Caught this one last night, out of curiousity piqued by the Michael Douglas tribute and the Golden Globes and partly out of the brilliant DVD cover art (Douglas in his glasses, shirt and tie, clutching his briefcase and a shotgun). I thought it would be an interesting film and had heard some good things about it.

The verdict? Schumacher is the best director for taking a brilliant high-concept idea and RUINING it. Perhaps its just the effect of having seen better, more daring, more original films with a similar "sociatal isolation" theme, such as Taxi Driver or even Fight Club to an extent, but what I was so dissapointed with was how the idea of a man isolated and lonely going on a rampage against society, being such a weak film.

The weakest things about it? The subplots involving the retiring officer, the family subplot, both were weakly written and seemed like a typical mediocre drama. But the biggest weakness is that Schumacher, unlike Fincher and Scorcese, seems unwilling to really go for it with this film. The films ultimate sin is that it is afraid to really push the envelope. What's the point in telling this story if you're aren't going to challenge society's expectations?

That said, Michael Douglas was really good. His scenes with the Korean grocer, the gang and the crazy Nazi guy were excellent. I especially liked the line ("No, we're no the same. I'm an American and you're a twisted @$$hole"), but it couldn't save this film.

Basically, forget this one and go watch Taxi Driver again. Travis Bicklie is a million times more complicated and real than this film, and Scorcese doesn't shy away from making us uncomfortable with the fact that we might actually admire Travis. Schumacher, in the end, is a coward with this film.

YES Anders YES!! Good boy!! LEt's have a "stab Schumacher in the eye" thread! He got lucky with Flatliners and The Lost Boys, and even so, we were kids back then and couldn't tell the difference between a good film and cleaning hot gum off the bottom of our shoe. He hasn't done anything worthwhile in a decade, and the years previous to that are questionable anyway. I actually considered Falling Down his best film but do not take any offense to it being ripped to pieces. Phone Booth was NOT a good film, and Veronica Guerin was just plain awful. Even the lovely Cate Blanchett couldn't save it. My review is here.



-s.

[quote]Basically, forget this one and go watch Taxi Driver again. Travis Bicklie is a million times more complicated and real than this film, and Scorsese doesn't shy away from making us uncomfortable with the fact that we might actually admire Travis.[/quote]

...and to a certain extent, we are like Travis. Well, me anyway 8O .

Oh, and Anders, I love your quote & av!!

I've always thought of Schumacher as a "safe" director. In other words, there is a neat and tidy ending that wraps up everything in the movie. I think his biggest problem is that he's not sure HOW to maintain suspense in a film. He'll lead you along for a while, then present an implausable issue that negates many of the previous suspenseful bits that preceded that.

(Boy, do I sound academic...)

[quote]...and to a certain extent, we are like Travis. Well, me anyway [/quote]

No, no you're quite right. I can definitely identify with Travis. Imagine my shock when AFI had him on the 50 Greatest Villians list!? 8O

Anti-hero? Definitely. Villian? Nah.

[quote]I've always thought of Schumacher as a "safe" director. In other words, there is a neat and tidy ending that wraps up everything in the movie.[/quote]

Which is why this film was such a dissapointment. The themes and ideas he raises aren't ideas that can have a neat and tidy ending. Schumacher was clearly out of his league with the material. Oh, and the screenplay could have used a few more re-writes.

[quote]Phone Booth was NOT a good film[/quote]

YES, in fact I would cite this as another example of a high concept (I thought the trailers looked interesting) being ruined by pedestrian directing. The way that Schumacher has picked a few films that are interesting in the subject matter is what leads me to believe that he might know an interesting idea when he sees one, but lacks the nerve to actually portray it without gutting it on the alter of "neat and tidy" Hollywood-ending.

I think it was only after Schumacher took the reins that the term Batman Franchise was truly minted as a phrase coin.

It's apropos though; I leave his films with the same feeling I do when I shop at 7-11 or eat at McDonald's--like I've satisfied a craving with something compromising because it's conveniently placed only halfway between me and what I really want.

: Phone Booth was NOT a good film

No in fact it was awful. Extraordinarily awful at that.

Matt

[quote]: Phone Booth was NOT a good film

No in fact it was awful. Extraordinarily awful at that.

Matt[/quote]
I liked it fine.

FALLING DOWN, too.

Now if you want to see a truly bad movie, check out another one by the PHONEBOOTH screenwriter Larry Cohen - GOD TOLD ME TO. Whoo boy! I promise, you will come to see PHONE BOOTH and FALLING DOWN for the relative masterpieces I now recognize them to be.

Actually I liked Falling down, but itwas 10 years ago that I saw it.

Matt

[quote]I think it was only after Schumacher took the reins that the term Batman Franchise was truly minted as a phrase coin.
[/quote]

Actually, this fits with my appraisal of Schumacher as a lazy and uninspired director with a knack for finding good source material. Seriously, HOW can you screw up Batman so much? Honestly, even the Burton films (which I find somewhat flawed) have some merits. Actually, let me give credit where credit is due. Jim Carrey (despite my agreeing with SDG that he was miscast as the Riddler) is brilliant and along with Nicole Kidman (seriously, I'll watch ANYTHING with her in it) made the third film somewhat enjoyable.

Anyway, I digress. The point is that with over 60 years of source material, countless interesting characters, serious drama, fantastic themes and darkly facinating imagery associated with the Batman character, WHY IS IT SO EASY TO SCREW UP? How do you get a garish neon Gotham, campy villians and a nipple suited Batman out of the brilliance that is the Batman legend? It's easy: be a complete idiot and hack.

Anyway, I didn't actually intend for this to become a Schumacher bashing session. It's just that Falling Down was such a dissapointment.

Anders wrote:
: Seriously, HOW can you screw up Batman so much?

I asked myself that when I saw the original Batman in 1989.

By the time Batman & Robin came out in 1997, I was ready to just sit back and enjoy it the way I would an "experimental" film. As I recall, it at least felt like a comic book to me in a way that Burton's films did not.

[quote] it at least felt like a comic book to me in a way that Burton's films did not.[/quote]

Well, it didn't feel like a comic book to me, unless by "comic book" you mean campy and idiotic.

FWIW, I would say it had a "cartoonish" feel, as opposed to being like a comic book.

A valid point Darryl and one that I would agree with. But for me comic books are not by their nature cartoonish (in as much as not all animation is necessarily "cartoon"), especially not the Batman mythos which deals with some pretty hefty themes. If one was doing an adaptation of Uncle Scrooge comics, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but ignoring so much of what makes Batman a compelling character is what I have a problem with.

Again, if you want to see what I envision as the closest to the 'essence' of Batman, see "The Animated Series" or Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, which ironically is a "cartoon."

Getting back to the direction of Schumacher. His Batman films are just a very clear example of how he takes brilliant subject matter and manages to marginalize, tidy it up and basically ruin any deeper meaning because he's afraid to tackle the themes in a way that might challenge people. He's not the only director who does this, but he is the one who most consistently seems to find good subject matter with which to excercise his lack of balls.

Heh...

The most recent Schumacher film I saw was 8MM. I think all your points are quite valid about his picking good topics and utterly dropping the ball with the film itself. How he managed to wrap that one up with a nice, neat, tidy ending is quite beyond reasonable (talk about Elijah Wood's smile as Frodo at the end of RotK -- well, Cage's smile at the end of 8MM I thought was far, far more out of place and out of context with the rest of the film).

Whoa, I forgot he did 8MM.

Wife and I watched that one night when we had no idea what it was about.

No wonder it forgot he did it--it's a bit off the Schumacher scale...