Perhaps my biggest gripe about this animated feature is the complete lack of oomph behind Ben McKenzie's dead narration as Bruce Wayne/Batman. It felt so lifeless, but only repeated a few times throughout the running time. Contrast his performance of Bruce to his Batman voice and it becomes clear: Bruce Wayne is lifeless, as husk of a man, wherein his alter ego is the one full of passion. The film nails this, although it's subtle (and this was my second viewing).
The story adheres well to the original Frank Miller four part comic series from the '80s. This is the Miller Batman that would help revitalize and rejuvenate a Batman for the "modern" era, and this, along with his other works would be the basis of many adaptations for decades (and still counting). Batman: Year One, the animated feature, does not surprise for being so good, as many of these DC features excel beyond any typical Hollywood attempt. The epitome of this is evidenced in the late 1990's: simply watch Batman & Robin (1997), followed up by the animated Batman: SubZero (1998) and you'll have a clear understanding of how the movie business can be so brilliant but also so terrible.
I've always kind of looked at the Disney/Marvel movies as the penultimate representation of inoffensive, mass-appeal action films created by a formula that has most recently been (discovered and) solved. It's literally impossible to get upset at these films, unless you are a die-hard fanboy of the original content, and that in itself may be invalid. If you're that intense into the characters, you know that the canon is screwed up beyond belief and the depiction of these characters on-screen is refreshing as they don't approach the original material with any significant seriousness. Yes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is its own entity, a concept that comic book fans are already comfortable with and fully embrace: instead of reading thirty years of Avengers history, wouldn't it be easier to instead read ten years of Ultimate Avengers instead? And aren't those standalone stories and graphic novels even better, as there are only a handful of issues to digest and enjoy? The answer is yes, for me at least. But the Cinematic Universe gets the best of both worlds, as they cherry-pick from the best, and even throw in easter eggs for the megafan. Generally, I don't peruse the internet and come across threads of comments slamming these films for screwing anything up. I also don't see any threads picking the films apart for what they are: science fiction action films. But maybe I just don't visit those dark recesses of the internet, and we should all be OK with that.
I've always been a bit of a sucker for the "sci-fi romance" film, even if they are pretty light on the sci-fi. It's actually astounding how many there are, until you consider that they are manufactured to appease the stereotypical audience that would maximize box office dollars: romance for your ladies, and a bit of sci-fi for the boyfriends they bring along. They are perhaps overly simplistic by design and equally as forgettable. Although every so often a film hits the mark and makes an impression, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which featured Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet in a romance film with a sci-fi twist. The two lovers live in a world where it's possible to have one's memories erased. So when they hit bad times and break up, they both elect to erase one another from their minds. The perfect anullment, right? It's succussful because it marries the concept with true emotion, and leaves you with a few messages that everyone can relate to, even if you don't believe in the science.
Where can you even begin with a film like this? It was evident in the initial trailer from what felt like years ago: this is a Wachowski film of grand sci-fi epic-ness, which brings along a certain set of expectations and trepidation. The fact that the film's release date was pushed back nearly a year, smacked into the dead of winter, can't be a good sign either, and general audiences will assume the worst. And perhaps they should: Jupiter Ascending is being met with mostly negative reviews, but I was excited enough by the previews and a fan of the genre that there was no question on my attendance. Where do I stand on the film? I'm not a polarized person, evidenced by my ability to ride the fence for extended periods. I came out of Jupiter Ascending neither floored nor disappointed. It was good, not great.
What's worse than an eight foot tall robot with razor sharp pincer fingers and a penchant for beautiful women and murder? Nothing. Nothing is worse. Which is why Saturn 3 is so brilliant. There is a killer cast here: Kirk Douglas, Farrah Fawcett, Harvey Keitel and of course, the robot named Hector. The locale is incredible: somewhat claustrophobic halls and labs of a base carved into the surface of one of Saturn's moons. The atmosphere is creepy, silly and questionable, making this one of the most interesting films I've seen in the past few months.