Batman Begins

At last, I finally get to start reviewing some seriously good DC films. With Warner Bros. recently releasing a new trailer for The Dark Knight Rises, it's time to go back to the start of this glorious franchise. In 2005, director Christopher Nolan spearheaded the all-too-necessary reboot of the Batman franchise with Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Liam Neeson.

I remember I was very reluctant to see this movie when it first came out. I wasn't interested in a young Batman, and I was worried that they'd ruin his origin story. I was also turned off by the previews that relentlessly promoted the new, stupid-looking Batmobile. However, I was eventually convinced to see it, and I immediately regretted ever doubting it. It may not have been the Batman movie I wanted, but it was the Batman movie I deserved.

This film really requires multiple viewings to truly appreciate it. Not only does it help with understanding the flashbacks, but you pick up on so many little details that only makes the movie better. And if you're a fan of the comics, you find yourself squealing with geeky delight when minor characters like Victor Zsasz show up.

The movie was built around the theme of fear, which worked very well with the origin of Batman. In the comics (and nearly every other form of media) Bruce is inspired to become Batman when a bat randomly bursts through his window. While that may have worked decades ago on the printed page, it would look rather ridiculous in the theater. Here, we see a young Bruce falling down an abandoned well and being attacked by bats. Not only is this more realistic, but it describes his obsession with bats as a legitimate paranoia, which is better than what the comics did.

The actual death of Bruce's parents could have very easily been done with a heavy hand, but instead it happened very quickly and abruptly. I think this is also more realistic and sad. They did a good job of letting us get to know Thomas Wayne, so it meant something when he died. It was also nice to see the young Bruce truly being sad and not instantly seeking after vengeance. He took more comfort from the tender James Gordon than Commissioner Loeb telling him they caught his parents' killer. The score is now a 7.

I'll add another point for having Bruce train with Ra's al Ghul. It makes perfect sense! Bruce would naturally seek out the best, and Ra's would naturally recruit the best, so they would naturally meet up sooner or later, and having Ra's provide the main inspiration for Bruce was just beautiful. Liam Neeson was also flawless at playing one of my favorite villains.

In some versions of Batman, the police never find his parents' killer, which is the driving force of Batman's crusade against crime. But realistically, if the richest couple in the world were murdered, the killer would be found pretty quickly. That's what they did here, which was good, but it left them without a built-in motivation for him to become the dark knight. So here, they decided to release the killer, Joe Chill, by having him testify against the gangster Carmine Falcone. That's also a nice touch — it shows that Falcone must be a really bad guy if they're letting the Wayne murderer free just to get a shot at him. But then Bruce decides that he wants to kill Chill. He doesn't go through any legal means to prevent this parole; instead, he brings a handgun to the court house. It's implied that he never thought or cared about avenging his parents until this moment. Luckily, Chill is killed by one of Falcone's men before Bruce gets the chance. Later, when he's telling his girlfriend Rachel about this, she slaps him twice to wake him up. This was supposed to be an important scene here — the turning point of Bruce Wayne's life, but it was delivered so poorly. Those two slaps were the two weakest slaps I've ever seen in a movie. I also really hate the idea of Bruce ever considering to kill someone or even use a gun. It's good that he turned around, but I prefer a Batman who constantly strives to protect all life and abhors guns. I have to take a point off for this.

But I will bring the score back up to an 8 with the perfect portrayal of Alfred by Michael Caine. Michael Gough was a good Alfred in the other Batman movies, but Caine is less stiff and formal, while still being sophisticated, smart, supportive, and funny.

I'll add another point for Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne. Anyone can be Batman, but few can pull off a great Bruce, who acts like an oblivious playboy, while showing the audience that he secretly is paying close attention to everything around him. Out of all the Bruce Wayne's we've seen in the movies, Bale's is probably the most un-Batmanlike of all of them.

I'll also add a point for Morgan Freeman's wonderful adaptation of Lucius Fox. Normally, Fox is just the CEO of Wayne Enterprises, but here, he kind of became the Q to Batman's James Bond. This was also a great explanation for Batman's gadgets. There's only so much Bruce and Alfred can do.

But I will take away a point for the new Batmobile. It does make a little more sense than the other Batmobiles we've seen, but I really do not care for this design. My biggest complaint about it is the ludicrous way it fires its missiles. What is advantageous about sliding down into the front of the car to access the guns? I never liked it and I never will.

One interesting thing about this movie is that we don't see Batman until we're one hour into it, which I really enjoyed. It was all about the build up, and it was awesome. Slowly picking off and terrifying Falcone's men, until one of them yells, "WHERE ARE YOU?!" Batman whispers: "Here." Sublime! 10 points!

I also loved the new Scarecrow. Conniving, cunning, dangerous, Cillian Murphy was an excellent Jonathan Crane, who subtly and slowly became a super villain. He also lit Batman on fire! How cool is that?

I'll take a point off for the chase scene on the rooftops. It was too long and ridiculous. I was actually more concerned with Bruce getting back in time for his birthday party than saving Rachel, who really was a worthless character. I also got sick of the cops and everybody gawking about the Batmobile. I get it! It's big, strong, and fast — stop shoving it down my throat! This scene combined my two least favorite things in this movie — the Batmobile and Rachel.

The score will drop to a 9 due to the over-explanation of the water main thing. Yes, they made sure the audience knew what was happening, but then they had scene after scene of the two guys sitting at a computer screen saying, "If that train hits Wayne Tower, the whole city's water main will explode!" Yes, we figured that out. Why aren't you doing anything about it?

Sadly, I have to take away a point for the death of Ra's al Ghul. He is too cool a character to kill off and not allow to return in a sequel. Also, Batman should not have let him die. He should have at least tried to save him.

I will add a point for the Joker card at the end. Although this was a reboot, they were careful in their villain selection to avoid villains previously used in Batman movies. But then at the end, they had the courage to say, "Yeah, we're going there." At the time, Jack Nicholson's performance of the Joker was so legendary that they were considering bringing him back in flashbacks and dream sequences for the unmade sequel to Batman & Robin. Seeing that Joker card at the end of Batman Begins created an incredible amount of anticipation and was the perfect ending.

This movie brought Batman back from the dead and set up a perfect sequel (with possibly another perfect one on the way). For this, I will add a bonus point to give this wonderful movie a perfect score.

Final score: 10 out of 10

Memo's gone. Who's next?

Yesterday, I attempted to break down the entire Jazz roster, but had to stop before I could do the big men. Coincidentally, the Jazz traded away Mehmet Okur a couple of hours later, so I didn't have to go back and change anything. At first, I thought the Jazz gave Okur away for nothing, but now it looks like they made this trade to make another, bigger, better one. Until that trade is made, let's look at the big men the Jazz do have.

Power Forwards:

Paul Millsap

Millsap is entering his 6th year with the Jazz after he was a surprising 2nd-round pick in 2006. His best season was last year, with 17.3 ppg and 7.7 rpg. After Deron Williams, Millsap really was the most consistent player for Utah. I love his work ethic and his new skill of making the occasional 3. If he can consistently make those 3s, then he might see some time at small forward when the Jazz want to go big. Millsap really is an excellent trade asset, and I can only hope and pray that Utah will resist the temptation to move him. The Jazz might have a chance to make the playoffs with Millsap as a major player. If he is traded, then that means Utah is giving up on the season and focusing on the future of the young guys behind him.

Derrick Favors

Favors was the third pick in the 2010 draft, and was sent to Utah as part of the Williams trade. In 22 games with the Jazz, Favors averaged 8.2 ppg and 5.2 rpg. He found a place in my heart when he effortlessly dunked an offensive rebound with one hand over Kevin Garnett. He has all the tools to develop into the next Karl Malone, and I don't make that comparison lightly. He should get a fair amount of playing time behind Millsap (or more, depending on the upcoming trades). Either way, I think he is one player the Jazz will definitely not move any time soon.

Centers

Al Jefferson

Jefferson was drafted out of high school by Boston in 2004, but then was traded to Minnesota for Kevin Garnett. His best year was in 2008, when he averaged 23 points and 11 rebounds per game. He's not really a center, but that's what he played for the Jazz last year, averaging 18.6 ppg and 9.7 rpg. Those aren't bad numbers, but the Jazz really needed a bit more from him, especially after the Williams trade. He is a strong player, who can command a double team, but he doesn't care much about defense. It's not that he can't — he's shown some really nice D in small stretches — it's just that he won't. He's been in the league for 7 years now, and he's only made the playoffs as a backup in his rookie year. So even more than Devin Harris, Jefferson has lots of experience with going for his own stats and not worrying about winning games. I know last year was a terrible season for the entire franchise, but I think Jefferson could have done better. He looks out of shape and disinterested. If the Jazz are going to trade away one big man (and I'm sure they will), I hope it's Big Al. Normally, I'd say give him some more time, but with our good-looking young big men behind him, I think he's the best guy to get shipped away for a good shooting guard.

Enes Kanter

The Jazz used the third pick in the draft to pick the 19-year-old Kanter, who didn't play any basketball last season because he was banned by the NCAA. Despite that, some people say he should have been the No. 1 pick, anyway. Apparently he is in terrific shape, and he has looked fairly good in the preseason. I'm not sure if he really is a center, or just another power forward playing out of position. Only time will tell if the Jazz made the right choice with that pick.

So that's all the players on the Jazz roster. There's a lot of good guys, but no great guys. During the Portland game the other night, they had a poll for who Utah's leading scorer will be. It was a three-way tie between Jefferson, Millsap, and Favors. That bothers me. Not only do they all play the same position, but it shows me that nobody knows who the leader is. Who is the go-to guy in the clutch? I saw the Jazz lose a lot of games they should have won last year because they didn't know who to give the ball at the end of close games. And it looks like it's going to be the same this year.

I like Utah's depth for this terrible shortened season, but for the long term, we need an undeniable superstar to build around. This team is full of good trade pieces, and I do sense a massive trade coming right around the corner. It could be for Stephen Curry, Rajon Rondo, Mo Williams, or anybody else you can think of. We'll never know until it happens. The Jazz are very good at keeping their plans secret.

Why I'm worried about the Jazz

This dunk by Jeremy Evans reminded me last night why it's important to watch every game —even if it's just the preseason — because you never know when you're going to see an amazing play like that. But despite that play, and the fact the Jazz did win last night, I can't help but feel worried about this Utah team.

The Jazz really do have a lot of good players. Here's a quick rundown of each player by position:

Point Guards:

Devin Harris.

He's a 7-year veteran, who started for a pretty good Dallas team until he got traded to New Jersey for Jason Kidd. He played well for the awful Nets, making the All-Star team in 2009, when he averaged 21 points and 7 assists a game. Then last season he was traded to Utah for Deron Williams. In 17 games with the Jazz, he averaged 15.8 ppg and 5.4 apg. I really like his incredible speed (I've never seen another Jazz player go coast-to-coast as quick as he does) and he should be a team leader for this young team. However, I'm a little concerned that he was the best player on a 12-win Nets team. I have a theory that players who spend too much time on losing teams become accustomed to losing. When they know they can't make the playoffs, all they focus on is getting good individual stats for a bigger contract. Sadly Devin Harris isn't the only Jazz player who falls under that category.

Earl Watson

Watson re-signed with the Jazz after a surprisingly effective Twitter campaign to bring him back caught the eye of Kevin O'Conner. I don't think the fans Twitter was the only reason the Jazz brought him back, but it certainly helps knowing he has a lot of fans here. And I count myself among his fans. Watson's been in the league for 10 years, having played for Seattle, Memphis, Denver, Oklahoma City, and Indiana. He's the kind of guy you like to have on your team, but aren't compelled to keep him for a long time. His best year was in 2008 with the Sonics, when he averaged 10.7 ppg and 6.8 apg. Playing behind Williams, Harris, and the oft-injured Ronnie Price last year, Watson averaged 4.3 ppg and 3.5 apg in 80 games. He is smart, consistent, a surprisingly good rebounder and defender, and doesn't hurt your team in anyway. But he doesn't really do anything extraordinary.

Jamaal Tinsley

This is a player the Jazz wouldn't have touched with a 10-foot pole a few years ago. Tinsley spent 7 years with the Pacers, his best year coming in 2005, with 15.4 ppg and 6.4 apg. But then his off-the-court troubles became such a problem that Indiana paid him to stay away from the team, and he spent the entire '08-'09 season out of the NBA. In '09-'10, he played 39 very quiet games with the Grizzlies, before going back to the D-League last year. Now the Jazz have brought in this washed-up head case to be the third-string point guard, which should be fine. He looked fairly decent last night against Portland, and as long as the Jazz don't expect too much out of him and as long as he stays out of trouble, he should be a good fit.

Shooting Guards:

Raja Bell

Bell has been in the league for 11 years, playing for Philadelphia, Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, Charlotte, and Golden State. After the Jazz refused to match Portland's offer to Wesley Matthews, we were pretty happy to bring back Bell, who declined Kobe Bryant's personal plea to join the Lakers. Bell's career really got started during the awful non-playoff years in Utah, and it was understandable at the time when he went to a very good Phoenix team for more money. He had his best year with the Suns in 2007, when he averaged 14.7 ppg and was named to the All-Defensive 1st Team. He really is a great 3-point shooter and an excellent defender, but if we learned anything last year, it's that this is not the same Raja Bell from 2007. In 68 games with the Jazz last season, Bell averaged 8 ppg and really made me miss Matthews. The shooting guard position is the weakest for the Jazz right now, and I don't think we can expect Bell to be the starter during this brutal schedule.

Alec Burks

Last year, Burks averaged 20.5 points and 6.5 rebounds per game for Colorado, who made it to the NIT Semifinals. The Jazz picked him with the 12th pick in the draft, and I have to admit, I'm not really impressed with him. He's not a shooter, which is something the Jazz really could use. I know he scored in college, but his team wasn't that great, and somebody has to score. Burks' two preseason games were quite abysmal, which probably means C.J. Miles and Gordon Hayward will be playing a lot at the 2 to relieve Bell. That isn't a comforting thought for me.

Small Forwards:

C.J. Miles

Every year, it seems like we're hearing the same "This is Miles' year" story. I know from a good source that part of this is because the Deseret News' Jazz beat writer is good friends with Miles, and never writes negatively about his friends. As nice a person as C.J. is, I'm kind of getting sick of him as a player. I was surprised when he chose not to go to Texas after the Jazz drafted him in 2005, and instead played 60 games of mostly garbage time through his first two seasons here. We kept telling ourselves that he's still young, and can still get better. Last year was the first time he averaged double digits, scoring 12.8 ppg. Now this year, his 7th with the Jazz, Miles is legitimately talking about making the All-Star team. Yeah, right! He just doesn't seem to have that competitive edge necessary to make that leap. He's a really streaky shooter, and when he's on, it's great, but most of the time he's not. Last year, he made only 32 percent of his 3-pointers, but that didn't stop him from taking more than four a game. The Jazz really could use someone who does what he does but only more consistently and better. Personally, I'm sick and tired of waiting for Miles to develop, and I will not be holding my breath for his All-Star nomination.

Gordon Hayward

"Elder" Hayward, as I've heard him called, was the No. 9 pick in last year's draft. He didn't play much under Jerry Sloan, but he did have a couple of nice games at the end of the season when nobody cared. He scored 22 against the Lakers and 34 against the Nuggets. In 72 games, he averaged 5.4 ppg and shot 47 percent from 3-point range. I like that he is a good basketball player, able to do a little of everything, and that he took Butler to the Final Four. Like I said with Devin Harris, I really think winning and losing is a mentality, and those who have a history of winning continue to find ways to win. I think Hayward could be a really good player one day, but despite all the good he does, he doesn't do any one thing great. Maybe it could be his shooting? It was tough to tell last night because he fouled out in 14 minutes.

Josh Howard

Here's another washed-up head case the Jazz surprised me with. Howard had 6 1/2 good years with Dallas before being traded to Washington. There, he became derailed with injuries and off-the-court problems. Last year, he only played 18 games and scored 8.4 ppg. His best year was in 2007, when he made the All-Star team with 18.9 ppg and 6.8 rpg. It would be wonderful if he could approach that level again, but I have to ask: Why did so many current Jazz players hit their primes in 2007?

Jeremy Evans

He was Utah's 2nd round pick last year, and didn't get much playing time. He played in 49 games and scored 3.6 ppg. Coaches might be worried that he's so ridiculously skinny, but he's a fan favorite with his dunks (see last night's). Whenever I see him play, I like what I see, and I definitely think he made a strong case for more playing time last night. It'll be hard for him, with the Jazz's forward-infested roster, though.

Well, this is taking longer than I thought, so I'll continue with Utah's big men tomorrow.

X-Men: First Class

I would like to continue my reviews of the Batman films, but first I had to make sure someone saw the new X-Men movie. X-Men: First Class came out on June 3, was directed by Matthew Vaughn, and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence. I know a lot of people who enjoyed this film, but if you read my other X-Men reviews, you'll know that I'm really picky when it comes to these mutants.

The initial scenes of Magneto and Charles weren't terribly bad or good. It was kind of nice to see the same Magneto scene from the first X-Men movie, but seeing a young Mystique coming to live with Charles really wasn't that desirable. If this movie is supposed to be in continuity (which it kind of tries to be) then it doesn't make much sense for Mystique to be Charles' "sister." I think there are several things about the other films that would have been quite different if they had that relationship. So the good balances the bad here, and we'll keep it at a 5.

I will add a point for Sebastian Shaw. He was portrayed well by Kevin Bacon, and I really liked the idea of him participating in the Holocaust just so he could find more mutants. That is really creepy and evil, which is exactly what good movies need.

I also liked Charles' early attempts to make mutants more acceptable by telling people that everybody has some kind of mutation, which isn't bad, but groovy. This young Charles really was a likable character, and the score is now a 7.

Perhaps the best part of this movie was Eric's relentless pursuit of the Nazis who ruined his life. It was great watching him rip out a guy's filling and ruthlessly murder three men in a bar. If only there were a few more scenes like this ... anyway, we're up to an 8 now.

Now I have to take away a point for the special effects. The movie seemed to be hastily made, and the effects (an important part for superhero films) were sloppy and unimpressive, especially Shaw's powers. I guess it was a neat concept, it just looked really strange.

I also really didn't like the Hellfire Club that much. I don't know who the tornado guy was, or why they even had him, and I really didn't like the evil red Nightcrawler, who was a little bit too powerful for my taste. Emma Frost was all right, except for when she caught a knife thrown by Magneto. We've already seen that Magneto uses his powers to throw things much faster and stronger than a normal person, so it makes no sense for a non-fighter like Emma Frost to be able to deflect it. And you can't say that she used her psychic powers because she was in her diamond form at the time. We're now down to a 6.

I did not like at all what they did with Hank McCoy. They had him design the most advanced aircraft in the nation and be able to fly it, create Cerebra (which is a continuity error), develop a serum to cure his mutation (which backfired), create custom outfits for everyone, and be able to run as fast as Quicksilver. That is way too much stuff for one person to do. We're back down to a 5.

As much as liked Charles in this movie, there are a couple of things that bugged me. I wouldn't have minded him having hair so much, if they didn't bring it up several times. It's like the producers were saying, "We know he's supposed to be bald, but we don't care!" Originally, Charles loses his hair at a young age due to the stress caused by him not being able to control his powers. But we don't see one instant in this movie where he isn't in complete control of his abilities. Everyone has to work at their powers, even Magneto, but never Charles. The score is now a 4.

One scene that bugged me was when the young mutants are partying together. For the first time in their lives, they can be completely open about their abilities and they're having a little bit of fun. But then they randomly get in trouble and Charles says, "I'm so disappointed in you." Why? Just because they blew up a statue? I also wasn't terribly happy with the selection of mutants. Alex Summers is supposed to be Cyclops' younger brother, and this "Angel" girl and "Darwin" either don't exist at all or are extremely obscure. And what kind of a mutation is "I adapt to survive"? We're at a 3.

The pacing of this movie was too fast. Everything happens so quickly. Charles and Eric become very fast friends and then split apart even faster. Mystique abandons Charles in a split second after spending more than a decade living with him. The mutant gathering and training montages were nice, but really quick. I think they just tried to do too much in this movie. They should have waited to make Magneto go evil until the next movie (unless they knew they wouldn't be able to make a sequel, which is looking unlikely right now). For rushing too much, I'll take the score down to a 2.

I will add a point for the exciting build up to the climax. There was good tension as all the pieces started falling into place and each mutant used their unique abilities. It wasn't necessarily the best, but I did get drawn in.

However, I found it rather random how quickly the Soviets and Americans decided to join forces to kill the mutants. They were on the brink of a nuclear war two minutes ago, and suddenly they decide to combine forces to launch an all-out offensive against a handful of mutants? Come on!

The score will fall to a 1 because of the worthless character of Moira MacTaggert. She is not originally a CIA agent, and she truthfully did not accomplish one thing in this movie. I guess they wanted a "love interest," but they really didn't develop it at all. If they took her out of the movie, everything could have happened exactly the same. In fact, she causes more harm than good, when she fires her gun multiple times at Magneto, even though she knows full well that he can deflect bullets at point-blank range. I echo the words of one of her bosses, "This is why the CIA is no place for a woman!"

I will bring the score back up to a 2 for the neat-looking Magneto at the very end of the film. He actually looked better than Magneto in the other three X-Men movies. The costume alone is enough for me to want a sequel, but I don't know how they'll be able to do that without further convoluting the already messed up X-Men movie universe.

If I wasn't an X-Men fan, I probably would have enjoyed this movie more, but as it is, I can't overlook the inconsistencies not just from the comics, but also the movies. This movie half-heartedly tried to be connected to the three other X-Men films and the Wolverine origin movie, but it didn't care when something was blatantly wrong. They should not have tried to be connected to those other films at all, and just given the whole universe a complete reboot. Now we'll have to wait and see if this new rumored Wolverine movie will be able to help bring these five movies closer together or spread them further apart.

Final score: 2 out of 10

Batman & Robin

Well, I've put it off long enough, but here it is: the review of Joel Schumacher's 1997 disaster, Batman & Robin. It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Chris O'Donnell, and a completely abysmal script. This movie was just as bad as I thought it was, and possibly even worse.

The fist point I'll take off is for the terrible costumes that everybody wore. So cheesy, so over the top, so incredibly stupid. We were introduced to the new Bat costumes in the opening scene, which took time to show their butts and crotches. And don't forget about the nipples on their suits. It wasn't bad enough to have them, but they had to draw attention to them. The costumes really are a fair representation of the movie as a whole.

The opening fight scene with Mr. Freeze was also incredibly stupid. It starts with Commissioner Gordon telling Batman there's a new villain in town called Mr. Freeze, while he's in the Batmobile on his way to the museum. Once he gets there, he gets into a pretty lame fight with bad sound effects and even worse sound effects. Halfway through the battle, Batman and Robin find themselves on their backs, look at each other, nod, then click their heels to activate the ice skates that must have been sitting in his boots for years because he only just heard about Mr. Freeze a few minutes ago and couldn't have possibly had a reason to use them before.

The fight reaches a nonsensical and confusing climax that involves Batman and Robin destroying this strange rocket Mr. Freeze had and then "air surfing" out of it. This is Batman. What happened to his glider we saw in Batman Returns or something similar to it? Instead, we needed something "cooler" with the best CGI of 1997. (At least I'm assuming it was good back then.)

A full point will be taken off for the creation and treatment of Bane. We first see him in an obviously evil laboratory, being auctioned off to the Un-united Nations and a mystery bidder (who we never find out is). The stupid mad scientist explains that Bane was created with Venom and a "super soldier serum." Captain America anyone? Anyway, Bane was completely worthless during the whole movie. He never really fought Batman, didn't say hardly anything, never looked very strong or intimidating (they pushed his "turbo" button several times, which did absolutely nothing), and really just made me depressed whenever he was on screen.

The dialogue in this movie was about as bad as it could possibly be. When it wasn't being expositional, it was pun-riddled, cheesy, and just plain stupid. One particularly bad line was when Pamela Isley confronted the mad scientist about Bane. He said, "Well, I can respect your opinion, but unfortunately, I don't handle rejection well. I'm afraid you'll have to die." He then pushes her into a table filled with chemicals, from which she later emerges instantly knowing all her new abilities as Poison Ivy. By the way, in case you were wondering, she was a really terrible villain, as well.

Before I forget, I tried to keep count of every bad ice pun said by Mr. Freeze. I counted 25, but that does not include other puns he said, or ice puns other people said to him. That is quite a bit when you think about it.

Rumor has it that Patrick Stewart was the first choice to be Mr. Freeze (which would have been perfect), but he turned it down after seeing how awful the movie would be. Instead they got Arnold Schwarzenegger. To try to justify having him be Mr. Freeze, they made him a former Olympian turned Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Right ... Remember that this movie came after Mr. Freeze's origin was redone in the animated series. Here, they randomly threw in a few token scenes showing him trying to be emotional with his wife, but these were immediately discounted with the many cheesy scenes of him. One of the cheesiet was him insisting that his hockey henchmen sing the "Mr. White Christmas" song while eating frozen dinners. Why does he need them to sing? What purpose does that hold?

The Mr. Freeze conundrum brings me to the biggest flaw in this movie — the insistence of including serious scenes. The movie started with an extremely goofy tone, which dominated the film as whole, except for a few parts where it strayed from the campiness and tried to be serious and heart-warming. Mr. Freeze was bad, but Alfred was worse. If they would have cut these scenes out, then this could have been a fun movie like Adam West's Batman. But instead we had to deal with sadness of watching someone slowly die and deal with complex servant-master relationships. These scenes made the corny ones unbearable, and the corny scenes made the serious scenes feel out of place.

But there is one thing I will compliment the film on. George Clooney played a good Bruce Wayne. He is a playboy and responsible businessman. When he meets Dr. Isley, he already knows all about her experiments and the destruction of her lab. He also has a girlfriend who doesn't know his secret identity! What a novel concept! Sadly, that is the only good thing I can say about this horrible thing called a movie.

Another terrible line: When Bruce rejects Dr. Isley's extreme proposals, she gives a speech about plants taking over the world, to which an annoying lady says, "You must be new in town — Batman and Robin protect us!" Barf!

One of the worst scenes in the movie is the Poison Ivy auction scene. It's really long, random, pointless, and becomes completely unbearable when Batman pulls out his credit card with the cha-ching! sound effect. Why? Why?! WHY?!!

I was almost happy to see the return of the Glow-in-the-Dark Gang from Batman Forever. Speaking of which, this movie really is similar to the last one, but took everything that was bad from there and made it worse. The whole city is really dark, despite being overly colorful and covered with neon lights. The gigantic statues everywhere were also distracting.

Batgirl was completely terrible and pointless. The only reason I can see for them bringing her in was to have her beat up Poison Ivy because they couldn't show a boy hit a girl. They made Batgirl a computer genius, martial arts expert, and edgy motorcycle racer. The motorcycle race scene was also incredibly long and worthless. I was not impressed by the green fire, but instead found myself saying, "This is a Batman movie, where is he?"

It's also kind of sad that Batgirl isn't Jim Gordon's daughter, but it's kind of good, seeing how incredibly inept they made Gordon. He's played by Pat Hingle in all four movies, and in each movie he gets exponentially stupider.

When Alfred thinks he's going to die, he sets things up for Barbara to become Batgirl. But instead of telling her this directly, he sends her on a phony quest to find his "long-lost brother," knowing that she'd defy him and find the Batcave on her own. Good thing you trust her so much, Alfred. Anyway, it takes her forever to guess Alfred's password. Each time she puts in the wrong password, the computer says, "Access denied" in a real computer voice. But when she gets the password right, the computer says, "Access allowed" in a dramatic, happy voice. Barbara then sees Alfred's face on the big Bat computer, which tells her that he "programmed his brain algorithms into the computer." What does that even mean? Was it even necessary?

In the climactic scene at the end, Poison Ivy is defeated by being pushed onto the very plant she was sitting on not two minutes ago. That's like defeating Mr. Freeze with hypothermia. Also, Batman somehow found time to record Poison Ivy needlessly explaining that she killed Freeze's wife.

The fight with Freeze was dumb, and was made even worse with by the terrible scientists. They didn't recognize Mr. Freeze, even though it was already established that he has been all over the news. They were also annoying when they cheered Batman on. At one point they called Mr. Freeze a "dirty fighter," when I didn't see him do anything dirty. I was really kind of hoping they would die.

At the very end, Batman asked for Mr. Freeze to help him cure Alfred. Conveniently, Mr. Freeze happened to have the very cure on him at the time. I would have liked to see him suiting up for battle, then stopping, but the medicine on his arm and saying, "Just in case."

Well, technically speaking, this movie gets a score of -12. I really can't adequately describe just how bad it was. This movie did more damage to the Batman franchise than anything else. I have a feeling the next Batman movie might a little better. I can only hope.

Final score: 0 out of 10.

Has independence been worth it?

Since this is my last week at The Daily Universe, I asked them if I could write a viewpoint. I had a hard time keeping it to around 900 words, but it was a lot of fun to write.

The 2011 BYU football season will be one to be remembered. Although it won’t always remembered for the best things.

So many things happened this season, it’s hard to know where to begin to sum it up.

For me, I will avoid Jake Heaps and all of the other exciting stories from this year, and instead will go back to the beginning and talk about independence.

When Utah announced it would go to the Pac-12, BYU fans didn’t have too long to feel left out, because BYU became an independent school soon after. This led to all of us Cougar fans immediately talking ourselves into independence.

We would be free from the Mountain West and its low-quality opponents and even lower-quality TV stations. We would have the freedom to schedule games against better teams and in more lucrative destinations. We would be in a better position to play in a BCS game.

Or so we thought.

The season started with a one-point win at Ole Miss and a one-point loss at Texas. We were pretty optimistic at that point, and had been praising independence for allowing us to travel to such high-profile places.

And then we played our first home game of the season against our rivals — the Utes.

The game started with fireworks, a 100-yard American flag and the marching band playing the theme from Independence Day. And then they kicked the ball off.

Ugh …

Independence slowly started to lose its luster. Especially when rumors started to swirl about BYU joining the Big 12. We started to dream about being in a power conference, but those dreams were quickly squashed, and we had to start talking ourselves back into independence.

But by that point, things were fine. Riley Nelson had saved the season and things were fun and entertaining. Until we started to get tired with late-start games in cold months against mediocre-at-best opponents.

I know of at least one fan who has owned eight expensive season tickets for many years and decided after the New Mexico State game (which started at 8:15) that he’d had enough. He lives north of Salt Lake City, and with the terrible traffic, getting home at a reasonable time to wake up early for church is just too difficult.

Not all Cougar fans had experiences that bad, but many began dreaming about the joys of conference play when the Big East came calling.

Meanwhile, the Utes were having an exciting finish to their first Pac-12 season. Although they started off with four big conference losses, through a strange series of events, they found themselves still in contention for a spot in the Pac-12 championship game. Ute fans excitedly stayed up late at night to watch Cal and Arizona State play, while BYU had no such connections to any other teams.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Big East deal fell through just in time for us to go back to praising independence for allowing us to travel to Hawaii.

So now the season is over, and it’s time to ask ourselves if being independent has been worth it so far.

One of the main reasons BYU went independent was to increase exposure, and I think BYU has done a good job of this, but it may be a bit overvalued.

Yes, having more games on ESPN and BYUtv has been nice, but having late kickoffs and thousands of empty seats in LaVell Edwards Stadium has not been. How many people around the country actually tuned in to ESPNU at 8:15 p.m. to watch BYU play New Mexico State?

Hopefully BYU will soon be able to stop justifying everything with the near-meaningless buzzword “exposure” and will begin to talk about playing and beating the best teams in the nation.

From a competition standpoint, I don’t think anything has changed from last year. Had we stayed in the MWC, we still would have played TCU, and we would have played Boise State, but maybe not Texas. Some of our “weaker” opponents this year from the WAC really aren’t any worse than some MWC teams, either.

But here’s one problem with independence: Last year, in the MWC, BYU would have needed to go undefeated to make it to a BCS game. This year, BYU would have had to go undefeated to make it to a BCS game. So far, independence isn’t helping on that front … yet.

In the upcoming seasons, BYU will be playing Notre Dame, Boise State, Georgia Tech, Houston and several other big teams. With the Cougars playing these tough teams, they might be able to sneak into the BCS with a one-loss season.

But under independence, most of BYU’s big games will come early in the season because big teams want to save November for their conference rivals. What concerns me about this is Bronco Mendenhall’s track record.

In five of his seven seasons, BYU has started with a record of 1-2. If the Cougars seriously want to go to a BCS game, they need to put an end to these slow starts. Now.

My verdict? Independence is not the long-term solution. Eventually fans will get tired of 10-win seasons and meaningless bowl victories. Eventually we’ll get sick of coming close but being snubbed by the BCS like Boise State. Until we can join a BCS conference, we’ll have to stay independent and keep telling ourselves it’s the best option.

Independence isn’t pretty, but it’s all we’ve got.

Heaps is better, but Nelson should start

After covering the San Jose State game on Saturday, I decided to write a viewpoint about the recently re-opened quarterback controversy at BYU. We didn't have room to put it in the paper yesterday, but it might go in today.

Even though we’re now halfway through the season, the BYU football team is still struggling with a basic question that was supposedly answered last year: who should be the starting quarterback?

During Saturday’s 29-16 win over San Jose State, BYU decided to use Riley Nelson as the main quarterback. In the team’s best interest, I believe BYU should continue to use Nelson instead of Jake Heaps, even though Heaps has more talent and potential.

Heaps was originally named the starter last year, but did he really earn it? Before Nelson went down with a season-ending shoulder injury, BYU had no idea who should be the team’s quarterback.

Heaps won the job by default, which probably caused him to relax a little bit. You hear BYU players and coaches constantly praising Nelson for his work ethic and leadership, but not so much for Heaps.

Heaps still is one of the most talented quarterbacks in the nation and still has tremendous potential. If he was living up to that potential, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.

But Heaps has gotten off to a rather lackluster start. Through four games, he threw only three touchdown passes and five interceptions. BYU went 2-2 through that stretch, but those two victories really belong to the defense and special teams.

Then came the Utah State game.

Heaps started off well enough, benefitting mostly from a couple of pass interference calls, but then things turned sour in a hurry. BYU had to call a quick timeout on first down and then got called for a false start right after the timeout. Who is more at blame for this, Heaps or offensive coordinator Brandon Doman?

Whoever’s fault it was, the problem was evident: BYU’s offense was not on the same page.

Soon, Heaps was overthrowing and underthrowing his receivers, who often didn’t seem to know the pass was coming their way. Mistakes like this had plagued BYU all season, but for them to be so prevalent in Game 5? How long should it take for a quarterback to develop?

Finally Doman decided to make a change. In comes Nelson and the rest is history. It wasn’t always pretty, but he did lead BYU to the win. Most impressive was the game-winning drive, on which Nelson accounted for all 96 yards, either through the air or on the ground.

On Saturday against San Jose State, Nelson not only got the start, but also got to play the whole game for the first time in his BYU career. By halftime, he matched Heaps’ touchdown pass total with three. Nelson also led BYU to a season high 29 points and the largest margin of victory this year at 13 points.

But is a 29-16 victory over San Jose State really that impressive?

The Spartans finished 1-12 last year, and have only beaten lowly New Mexico State and Colorado State this year. Plus, they didn’t have their top running back, Brandon Rutley, on Saturday night. He’s not just their top rusher, but their heart and soul, averaging more than 100 yards per game and scoring six touchdowns in five games. These guys aren’t quite the same as Texas or Utah.

BYU should have been able to win this game with LaVell Edwards starting at quarterback.

But Nelson was the quarterback and he did play well. He got a little help when an unforced safety made up for his fumble on the 3-yard line. He then took advantage of the good field position by finding tight end Richard Wilson for a touchdown.

But Nelson did commit a few mistakes that Heaps wouldn’t have made, especially one play where Nelson scrambled and backpedaled to about 15 yards behind the line of scrimmage and had to quickly throw the ball away to avoid a major sack. Problem was, he didn’t throw the ball away, but instead simply heaved it toward the middle of the field and was lucky no one intercepted it.

In the end, Nelson threw two interceptions and had two other passes that should have been intercepted. He also lost a fumble to bring his total to three turnovers to go with his three touchdowns.

Despite all that, Nelson really was better than Heaps has been this year. He did a lot of good things that Heaps doesn’t do, like running for first downs when receivers were covered and the pocket collapsed. Nelson also has a knack for finding wide-open receivers; whereas Heaps’ completions are usually thread-the-needle passes to double-teamed players.

And most importantly, Nelson was able to energize the crowd and his teammates and get the win. People just seem to respond better to Nelson than Heaps.

BYU made the right choice by starting Nelson and playing him the whole game. And the right choice for the team will be to continue with Nelson as the quarterback for this year and maybe even next.

But won’t this hurt Heaps’ development? Maybe. But how does continual poor play that draws ire from teammates and fans help a quarterback develop? Maybe Heaps’ best option is to watch from the bench and work harder in practice to try to beat Nelson.

BYU has the potential to be a really special team in a couple of years with Heaps as the quarterback. He still is young enough to become the next Ty Detmer or Steve Young. But until he develops into that, fans want to see wins.

Not all of us fans are so callous as to demand a win every game, but we do want to see effort and progress, especially after paying good money to watch the team.

Right now, for whatever reason, it looks like Nelson is putting forth more effort than Heaps. And until that changes, he should remain the starting quarterback.