. Ironically, I actually wish Dead Reckoning had taken some notes in that respect, as its train-top fight scene felt weightless and glossy in comparison. Beyond the spectacle, the story here is strong, with a brilliant opening that sets the stage for a host of twists and turns. I don't want to continuously bag on Dead Reckoning (I actually did enjoy it), but the dialogue and plotting feel so much more natural here. All in all, Tom Cruise's first stint as Ethan Hunt is a worthy starting place for a franchise that has built itself into an action juggernaut.

I'm not going to lie...the Trinity test left me a little underwhelmed. Which is a bit of a problem, because that was the payoff to the first two hours of build up. Overall this movie's structure and pacing were just a bit odd to me. Everything leading up to the test feels primarily character driven, almost slice of life-esque. And for such a long movie, the slices are actually quite thin. Things move fast, with whirlwind character introductions that don't leave much of an impression in many cases. Only a couple of character names stuck with me, which did raise some issues in later sequences when characters are being referenced by name alone. Of course, that doesn't apply to Oppenheimer himself. Cillian Murphy doesn't disappoint, delivering an incredible performance. In fact, all of the performances are excellent, benefiting from strong dialogue that kept me engaged even through the sections when the conflict felt somewhat thin. There's only so much tension that can be extracted from the actual efforts of the Manhattan project, as the conclusion is largely known to the audience. Yes, there are secondary/tertiary conflicts throughout the opening hours, interpersonal and political, but they don't drive the story. It's not until the final hour when Nolan reveals that the movie will have an antagonist and more traditional conflict after all. It's set up as a twist of sorts and for the most part it works. I do think I enjoyed the final hour more than the first two. Technically speaking Nolan never disappoints. The production design is excellent and the cinematography/directing includes some fantastic shots. I probably won't go out of my way to re-watch this anytime soon, but it was still an engaging watch built on a central performance that will likely be an Oscar contender.

While the original three Indiana Jones films are hardly a bastion of realism, they might as well be a documentary compared to the late fourth entry, which features some of the most ridiculous set pieces imaginable. I feel like the nuke-proof fridge gets a lot of flak, but the worst moment for me was undoubtedly Shia LaBeouf's Tarzan imitation, somehow catching up to speeding jeeps by swinging from vine to vine. It's the kind of sequence that makes you scratch your head and wonder what these Hollywood folks are thinking. Another puzzler is the surprisingly selective magnetism of these alien artifacts. I suspect these otherworldly properties are in fact powered by screenwriting contrivances. These kind of critiques can feel a bit nit-picky, but the sheer volume of these issues makes them hard to ignore. I'd also point out that if the movie logic hand waving was in service of an otherwise great film, I think everyone would have less of a problem suspending their disbelief. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Despite my issues with the original three films, at the very least they contain numerous iconic moments. This film on the other hand is largely forgettable, and the parts you might remember will not be for a positive reason. I'm not going to update my legacy score of 6/10, but I would knock this down to a 5, possibly even a 4 based on this re-watch.

With all that said, shoutout to the only line that got a laugh out of me: when Shia LaBeouf gets spooked by a spider web and reassures himself by saying "It's just a thing". For some reason that really got me.

I was a bit wary during the opening sequences of this film. First, the submarine sequence, which was difficult to appreciate given the audience's lack of context as to its importance. However, the inherent tension was ultimately enough to sell it and the idea of a mcguffin being intentionally buried at sea in a ghost submarine is compelling. However, then we come to Tom Cruise’s first action scene: the horse/dessert sequence. I was not a fan. Other than the dust storm, there wasn’t much to set this apart from gun fights in a million other movies, and even the dust storm felt uninspired given that we had a great dust storm sequence in Ghost Protocol. All in all, not the best first impression.

However, the movie turns it around once we learn of the central conflict/antagonist, which feels like a new step for Mission Impossible, veering almost into science fiction. It allows for some fun twists and turns and puts our heroes on the back foot in some creative ways throughout the film. It helps that Gabriel gives a viscerally sinister performance to back up the more ethereal threat of the rogue AI. Hayley Atwell’s character also made a nice addition to the team and I was impressed with how quickly they established her character. I think it’s largely due to some strong dialogue and Cruise’s natural chemistry with pretty much everyone.

Of course, for Mission Impossible, story and conflict is somewhat secondary. The real draw here is the action/stunts. In that respect, other than the aforementioned opening, the rest of the movie’s action did not disappoint. We get a well balanced buffet of driving, jumping, running, falling, and fighting, with plenty of memorable/creative moments and some solid humor interspersed throughout.

As an aside, I did find it interesting how much the promotion of this movie pushed the motorcycle BASE jump. Maybe I’ve just been desensitized and or am struggling to appreciate the practical element, but on the screen it didn’t exactly blow me away (I felt similar to the side of the plane stunt in Rogue Nation). Alas, I don’t want to discourage Tom Cruise from continuing his grand spectacle practical stunts, so it still gets two thumbs up from me.

EDIT: After seeing this for a second time, I have to acknowledge some shortcomings that I overlooked initially. The exposition dumps are hard to ignore and the dialogue in general was stuffed with cheesy on the nose exchanges. While I still appreciate the high-level premise, the actually plotting is quite thin. Yes, the action is fun and saves things for the most part, but I still have to pull back my initial 8/10, because the rest of it isn't there.

The majority of my review of Raiders applies equally to this film. Special effects heavy blockbusters from yesteryear are always going to struggle in a modern context. I just can't imagine that the lengthy action sequences that comprise the majority of the film will do much for an uninitiated audience member. And if those elements aren't working, what you're left with is a relatively simple story with characters who aren't particularly complex. The tonal issues I had with the original persist, as the movie wants to be taken seriously in some scenes, but in others delivers goofiness straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon (e.g. scaring birds with an umbrella, rotating fireplace gag). All of that said, I actually think the third Indy outing holds up better than the first, mainly due to the addition of Sean Connery. He provides a fish-out-of-water foil to our hero that creates opportunities for fun moments and dialogue. Having only seen this film one time years ago, the exchange where Connery tells Indy that Dr. Elsa Schneider talks in her sleep got a genuine laugh out of me. As with the first film, I'm not going to update my legacy score of 7/10, but that probably isn't far off from where I'd put my rating today. Maybe I'd drop it to 6/10?

The iconic scenes are still iconic. The soundtrack is still an all time best. Harrison Ford is still as ruggedly handsome as ever. But even with all that...I don't think the movie holds up particularly well. At the end of the day, it's an action focused blockbuster full of ambitious special effects and set pieces which comprise the lion's share of the runtime. But what was ambitious and impressive 40+ years ago is much less so today. I always joke about wondering when Hollywood learned how to throw a punch, because clearly they didn't know back in 1981. Action choreography just feels like an afterthought and it results in fights that don't feel real. There's also a lot of goofier elements that feel like they belong in a Saturday morning cartoon rather than in a film where Nazis get their faces melted off. The whole sequence with Marion hiding in the basket comes to mind. This also leads to the very odd death fake out, which didn't land at all for me. Another underlying issue was the simplicity of both the plot and characters. Maybe I'm just not giving them enough credit for inventing the tropes and archetypes, but the story here just doesn't feel like it has a lot of substance.

With all of that said, there are still plenty of moments that do hold up (just not any of those involving special effects). I still love the detail of Indy taking out some of the sand from the bag before stealing the idol. The Marion introduction scene has some fun exchanges. The gimmick of the villain burning the headpiece into his hand is clever. There's also plenty of memorable/iconic cinematography and the production design is consistently fantastic.

I'm going to leave my 9/10 rating out of respect for the film's legacy, but if I take off my rose colored glasses, it's probably a 6.

Went into this with pretty low expectations, but ended up having a surprisingly good time. It had me worried initially, as the opening action sequence was way too goofy for my liking and featured some excessive uncanny valley CGI. Ezra Miller's socially awkward schtick was also feeling more miss than hit through the first act. But once we get to the inciting incident, things started to work better. I was surprised at how much humor landed for me, as I found myself laughing pretty consistently throughout the Barry/younger Barry sequences that comprise most of the second act. Unfortunately, the more emotional exchanges between the Barry's that come later don't feel quite as natural. Despite it's 140+ minute length, I never found myself checking my watch, so I think the movie deserves some credit for keeping up the pace. I know people have a tendency to criticize the entire Synder-verse, but I don't mind saying that I enjoyed Man of Steel, so using that film as the foundation of a multiverse story was fine by me. I do think the finale starts to play pretty fast and loose with the storytelling and they cram a whole lot of exposition into the final "chronobowl" scene, but it's all moving fast enough that I didn't really catch on it too much. Ultimately all of the time travel/multiverse mumbo jumbo is just a mechanism to explore Barry's emotional arc with his mother, and I thought the final grocery store scene provided a solid conclusion to that arc. Regarding Keaton's Batman, I don't have much to say. I thought the way he was incorporated was perfectly alright. And though her role was underdeveloped and she deserved a more significant sendoff, I thought Supergirl was a fun addition.

I always remembered Shrek 2 as an improvement over an already fantastic original. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the original in over a decade, so it's difficult for me to confirm that thinking based on this re-watch (normally I re-watch series all in a row, but this was just a one-off with my niece and nephew). What I can say, is that Shrek 2 offers a tight story that is packed with clever twists on fairy tale tropes, fun pop-culture homages, and near constant humor (both via dialogue and visual gags). I will say that the animation does feel more simplistic than I remember it, but I don't think it detracts from the experience.

As an aside, I have recently watched both Puss in Boots films, which made this re-watch more interesting, as it serves as the introduction to Antonio Banderas' Zorro inspired feline. While there are plenty of elements to his character that have persisted, it was definitely a little jarring how easily Shrek was able to incapacitate him given what we've seen he's capable of in his standalone films. Regardless, I'm excited to see these characters reunite, as was hinted at in the final moments of Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (2022).

Very little worked for me in this film. Where Tim Burton's first outing with the caped crusader at least had Jack Nicholson's Joker to carry me through the dated special effects and overly cartoony elements, this film doesn't find that success with Danny Devito's Penguin. I was just not a fan of the character design or performance. Too over the top. Particularly grating was his near constant superfluous grunts and groans, which tainted nearly every scene he was in. Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was also a misfire for me, with the transition from put upon secretary to unhinged, impressively acrobatic, leather clad vigilante generating some serious eye rolls. Her conflict with Batman also felt manufactured (or at the very least it was forgettable given that I can't even remember what the source of conflict was only a week after watching the film). The only new character that worked for me was Christopher Walken's seedy, corporate overlord, Max Shreck. He has some solid dialogue and Walken rarely disappoints. Unfortunately, his performance is wasted sharing the screen with all of the over-the-top goofiness that makes up the majority of the film. All in all, I highly doubt your average modern audience member is going to find much to enjoy here. I know I didn't.