BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES SEASON 1 (EPISODES 3-7)

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

If you've been following my blog and reading my TV reviews, then you may have noticed something different in the title. Usually when I review a show, I review the whole season, with the exception of pilots, the finales, and holiday specials by giving them their own separate review. But now I'm deciding to review only a few episodes from the first Season of "Batman the Animated Series" as opposed to the whole season. Well to get the point for this decision, due to the lack of TV reviews (and reviews in general), rather than reviewing all episodes in one season and making you wait months for a review on a show, I thought it would be best for me to review a certain number of episodes and gradually work towards the end of a review towards a season.  And since I'm only reviewing a season in parts, that's going to mean that I'm going to stick to reviewing the season of a show I'm currently working on until it is over, before deciding to review the next season or another show. The only time you'll ever see me review a show that's not related to what I'm presently reviewing is during the holiday seasons whether it being a holiday special or a horror based TV Show for the month of October.

So with that major changed addressed, let's jump into the third episode of "Batman: the Animated Series"during its production order, after already covering "On Leather Wings" and "Christmas With the Joker".

A former college university professor gets kicked out for testing a gas that shows people their darkest fears, and takes revenge on the university under the identity of Scarecrow by using his fear gas. Batman tries to foil him from burning the university down, but he gets hit with a dart filled with the serum and begins to see images of his deceased father telling him that he has disgraced their family name. Batman must now confront his own fears of seeing visions of his father disapproving his life as a crime-fighter, in order for him to stop the Scarecrow.

As much as I enjoyed the pilot episode "On Leather Wings" for its action, scary villain, and showing what an awesome crime fighter and detective that Batman is, this should've been the pilot for the series. I say this because unlike the pilot, and the Christmas episode, we get to dive a little into Bruce Wayne's psyche of how he feels with fighting crime, and how torn up he is with the death of his parents. This episode doesn't just revolve around Batman just stopping a criminal, he has to fight off his inner-fears of his father being ashamed of him first before getting to the criminal responsible for these visions, which is an ingenious way of having Batman fight off a villain and shows that the writers are trying to appeal to adults with its mature storytelling and dark visuals, instead of just kids. And the emotions surrounding Bruce Wayne's emotions towards facing his fears, and how he feels about society looking at him as both identities is handled just as subtle and effectively as the Burton film through its animation, music, and interaction with Bruce and the characters. The best scenes expressing that is the last image of the episode, and Bruce's little chat with Alfred in the Batcave, not to the say that the scenes with Bruce seeing his father aren't emotionally effective too because they are, and even down right depressing.

But as emotionally heavy as the episode is regarding Batman, there's still enough scenes of Batman doing what he does best to get kids and adults attention. You'll see him doing some detective work, and preparing himself for the worst. But the highlight in terms of Batman fighting crime is when he's fighting on the Scarecrow's blimp, while holding on for his life, trying to rescue a kidnapped victim, AND trying to overcome the nightmares he sees. His final confrontation with the Scarecrow is also a pretty awesome scene too, that I wonder if it inspired Christopher Nolan to use this concept for "Batman Begins"? On top of all the awesome things that we see Batman do in the episode, the best moment is when he says the famous "I am Batman" quote. And it's not just from how it's delivered, but also for what causes him to say it to help make you cheer you even more.

Now as awesome as Batman is, the villain is a bit of a different story. The Scarecrow is one of my favorite Batman villains of all time; and I love what his fear gas can do to people, how it greatly effects Batman, and the amount of surreal and creative imagery that we see what others see when they are affected by his gas. But here are my problems that I have with the villain. First there’s his design. After seeing the monstrous ManBat, and the laughing devil-like Joker, with a villain like Scarecrow who likes to spread terror, you'd expect his design to look horrifying, but it isn't. I know this is still a kid show (I mean after all, a guy is saved by a tree after trying to commit suicide from the fear gas) but it looks toned down and more child friendly compared to the designs for the villains, and even Batman himself. Maybe if he had another worldly voice it could probably make up a little for his tamed design, but he instead talks like a regular college professor. I know that he was one, and it is enjoyable for how sophisticated and intelligent he is, especially when being paired with idiotic crooks, but he's supposed to take the form of a scary demon, so naturally you'd think he'd have a voice to match it but he doesn't. On top of it, his backstory while semi-interesting for what got him kicked out, I felt like that there should've been more. What we pretty much get is more of a mad scientist story who was mad since he was a kid, instead of someone sympathetic or corrupt, which I feel would have been more engaging that way we can relate to his revenge like the other villains in the series who are given more depth and character. I know that's not always the case with villains on the show, like the Joker for instance. But since the episode took the time to give him a flashback that he's very upset with sharing you'd think we get more than what we were given.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Aside from the Scaecrow's not so scary presence and half-baked backstory, everything else about the episode is grand, especially when diving into the psyche of Bruce Wayne which really makes me wish that this was the first episode of the series, despite not being as great as the first two.

It's April Fool’s day in Gotham City, and the Clown Prince of crime the Joker returns to Gotham to cause mayhem by spreading gas on the citizens that causes them to lose control and laugh hysterically as the Joker commits robberies right in front of them. The gas eventually spreads to Wayne Manor where Bruce finds Alfred intoxicated by the gas, and once discovering what's happening in Gotham, Batman races to the rescue to fight the Joker yet again.

As I was watching this episode I've noticed a few similarities to the previous two episodes.  After just seeing an episode involving a criminal spreading a special kind of gas on the citizens of Gotham, we get two in a row. The Joker is also striking on a holiday that Bruce Wayne hates but in the end warms up to it a bit just like in "Christmas with the Joker". And Batman even pins the Joker the same way that he did when he last encountered him. All these similarities to the last two episodes that we've seen almost feels as if the writers weren't given enough time to create something as new, and dramatic as the others episodes, and just decided to recycle a few elements from what we've already seen. On top of it, the episode doesn't go into anything deep like the last episode did, or give us anything imaginative as "Christmas with the Joker" gave us. It just feels like a standard chase episode that you'd get from a 70s Saturday Morning superhero cartoons, just drawn on a bigger budget.

But as standard and recycled as the episode that's not to say that there isn't anything to enjoy or admire from it because there is. We get to see a few new things brought to the series like the Joker's iconic suit, the Batboat, and above all Efrem Zimbalist Jr. making his debut as Alfred. Clive Revill was enjoyable as Alfred in the first three episodes with his dry and sarcastic humor, but he can't top the man who's been voicing him from this episode to the rest of the series, as well as the animated movies and spin-offs of the show. And while I'm the topic of voice actors, Mark Hamill does a fantastic job at voicing the Joker as always. When I hear that clownish voice and his sinister laugh, I never find myself associating with the voice actor, I strictly hear the Joker no matter how hard I try. He's just so perfect for the role, who can make cheesy puns and one-liners on trash sound legitimately funny for how much he gets himself into character.

The Joker's plan is not a bad one either since it does perfectly fit his character and the holiday he's striking. Sure his gas doesn't kill anybody like the Joker would in many other adaptations, but once again it's still a show aimed for kids so obviously you know the show isn't going to go super-dark on its target audience, and for what they were able to do with it, I'd say they did a good job. It does lead to some good comedy, and the Joker is still able to do what he wants. The Joker himself does still manage to be threatening as well, mainly for the traps that he sets-up for Batman, like when he seals him inside a trash can, stabs holes in it, and drops it in the ocean, and despite that Batman somehow doesn't have something that he can use to cut out of it, it's still an intense and claustrophobic sequence. In terms of action, at first everything started out as average fight scenes, but as soon as Batman has to fight against the Joker's biggest henchmen (that has a nice twist to his character when I realized that his awkward movements and design was hinting at his true nature) when he penetrates his hide-out, that's when things started getting interesting, which then leads to a pretty nice chase sequence of Batman trying to capture the Joker. The music itself is for the most part cool, but whenever we get those 90s drum-beat machines playing, they kind of kill the thrill of the action for how out of place it sounds. I swear when they first played it, I thought Batman was going to dance as he was fighting.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The episode is a standard one with its recycled plot points, average duel between a hero and villain, and half of the fights and music not being as great as what we had previously. But it's still entertaining, we do get to see some new things being brought to the series, Mark Hamill once again knocks it out of the park as the Joker, and the climax at Joker's hide-out is not half bad.

Bruce Wayne is having dinner with Gotham's District Attorney and his close friend Harvey Dent and his girlfriend Pamela Isley. Things seem to be looking great for Harvey for how madly in love the two are, but once she leaves, Harvey passes out as he tells Bruce that he's going to marry her. It is revealed that Harvey is slowly dying from a poison that has infected him, and it is up to Batman to find a cure for his friend, that eventually leads him to a green-house to discover that his girlfriend was behind the attempt on his life, who has taken-up the super-villain identity known as Poison Ivy.

I seriously don't think I'm giving anything away when I say that Isley is poison Ivy. The episode tries to make it a surprise, but if you're familiar with the character or just seen her image, you know in a heartbeat that she's going to be poison Ivy. But as obvious as the twist is, everything else about her character is awesome. She's the first villain who I've found to be emotionally investing because of her motivation of what Harvey and Bruce has done to a beautiful plant that's near extinction because of the need to build a prison over a once beautiful land. You understand why she's turn to crime, and feel her passion for plant life, where she keeps the last remaining plant that everybody thought was extinct and treats it like a baby. The things she does are despicable, but you still feel a little bad for her for how insane and determined she is to keep her plant alive, which is deep, when with the others villains there wasn't anything to get you emotionally attached to them. Not to say that any of them were bad, they still stand tall as threatening and fun villains to watch, but when the writers tried to give you an emotional connection to them it didn't come off as effective for how insane they truly are.

When you see this character finally reveal her true colors as Poison Ivy that's when she really becomes an interesting character when before she was just a hot and innocent girlfriend. She sets up plant traps, has a giant hungry fly-trap that wants to devour Batman, and carries a few weapons of her own, my favorite one being how she's able to poison Harvey and even Batman. But her best weapon and skill is how she uses her good looks and charm to lure the people that she wants to kill into her trap. The whole entire climax with Poison Ivy and Batman fighting each other in her Green-house is cool, visually interesting, and on the edge of your seat since Batman is slowing dying and being surrounded by flames as he tries to fight and capture Poison Ivy. I do wish that he could have had another plant monster to fight, but I'm seriously just nitpicking because everything that happens in this climax is more than enough to make it exciting and intense.

The thing that I found the most interesting about the episode is that it revolves around Batman trying to save Harvey Dent. It's nice seeing Harvey and Bruce acting as close friends before he becomes Two-Face so that way you can establish an emotional connection with him for when he's being poisoned, and when he lets his inner demons get to him. You really feel the chemistry between him and Bruce for how well they communicate with each other. And before Harvey would become a victim of himself, it's nice to see Harvey be a victim of one of Batman foes, as you feel the clock ticking as Batman races to find a cure for him. You know that he'll eventually be alright because of his later appearances as Two-Face, but you still find yourself on the edge of your seat from the pacing, the dialogue, and the acting, making the episode on a whole keeping you in suspense. We do get some enjoyment from the rest of the characters. There's some good comedy involving Commissioner Gordon and Detective Harvey Bullock; Alfred gets to help Batman on one occasion; and we are first introduced to the female cop Renne Montoya who guards Harvey's hospital room (who I guess isn't aware about Batman yet, though you'd think she would know him from Commissioner Gordon). But overall I find Harvey's presence in the episode to be much stronger since the circumstances revolve around him.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

After getting two good but not so great episodes (mainly the previous one) this episode is one of the best ones that I've reviewed by far. Poison Ivy is the first one to have a balance of being threatening and tragic on a perfect level. It's fascinating to see Harvey Dent play a big role in the episode as a friend instead of a foe. The action is kick-ass. The animation and designs are neat. And the score is a lot better than what we had in the previous episode.

The citizens of Gotham are seeing leprechauns stealing from them, but in reality they’re a bunch of orphans that dress like Doctor Doom (for some reason) and live in the sewers of Gotham who serve the Sewer King (and this is before the famous and yet strange "Hey Arnold" episode). Batman finds one of the children and takes him to stay at Wayne Manor under Alfred's watchful, and eventually has the kid take him to the Sewer King's lair to free the orphans.

This is an episode that some people love, but the majority of fans and critics hate, including the director of the episode Frank Paur. And when I heard about the premise I wasn't that wild about it when going in, especially when after seeing one of the best episodes of this volume. Although the episode does have more problems than any of the other episode's had, I didn't think it was that bad. It's definitely one the least good ones of the show but there's still some stuff that I admired.

By design this one of the most shadowy and dark looking episodes I've seen by far, mainly because it takes place in the sewer, that makes Batman look badass and creepy in this environment and makes the environment itself for the kids unsettling. How the Sewer King treats the kids as tamed as it for TV standards is still disturbing. He abuses them mentally and physically, has them slave and steal for him, is always shown to be yelling at them, and is subtly hinted that he has killed a few of them, which is pretty grim for a kids show. And due to how cruelly he treats the kids, this makes Batman fight against him feel personal since he can relate to what the kids are going through, since he had an awful encounter with criminals when he was their age, which you see through his subtle reactions of how much he wants to get this man, and nearly feels tempted to finish him off personally. I thought that was an interesting concept of having the cruelty of kids from a criminal being the cause that makes Batman almost push past his limits as a crime fighter. And it's pretty cute seeing Batman smile and try to help kids since he can remember having a good childhood before his parents’ murder, which again feels very subtle. The episode even has some nice jokes here and there, my favorite being when Alfred asks Bruce to take a vacation that causes Bruce to dryly tell him how boring it would be. There's also one or two cool scenes with Batman fighting and the use of his Batmobile.

So with all that good stuff said, what seems to be the problem with the episode? Well the villain first of all when comparing him to the others we've seen so far isn't really all that fascinating. How he treats the kids is cruel and you despise him for that just as much as Batman does, but we never understand why he's doing it or what his backstory is. I'd say less is more, but the fact that the show has given all of the villains’ backstories and a clear motivation (with the exception of the Joker, which works fine in his case), you'd expect to get something deep about him. Like maybe giving him a story of him being turned away by society as an orphan or left behind as a child which forces him to live in the sewers, and decided to brainwash the orphans he has working for him for his propaganda. There just could've been so much explored with this villain, then making him resemble Fagin from "Oliver Twist". And that leads me to my second problem, which is the filler regarding this episode. The episode opens up with a pointless scene of two kids standing on top of a train playing chicken that causes Batman to save them; and 5 minutes of Alfred watching over a child that's played for comedy, where they overall feel padded out. They could've cut out the opening scene, and shorten Alfred's time with the kid to give us more depth into the Sewer King's background to fill up the show's run time. And speaking of Alfred taking care of a kid, we know that Alfred has raised Bruce since childhood, and yet for some reason he acts and claims that he's never taken care of children before and gets into all these shenanigans because of it, which is indeed disrespectful to his character. And the final and big part of the reason why people aren't fond about this episode is because it mainly revolves around Batman saving kids that's painfully obvious that the series wants kids to feel connected to him. I don't have much of a problem with that because of his subtle emotional connection to them. But yeah it is pretty hard to overlook how we go from Batman fighting villains for the citizens of Gotham, to having him protect kids from a villain who you know that Batman will defeat easily, as the climax itself, despite having a few badass parts is not all that engaging when compared to the others.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

I don't hate the episode as others do for the things that it does get right, but I'm not going to pretend that I don't see why many others would hate it because I do, and find some of those problems to be distracting and cringe worthy at times. It's not what I'd call bottom of the barrel of the series, but it's not what I call good either. It's just an episode full of hits and misses.

Detective Harvey Bullock, Officer Montoya, and rookie cop Officer Wilkes, set-up a sting operation to catch a bunch of gangsters that goes incredibly wrong, and are at risk of being suspended from their jobs by their Lieutenant unless they can tell him why it went wrong. We get to hear three different point-of-views of the situation from the three officers involved in the sting, as each side involves Batman crossing their path.

Before we had episodes like "Almost Got Em'" and "The Legends of the Dark Knight" where characters would talk about Batman that are shown in flashbacks from their own experience, or how they envision him, this would be the first episode to try out this form of storytelling. And from the moment when all three of the characters are in an interrogation room under a spotlight telling their own side of the story of what happened, I was hooked and couldn't turn away. I love how the episode begins with questions that's revealed in flashbacks from each characters point of view, and the thing that I admire most about it is getting three different outlooks on Batman. Harvey Bullock tells a false story involving Batman, because of his hatred towards him; Wilkes tells his side of story of seeing Batman as a creature who has powers, not realizing that he's a man dressed up as a Batman who carries high tech weapons; and Montoya gives the truth of what she saw with no exaggeration as she's given a clue.

The clue that she finds leads to a climax with her and Batman fighting against the gangsters, which I have to admit is an incredible climax. I know there are people who find the climax to be not as good as the first 2 half's, but I never saw the problem with it. Everything wraps up in the way you would want this case to end, and above all I enjoy seeing Batman team up with Montoya to fight against the gangsters. They make a great duo, especially when considering that Montoya takes the vigilante route after she gives up her badge causing her to solve the mystery and take down the crooks herself until Batman aids her, which I think is a perfect way of making her character shine. Sure Batman could've handled this alone, but since the episode is focused on the cops instead of Batman (that's another main part of the reason of why I enjoy it so much) it would seem to make sense.

The only minor gripes that I have with it is that I wish to see Wilkes and Bullock get involved in the action, instead of just Montoya since all three of them were the focus, until the episode decides to focus on her, thus having the closing line that they are "a team effort" making no sense at all since she was the one who solved the mystery and fought with Batman. I also wished that we had one of the classic villains leading the gangsters like the Penguin or the Joker, instead of just some gangster who we know nothing much about. But on the whole none of that really bothers me, and taken into the context that Montoya is the only one telling the truth and acts more professional than the others, it would make sense for her to crack the case herself. Plus having a new or old villain into the mix would be way too much given the amount of time the episode is dedicated to Batman, Montoya, Bullock, and Wilkes. As for the animation it's still what you'd expect from the show by giving many great shadows (especially for the interrogation room), and exciting fight sequences with Batman doing amazings things that's supported by a big score adding to the awesomeness and intensity of these fights, and the atmosphere itself.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

"P.O.V." is an overall great episode for its use of storytelling for the first two halfs of the episode, and a character who gets her time to shine in an exciting climax, as it is tied together by fantastic voice acting, animation, and music. And the fact that the episode doesn't make Batman the star but instead the police the primary focus makes it even more fascinating considering how many of us would rather spend time with the caped crusader and the villains as opposed to the actual law enforcement, where this episode successfully manages to make those supporting characters interesting from how they view our hero, while still giving him enough time to do all the cool stuff that we love seeing him do.

CHARLIE BROWN'S ALL-STARS!

Being the second day of summer and that I've already reviewed "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" which I consider both to be A+ classics, I've decided to give my two cents on a Peanuts special that came out between both specials, as opposed to following after, called...

 

Released the same year as "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown"; it's baseball season for our gang but Charlie Brown's team are always losing on account of his poor baseball skills and foolishness. Eventually the team decides to split-up to take in the good old fashioned summer fun, until they are offered by Mr. Hennessey (the owner of a local hardware store) to sponsor their team by placing them in a professional baseball league (even though they suck badly at the sport) and buy them new uniforms. But bad luck hits Charlie Brown once again when he finds out that according to league rules, girls and animals aren't allowed to participate in the sport, which causes him to turn down Hennessey's offer since he couldn't bare the idea of eliminating his friends and pet dog from the team. Reluctant to tell his team the news (with the exception of his close friend Linus), he decides to tell them after their next game in hopes that his team's lifted spirits will cause them to win and forgive him for turning down their chance of making it to the big leagues.

Before viewing this special, I was already familiar with the concept and images of Charlie Brown playing Baseball and always sucking at it, and after getting the chance to witness a whole entire special dedicated to that entire concept, I thought it was good. From an emotional stand-point it wasn't as powerful and deep as "A Charlie Brown Christmas" (though to be fair that is very hard to top), but its heart is certainly still in the right place. Much like how you felt and understood about Charlie Brown's mixed feelings about Christmas as he tries his hardest to do right for others, the same applies here as well, where you hope and pray for things to go right for him after getting so much hate from the kids around him. And what's unique about how this special carries this simplistic story is instead of having a bunch of one dimensional bullies from the opposing team harass and mock Charlie Brown and his team (like in most sport related stories), they're off-screen character that just throw the balls as Charlie Brown misses, where it's his very own team who are giving him all this cruelty and criticisms. That's in all honesty both a clever and mature way of handling this type of story. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy watching rivalries between the person who we're supposed to root for and the person we're supposed to despise. But given that this story is centered on Charlie Brown trying to do right for his own team that always kick him to the ground, as opposed to winning for a championship or big grand prize, it makes perfect sense to downplay the teams that we're supposed to root against as little as possible, that way we can focus more on his relationship with his own team and feel the pain that they give him rather than also having a pointless set of extra bullies who don’t contribute to anything. So the harshness of Charlie Brown's surroundings is definitely there for you to get emotionally attached to his character. But the part of the special where it's emotionally lacking with the most is how much the ending and message is a lazy rehash of the ending from the Christmas Special. Sure it feels rewarding, but it doesn't feel as touching. It just feels rushed and hammered-in as a way to duplicate the nice ending that we just saw before. The only real surprise it brings is how it takes a funny and yet downbeat turn for after when they help Charlie Brown, which is a concept that would later be repeated in the Halloween special.

Now from an animation and voice acting stand-point, it's pretty much not that different from how it was in the Christmas special, and the Halloween special that would follow afterwards. The animation is limited and clunky; the voice acting is stilted as the quality itself at times would sound like it's being recorded in a booth; but the simplicity of it just adds to its charm, that's supported by that jazzy score that we all love hearing, characters who are funny and over the top but yet relatable, and visuals that exploit the joys of summer and (mainly) baseball as we're given plenty of humorous bits. My personal favorite out the jokes in this special is the opening where Charlie Brown tries to catch the ball. He goes to such great lengths to chase after a ball that wound technically be considered a home run for the other team since it is clearly out of bounce that it’s funny and a perfect opening. But honest to god, this scene would've been so much funnier and a better way for his team to do good for him if this the moment was in the special's climax where he finally catches the ball only to have his team mates call him a "block head" for his pointless attempt, until they later understand his attempts of helping his team through this action and for turning down Hennessey's offer. But I'm nitpicking.

Though I sound like the special didn't offer anything that new to the franchise apart from it being the first Charlie Brown cartoon to have him play baseball and take place in the summer, there are a few other little elements that would be reused more often throughout the franchise. For instance this is the first time when we see Charlie Brown take a good amount of his screen-time monologuing to himself for how he feels about everything, when in the Christmas special the scenes of him talking to himself or playing out to the audience would either be a reaction to something happening, or him expressing how he feels to somebody present. And when he does say something to himself it would be very brief. This is also the first Peanuts Special where there's an off-screen adult present. In the last special, we never once saw any of the kids interact with an adult, but here we do, who even manages to play out as the major conflict to Charlie Brown. I know, we don't hear that famous muted trombone sound for whenever he speaks, but regardless, it still doesn't take away from the fact that he's the first adult present for this series of cartoons.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

As a continuation to "A Charlie Brown Christmas" it isn't nearly as powerful and inspiring, but it's not a bad follow-up either. Everything that made the previous Charlie Brown special charming and unique is duplicated well here, as it still manages to give us a few new things that would be repeated throughout "The Peanuts" franchise while it all takes place in a setting that fits its summertime theme nicely. If you love "The Peanuts" and baseball, then you don't want to miss this!

THE THIEF AND THE COBBLER (THE ARABIAN KNIGHT CUT)

Let's talk a little about one of the great animators that many of you haven't heard of but are familiar with his work Richard Williams.



Though some may know him better for his cartoons like "Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure", the 1971 animated short of "A Christmas Carol" that he produced with Chuck Jones, the opening titles to "Return of the Pink Panther" and "The Pink Panther Strikes Again", and his more recent animated film "Prologue"; we all know him best for his work on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". He was a well respected animator for his contribution to medium that has gained him a Primetime Emmy, a BAFTA, and 3 Oscars (including a Special Achievement Award). Long before he would become an animated giant that he’s known for today, he wanted to create a grand-scale animated film to fully exploit the use of animation with very little dialogue that would be his masterpiece where production for the project began in 1964. Williams wanted his film to be based on the tales of Nasreddin by Idries Shah (which he had helped illustrate) and worked on the project for 9 years until Shah demanded for half of the profits from the film after its completion, while Shah's sister Amina threatened to sue over legal ownership feeling that she owned the story for doing some of the translations for the Nasreddin book. This resulted with Williams abandoning the whole entire story and forcing him to write a completely different one. Williams then decided to fund the project by-himself after failing to secure funds from studios and private investors. So as he worked on the films and shorts that made him successful, as well as commercials and Saturday Morning Cartoons, he used the money that he received from those projects to fiance the film that he dreamed of making. In between projects, Williams was able to hire animators to animate parts of the film and had some of the dialogue recorded from actors including the great Vincent Price (who did his recording while dubbing his lines for "Theater of Blood"). After the success of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”, Williams was finally able to make a deal with Warner Bros. Studios to help finance and distribute his film. Because of the funding, this lead to Williams hiring talented animators from Europe since most of his original animators were dead at this point. Now with the proper tools, Williams can finally make the masterpiece he was dreaming to make, and had three years to develop the film. But due to Williams' attitude of being a perfectionist, he began scrapping paintings and scenes he didn't like whether with how they were animated or having colors that he didn't like; created animated sequences that were needlessly long; didn't use storyboards to help direct his animation team of what he envisioned since he believed the process to be "too limiting"; and fired nearly half of his animators. Because of the production hell that went on when creating the film from Williams' poor leadership to instruct his animators of what he wanted which led to numerous delays, the film missed its due date in 1991, and with Disney's "Aladdin" being released the following year that bared a few similarities to the film that Williams was making, the studio fearing their competition with Disney hired the "Completion Bond Company" to finish the movie by 1993. Williams was kicked-off the project, and replaced with Fred Calvert to finish the film who altered the story, re-animated certain sequences, hired new voice actors, and tried to make the film similar to "Aladdin" in order to make the film more marketable. The film was released in Australia in September 1993 after the recent passing of its star Vincent Price titled...



Even though reviewing this film is on my agenda, this is NOT the cut that I will be reviewing first! I figured that it would be more appropriate for me to start with the cut that everyone was more familiar with first which was the version distributed by Miramax in 1995...

 

This cut changed more elements from the 1993 film by replacing some of the original voice actors from the 93 cut, and cutting out a song sequence and shortening a few animated sequences. But even the cut that changed the 1993 film, decided to change its title for its video release as...



The film holds the record for being the longest production schedule to a completed movie, and though this cut has been detested by audiences and critics, especially after with the fan-made "Recobbled Cut" being released all over the internet, if we didn't have that cut of the movie (all 4 versions of the "Recobbled Cut" to be precise) and without comparing it to the 1993 cut by Calvert, how does the film hold-up on its own? ON WITH THE REVIEW!


Taking place in a city in Arabia, a cobbler named Tack (voiced by Matthew Broderick) gets into a fight with a sly thief (voiced by Johnathan Winters) and causes the King's Grand Vizier ZigZag (voiced by Vincent Price) to step on his tack after accidentally tossing his tacks in the middle of a parade for the Vizier's arrival, resulting with him being imprisoned. Tack is brought before the King (Clive Revill) and his daughter Princess Yum-Yum (Jennifer Beals) which she and Tack begin to have an instant attachment for each other. This love at first sight causes Yum-Yum to save Tack by having him fix her shoe, instead of being locked-up and later beheaded. Meanwhile, the thief steals three golden balls atop of the palace's tallest minaret that (with no explanation ever) protects them from the evil King One-Eye and his army and eventually falls into the hands of ZigZag who wishes to marry the princess. With the gold balls removed, King One-Eye with the help of ZigZag plan to invade the city, leaving it up to Tack and the Princess to cross the desert to seek out an old ghostly witch (voiced by Toni Collette) to tell them how to defeat One-Eye.




Given that it took over 20 years to animate the film from an unsung legend in the world of animation, I have to talk about the animation first! Though I have indeed seen clips of the film here and there, including from the Nostalgia Critic's review and a trailer of it on my VHS copy of Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (where I first heard of the film as a kid), it still wasn't enough to prepare me for what was in store for me in terms of the film's animation. I was simply expecting to maybe like a few designs and perhaps one or two sequences, but right when the film began I couldn't think of one moment where I was not blown-away from its animation, even at the film's dullest or silliest. If you were to turn a "Once upon a time" fairy tale environment set in Arabia and combine it with the same surreal and trippy imagery as "Yellow Submarine" you would most likely get this. It's zany; it's colorful; it’s bizarre; its artsy; its can look dark and intense; the designs for the characters and backgrounds are unique and imaginative like no other (I know Disney took a few things from this cartoon for "Aladdin" and I promise I'll cover that topic later on); it's honestly a brilliant piece of work in animation that any fan of that medium or is looking to get into it, MUST SEE FOR THEMSELVES! The most impressive element to the animation is how the characters move. They move like how actual people do for how quick, flowing, and natural it is, and without the use of computers or rotoscoping! As much as I enjoy computer animated films, I still would be delighted to see a hand-drawn animated film from time to time, because its watching animation like this that make me miss the dying art-form that we barley (if never) see anymore for how it exploits all the possibility that this old form of animation can do. Is every single shot of the film perfect, absolutely not! At times you can spot when Calvert is animating certain scenes that look similar to Williams' work but still have a difference in terms of quality; there are portions of the film when the film decides to lazily re-use bits that were already animated; at times the movements can get a little obnoxious for how characters like the King and Yum-Yum's nurse move and get a little too close to the screen; and gradually as the film goes along, the Cobbler's design changes up to the point where he's unrecognizable in his last scene in the film. Regardless of its flaws, the animation is still unbelievably spectacular!



Everything else regarding the film on the other hand, not so much I'm afraid. The cobbler is sweet, innocent, and witty, but most of that comes from his expressions and movements, than from the actual voice acting provided by Matthew Broderick. Now I don't hate Matthew Broderick, he's been great in films like "The Lion King" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and he genuinely seems like a nice guy. But then when I see him in films like "Inspector Gadget", and "Godzilla" I always find myself irritated by his bland delivery that's supported by the lame script that he's been given, which is the primary reason why his performance in this film suffers! The character of the cobbler himself hardly ever speaks, which would be fine since Broderick does have a voice that matches the timid and child-like characteristics of his character. But I suppose since Miramax didn't want to pay a well-known actor a large sum of money for only saying a few lines for the main character, they decided to get their money's worth by having him narrate the film as well. Oh and I'm not talking about the beginning scene and the end, he narrates practically everything that's going on in the film, as well as things that are so obviously being shown to us, where it feels pointless and annoying. And since we hear everything from the cobbler's perspective, the moments when he does speak don't feel enchanting since at that point we're already sick of Broderick's bland voice acting.

If Broderick's constant dull narration isn't bad enough, Johnathan Winters' as the thief is just as insufferable. Unlike the cobbler who does move his lips, the thief doesn't at all! And with Miramax wanting to duplicate the success of "Aladdin" even farther since the first cut of the film did so, they hired Robin Williams' mentor Johnathan Winters' to voice the thief by having him spew out jokes that would at times relate to adult humor and pop-culture. I did get a few laughs out of him, but his presence is still pointless and infuriating. This is a character that is obviously meant to be completely silent which would have made him a little more interesting, but since we know everything that he's thinking at every single moment and discover that he has a goofy personality, it makes him just as bland as Broderick's character. And what's even more distracting about Winters’ voice acting is that I’m always aware that he is recording his lines in a booth. I can literally picture him watching the movie in the recording booth doing a "Mystery Science Theater" style commentary on everything that his character is doing and thinking as I'm listening to his voice acting in this movie. Johnathan Winters is a very funny man, but like any great comedian who does a movie, their talents aren't usually as powerful when they're given a cheesy script that limits their freedom of comedy resulting with them to forcefully work in their improve and comedy genius that would try to fit the film but usually end up failing.

 

Before Miramax would hire Johnathan Winters' to try to duplicate what Robin Williams brought to the Genie, Calvert would try to re-work Princess Yum-Yum to be like Princess Jasmine, who seeks for something more and wants to be independent. That's all fine and good, except that she does nothing! She expresses how much she wants to be out and about by singing and complaining about it, but in terms of actually doing it, she doesn't, which makes her more of a whiner as opposed to a strong character. Ariel didn't stay at the palace to learn about humans and encounter one, she did it herself! Jasmine left the palace after being sick of being a Princess despite coming back to the palace later on. Yum-Yum doesn't do any of that, she just waits and bickers. And when she's finally allowed to leave the palace to help save the city, rather than it just being her and Tack, she leaves with a swarm of guards and her nurse as she's comfortable inside a caravan! Calvert really did a solid job of making her a strong Princess.



We all remember how catchy, fun, and romantic the songs in "Aladdin" are, well these songs are so bland, dull, generic, and poorly written that you'll be forgetting most of them easily! There are only 3 songs in this cut of the movie that were left over from Calvert’s version, that may sound painless and are indeed short, but they move so slow that you'd swear that you've been watching each of them for 5 minutes. Yum-Yum’s "Want Song" "She Is More" is not badly sung, but has such an unappealing melody with cheaply written lyrics offering very little striking visuals to distract you from it, that it’s an utter bore to watch and listen too. The songs go from boring to laughable when we get to the film's second song "Am I Feeling Love" that tries to distract you a little with the visuals as it attempts to make it powerful from the singing from both Tack and Yum-Yum, except that it doesn't for how cheesy and half-assed the lyrics are along with a generic melody that you swear you've heard a million times before in better films. Then after the songs become humorous for how unintentionally silly they are, they become cringy when they try to be silly during the Brigands song "Bom Bom Bom Beem Bom (That's What Happens When You Don't Go to School)"! I'd say the title alone should give you the impression for how bad it is, and it truly is through its ridiculous lyrics. But I'll give it this; it has a catchy beat and offers better visuals when compared to the other songs. That doesn't make it good, its forced and has lyrics that make me wonder why Calvert would approve such bad material (I guess because he wants to finish the film as quickly as possible without showing a single care of substance), but is at least tolerable when compared to the other terrible songs in the movie.



The supporting characters outside of their designs are nothing special. The King lacks being humble and is more goofy in a highly unfunny way where the moments where we're supposed to fear with him for his kingdom are just as excessively silly; the Nurse is just as exasperating as the King is; the witch who the characters encounter only shows up in one shot as we mostly hear her annoying voice; and Zigzag’s pet vulture Phido is poorly dubbed and synced by Eric Bogosian who is trying to make his character to be as funny as Iago but fails miserably at doing so. The Brigands that Tack and Yum-Yum encounter in the desert thankfully don't reach the same levels of annoyance as the other characters I've mentioned since they are legitimately funny (with the exception of their song), but I can't say that I find them to be needed since they don't anything all that productive. Still at least they're more entertaining and less obnoxious than every character I pointed out.

There is however one character in the whole entire film who is always delight to watch every single moment he's on-screen and that's the villain.



Not the Sauron of the movie One-Eye, who looks and acts scary and threatening but doesn't really do anything except kill the King's soldiers during the opening scene of the movie.



The King's royal Grand Vizier Zigzag! I can't necessarily say that he's a good villain, because he isn't. He steals the magic balls, locks Tack away, and assists One-Eye after charming alligators that were about to devour him. However, he's not compelling, he's just a typical Saturday Morning cartoon villain who you are just waiting for our main character to defeat, for how nonthreatening and silly he is where he doesn't come close to succeeding with his plan to the point where you feel that the kingdom is doomed! He's also not a real sorcerer, and more of a magician, so he doesn't maintain any special powers! But what saves him from being such a bland villain is Vincent Price's performance, who is very sophisticated as he hams up the character’s villainy as he would with animated villains like Ratigan and Irontail, while always speaking in rhymes. Why does he speak in rhyme, I DON'T CARE because Vincent Price is just too much fun to listen to where having him rhyme just enhances how "delightfully wicked" his performance is, combined with his movements and fiendish design that in no way reminds me of...



AH DAMN IT! FINE, I'LL FINALLY ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!

So what did Disney exactly take from the film, aside from Zigzag's design? Well both are set in Arabia; the villain is a Grand Vizier who practices magic and wants to marry the princess (for different reasons) as he hustles the goofy king; a peasant and a princess fall in love; the antagonist locks-up the protagonist; and Zigzag has a pet bird by his side that talks. It would seem very unlikely coincidental that Disney also had similar ideas and designs, especially when Richard Williams himself was working with Disney during "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" as he was still making this film. But it seems that most of the stolen ideas came from Zigzag's character as it was used for Jafar, and the Genie. Disney may have heard about some parts of the story and used it for its bases of their film, but they both overall have completely different stories and a unique style in tone and animation (I doubt that Williams was going to make his film full of pop culture references and songs). They are similar, but "Aladdin" has more of a story with fleshed-out characters who are likable and intriguing, a focused moral, and a world that perfectly combines a fairy tale setting as it humorously nods back to the present, that is also full of thrills, action, adventure, wonder, and magic. Williams' vision seemed to have more of a "Fantasia" approach with little dialogue, little emphasis on the characters, and a basic premise where the animation comes before story so he can get more inventive and creative with the medium. That may not be the final film that we received for its theatrical release since both Calvert and Disney decided to steal from "Aladdin", where Williams true vision still remains unfinished, but regardless there is a huge difference between Disney's successfully released animated picture and what Williams had in mind, as both films (depending on which cut you see of "The Thief and the Cobbler") can still be enjoyed on their own.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This cut of the film is easily the worst version to see since it used elements that didn't work in Calvert's version (like the songs for instance), and adds new things that make it even worse (the constant inner-monologues from Broderick and Winters, and the vulture unnaturally behaving like Iago from the awful dubbing) while attempting to cheaply cash-in on the success of "Aladdin". However if this was the only version of the film that we had, though would still be a bad movie, there are two things that make it worth viewing. Price is always a blast to listen too, and the picture contains one of the greatest pieces of animation that has to be seen regardless for how degrading the film itself is. But since there are different and better versions of the film to see, this can be fed to the alligators.

RETURN TO THE BATCAVE: THE MISADVENTURES OF ADAM AND BURT

When I finished reviewing the 60s Batman series, I mentioned that I still planned to do more reviews related to it, given the amount of spin-offs that it had. I was originally going to start off with reviewing the two "Legends of the Superheroes" TV specials, but I didn't think they would've been an appropriate start for how bad they were. A part of me wished to do a review on the animated film "Return of the Caped Crusaders" but I felt that it was still a little too soon since it came out only two years ago. So I've decided to review the first spin-off of the show that was introduced to me (with the exception of the 60s Movie)...

This made for Television movie that was aired on March 9th in the year 2003, was first introduced to me through James Rolfe's"Bat-a-thon" videos on his website "Cinemassacre", and was later again brought to my attention in David Rose's review of the 60s Movie on his show "The DVD Shelf Movie Reviews". I've been curious to see it for its casting of the show's leading stars as well Frank Gorshin, Julie Newmar, and Lee Meriwether; and how the film recreates the stuff that went on behind scenes while making the show, but I had trouble buying it since it is currently out of print, and couldn't find a place to stream it. That is until I found it on "YouTube" in good quality and decided to take advantage of the opportunity while I was thinking of what to review to follow-up on the popularity of my reviews for the 60s Show. Is this Special a real treat for fans of the 60s Batman that should get a re-release, or should it remain as an obscurity? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

I just want to quickly note, that the film does have two entirely different segments, so I'm going to review them both individually and see how well they jell together at the conclusion to my review.

THE REUNION PORTION

What holds the two segments together is the stuff that happens in the present with Adam West and Burt Ward. The two meet at an orphan’s charity that features classic cars, including the Batmobile, which Adam still has the key for. As Adam shows the key, the lights go out, and both the key and the Batmobile are missing. All is not lost when the two are giving clues from this mysterious laughing villain, and set out to recover it and find out who stole it as they relive the past. The plot involving the stolen Batmobile is not as exciting or cleverly bizarre as the show itself, that ends up with a reveal that's so obvious from the very start that the villain is going to be Frank Gorshin based on how this villain is clearly mimicking the Riddler that you begin wonder why they couldn't just show the viewer that it's Frank Gorshin in the first place, especially when the show usually reveals the villain that the Dynamic Duo will be facing. All this plot really serves as a lazy way to tie in the second segment and have the actors recreate elements from the show that give its identity while making fun of the show's formula. So regarding the humor and casting of celebrities that starred on the show, does it at least make up for such a weak and predictable mystery plot?

Well starting with West and Ward who have continued to reprise as well as make fun of their portrayal as the characters in countless TV Shows, specials, and even animated films; they bring the same amount of effort and charisma that they have given outside of the show and do seem like that they are enjoying themselves. Lee Meriwether's cameo as the waitress who got her breasts signed by Adam West back during the show's run, though her presence feels wasted given that she played Catwoman in the movie where we could've gotten some kind of conflict between her and Newmar, still sells-out her short presence through her energy and how she resembles the actress portraying the character in the flashback. However, the performances from Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin as the film's main films are a different story. Obviously, they're both trying to recapture the characteristics that made their performances so memorable from the show, and though Julie Newmar is fine where the only distracting element is her age which just feels awkward on so many levels, Gorshin is lacking energy for how old and frail he's become. You know he's putting as much effort as he possibly can, but he simply can't go all out since he's not as young as he used to be. And to be fair, the same can be said about West and Ward as well, since they too don't appear to be as fit as they once were (that can easily be revealed during a very slow moving Bat-Fight scene), but at least mostly do a better job at hiding it cause of their timing and how they work-off each other, which is a key element to why their performances were so phenomenally memorable on the show.

Unfortunately, unlike in most of their appearances outside of the show where they were given material that's funny and clever, there's not very much of it here. There are some good bits like when they discover the food on the menu is named after the actors who played the villains on the show; and how they lampoon the show's formula as they break the fourth wall. And speaking of which I like how the film uses many of the classic elements from the show like the henchmen who wear black t-shirts with their names on it; the death-trap; the colorful comic-book sets; and the over dramatic narrator (that causes West and Ward to question who it is, which leads to a clever cameo that I won't spoil for you). But while providing a few good laughs here and there, I mostly found myself watching these scenes with a straight face eagerly waiting for the film to cut back to the flashback portions for how unfavorably cheesy, boringly uninteresting, and devoid of energy most of it is. It's practically on the same level of weakness as the show's Third Season. There are some great jokes and moments, but it overall isn't as funny, energetic, and well-thought out that leads to a few cringe-worthy embarrassing moments (did I mention the scene when West and Newmar dance to a Hip-Hop remix of the Batman theme).

Above everything, I feel that this reunion was made very late. We only see 5 of the original cast members from the show since they were still alive and available to do it. But while we have our two main stars, and three celebrities who previously played the villains, most of the cast of characters who constantly appeared on the show have been deceased, such as Burgess Meredith, Cesar Romero, Neil Hamilton, Stafford Repp, Alan Napier, and even the show's producer and narrator William Dozier. The only other recurring cast member who was alive at the time was Yvonne Craig, who turned down making an appearance as Batgirl. I guess as long as you have West and Ward present, it shouldn't matter that much since they are the stars and focus. But since they already made appearances before this film, it doesn't feel as special because they're doing what they've been doing for years just with material that isn't all that funny and will continue to make appearances with stuff that is legitimately funnier than this. And since this portion is supposed to be a reunion, it doesn't feel warranted given how old and lacking survivors there are from the original cast.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This isn't nowhere the near the worst out of all the appearances that West and Ward did to lovingly pay tribute to the show, it's just not their strongest work. It's very half and half. Both our leads share excellent chemistry, and there are some legitimately funny jokes that either reference or poke fun at the show. However, everything else about it is very dull and corny, for its lack of energy and lousy writing towards a reunion that should've came out a little earlier than it did.

THE BIOGRAPHIC PORTION

When we're not with Adam and Burt searching for the Batmobile, we're treated to a series of flashbacks to when they were first casted, to the cancellation of the show at the end of its Third Season. I've watched many documentaries about the show and its legacy, and I can say that this portion has portrayed most of the facts accurately. Burt being an inexperienced actor who auditioned for the show by showing off his karate skills in tights; the feud that both actors had as the show went on; the reason why Romero won't shave off his mustache; how Meredith developed the Penguins squawks; the egg fight that the actors had with Vincent Price; the show's reception from both audiences and the censors; their feelings towards the character of Batgirl; the list goes on. There was even information that I didn't know, and looked up under curiosity to see how true this new information was. For example, did you know that out of that long list of TV Shows that West appeared in before he was Batman, he was in a kiddie show in Hawaii with monkey named Peaches titled "The Kini Popo Show"? I had no clue that West was in something as silly as this before being known for his silly performance as the caped crusader.

Like watching any biographical film, liberties are going to be provided to make it more interesting and dramatic to audiences. I'm not exactly sure how much of it was made up, but there are moments that I can easily tell right on the spot that what I’m witnessing didn't happen. Like when Adam shows Burgess all his gadgets in his utility belt, including a Batbomb with a lit fuse that came out of his small pockets. There's no way that West in real-life would be able to carry something as big as a bomb inside his belt, let alone all the other items, as some of them weren't even developed until later on during the show's run. I'm also 100% positive that an elderly Betty White didn't make a cameo appearance through the window during the famous Bat-Climb scenes. An inaccuracy that a fan who's watched the show many times can easily see are the Batpoles in the study of Wayne Manor being exposed as Robin's alter-ego Dick Grayson is shown to be kissing a girl right in front of them that has never happened in an episode of the show, and never would with that kind of secret information being revealed. I'm also certain that half of the facts that this portion does tell the audience didn't happen within that context. With that said though, as exaggerated, silly, and inaccurate the biographic portion can be, like any good biographic film as long as it captures the spirit of what an event or person has left behind, it's easy to forgive most if not all those inaccuracies, and here they certainly do the show's history justice, where it can be silly in many places like the actual show itself, but still have moments for it to depict the dramas that was going on with the actors and the network at the time! The only moment out of all the liberties that were taken that offends me is really a minor element, and that's hip-hop music being used for when the actors are suiting up for the first time, that just doesn't at all fit!

For me, what truly makes this portion work so well is the actors they've casted to play the young Adam West and Burt Ward. Jack Brewer as Adam West, and famous voice actor Jason Marsden as Burt Ward look almost identical to their real-life counterparts, as they mimic them very closely. If I had to compare the two and say which one did the best impression it’s without a doubt Marsden as Ward. I still stand by Brewer doing a solid job at portraying Adam West, but there were indeed times where I either didn't recognize him as West or felt that his impression was a bit off. I guess it’s because I'm so used to watching West in the real show and find his voice to be so distinctive, that it's nearly hard to duplicate both his look and voice. With Marsden on the other hand, I kept forgetting that he isn't really the real Burt Ward. Thinking back at this film now, I'm still in disbelief that it was an actor portraying him for how much he heavily resembled him, that I find to be quite rare, especially when knowing both the show and 60s Movie inside and out. The secret to why these two actors are so authentic at portraying them is because the real Adam and Burt had input on who to play them, and helped direct them to make their performances be so convincing.

Now even though the stars of the whole film had a hand on who could play them, that doesn't mean that the rest of the cast pale in comparison at mimicking the other actors on the show because they aren't, if anything they do just as phenomenal job as the leads in this portion do. The look and sound alikes for the actors portraying Meredith, Romero, Price, Craig, and Newmar are as short lived as Lee Meriwether's cameo, but still do a highly believable job at imitating them. The best impression from the supporting cast is the actor they hired to play the young Frank Gorshin, who has more scenes when compared to the rest of the supporting cast (that also makes the obvious mystery element of the entire film, even more painful and obvious). He looks and acts so much like him, that it scares me just as much as Marsden's performance as Robin! The casting for this portion of the film is just simply perfect!

Another element that duplicates the show nearly as well as the casting is how they recreated the sets from the original show such as the Batcave, the study in Wayne Manor, and the villains’ lairs. Yes, a fan of the show can spot the differences easily, including sets that were never used in the show. As a matter of fact, the suits that the actors wear have a few alterations to them because of copyright and trademark issues, that not only affect this portion but also the reunion portion since the only clips from the show being featured are all from the movie. In spite of these alterations the sets that don't resemble any of the Bat-Episodes still look as eye-popping colorful and wacky as the sets looked in the original show, and the sets and costumes that are supposed resemble the show are very close to the point where quite frankly the minor alterations are barley even noticeable.

As I was watching and comparing both portions, I found myself quite amazed how much dirty jokes and adult material is being featured in this part of the film. It doesn't go far to the point where it warrants an R rating (or TV-MA), and there are a couple of suggestive jokes that take place in the meat of the film; but it's far from subtle, if anything it’s pretty direct. There's a good number of shots and jokes involving women's breasts; scenes involving the actors having sex with women; and a whole sequence dedicated to making Burt's crotch not stand-out while wearing the costume. I just found it very shocking to jump from something corny and childishly family friendly as the modern bits, to cutting to scenes that are clearly not aimed for a family audience.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This whole portion alone is what makes watching this film a must see! It's at times exaggerated in terms of telling the history of the show, or playing up the comedy, but it doesn't go far enough to be distracting or fail to capture the difficulties that the actors had when filming the show. The casting of actors to portray the celebrities is near flawless; the sets do an excellent job of resembling the period and sets from the original show (even when taking liberties); the gags are funny; most of the facts are represented extraordinary well here; and it's interesting to explore the more adult elements surrounding the show and the careers of West and Ward.

OVERALL THOUGHTS ON THE WHOLE FILM

Apart from both segments having to do with the 60s Show, I don’t really see the need to combine these two together, when they could’ve easily been their own separate TV Special. It’s not just for how the reunion portion is mediocre and nowhere near as interesting when compared to the biographic portion of the film, it’s mainly for how incredibly different they are in tone! While the scenes with West and Ward are cartoony, goofy, and family friendly; the flashback scenes though having their gimmicky and comical moments too are a little more serious and adult rated, which results with them both not going hand and hand. Whenever I watch the scenes with Adam and Burt, I feel like I’m watching one of those cheesy promotional spots for the TV show made during the early late 80s and early 90s with the two actors when re-runs of the show were coming back, only this time with a plot and more of a budget. And every time I have to return to the stolen Batmobile plot, I always find myself constantly annoyed to see the best and most intriguing parts of the film be interrupted. If you’re a big fan of the show, it’s definitely worth checking out, mainly for the biographic portion of it where the film is at its strongest. But like I said earlier, the Adam West and Burt Ward scenes aren’t entirely bad for having a couple of great jokes, it just pales in comparison to the flashback scenes. I’m not eagerly desperate to see a re-release of the film but it still would be nice given that there are enough things to make it enjoyable and fascinating!