Ranking The Batman Films (Worst To First)

After months of feverish anticipation, when The Dark Knight finally opens this Friday the big question likely won't be whether it's good, but HOW GOOD? Unfortunately, the hype is so out of control that anything less than a modern cinematic masterpiece would be considered disappointing. Me? I just want a great time.

Despite expectations being so high the good news for director Christopher Nolan is that all of the previous entries in the series (including his) are far from perfect and you could argue the definitive Batman film has yet to be made. Over the years the franchise has taken many forms and has had a rough history, proving to be a challenging character to efficiently translate to the big screen. So where will The Dark Knight rank? It could be at the top if Nolan avoids making the many mistakes listed below and sprinkled throughout various installments of the series. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

 
6. Batman and Robin (1997)
What Works:
Um…this is tough. Give me a second here. Well, Uma Thurman at least looks great in the Poison Ivy costume. I actually thought her performance wasn’t too bad either, and the casting of her and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze made sense on paper. The special effects and set pieces are impressive and Michael Gough does his best work as Alfred here. I guess it’s possible you can view it as the guiltiest of guilty pleasures if you’re in the mood. The unintentionally hilarious casting of George Clooney as Batman is good for a couple of points. At least now we can laugh. Yeah, I know, I’m grasping at straws here.

What Doesn’t:
How much time do you have? First off, Clooney obviously. Though in his defense there isn’t an actor alive who could have saved this and it's to his credit that he’s needlessly taken responsibility for the film’s failure in interviews. But he was the wrong choice and you could argue it’s the worst casting decision in the franchise’s history, with Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl coming in at a close second. And when did that character become Alfred’s niece?

Arnold is just plain laughable as Mr. Freeze. Chris O’ Donnell is wasted this time around as Robin. The dialogue is embarrassing, the special effects are just too much, nipples on the bat suit, the whole movie is a toy commercial, Elle McPherson. Yeah, that about covers it.

Verdict:
We all should all thank Schumacher. If he didn’t make this disaster the Batman franchise would not be experiencing the creative resurgence it is now.


5. Batman Forever (1995)
What works:
Val Kilmer does a decent job when in costume. Chris O’ Donnell is a great fit as Robin and his introduction is handled surprisingly well. Jim Carrey as the The Riddler works and Nicole Kidman’s Dr. Chase Meridian is easily the best love interest in all the Batman films, even if that's faint praise. It’s a visual feast that moves along at a spry pace and features a great soundtrack.

What Doesn’t:
Tommy Lee Jones gives the worst performance of his career as Two-Face. Aaron Eckhart should have an easy job wiping that painful memory away. Kilmer is wooden as Bruce Wayne. Carrey is annoying as Edward E. Nigma and his back story is ridiculous. Schumacher manages to find precisely the wrong tone for the franchise-all style, no substance at all. And what’s with that silly title?

Verdict:
Having recently re-watched and reviewed this, I was surprised it had some positive attributes. It could almost be considered a good movie, if you shut your brain off and look at it at for what it is. That said, this was the wrong direction for the series to go in and its follow-up proved it.


4. Batman: The Movie (1966)
What Works:
Adam West and Burt Ward are perfect as Batman and Robin (at least within the context and time period they’re presented). Cesar Romero, Frank Gorshin and Burgess Meredith steal the show as Joker, Riddler, and Penguin respectively. Despite cramming all those villains in the story manages to be very entertaining while effortlessly capturing the energy and spirit of the campy 60’s TV series.

What Doesn’t:
NO JULIE NEWMAR AS CATWOMAN. Lee Meriwether steps in and does about as good a job as can be expected, but Newmar’s absence is really felt. In fact, she currently holds the title for best performance as a Batman villain in the franchise’s history. In her prime she could show up in the Nolan films (or any of the others on this list) and just kill it. She was that good. The film is overcrowded with villains, the screenplay jams too much in and its tone prevents it from being viewed as anything more than a fun diversion or goofy nostalgia.

Verdict:
It’s a joke, but unlike Schumacher’s films, it’s intended to be. Part of me wonders what would happen if they re-made the ‘60’s TV series in this style today with current actors in the roles. Interesting fact: Cesar Romero actually refused to shave his mustache to play the Joker in both the show and the movie so they were forced to actually apply the make-up over it. C'mon Cesar, why so serious?


3. Batman Returns (1992)
What Works:
It's by far the most visually impressive Batman film of them all. The costume and production design deserve to go down as the some of the most memorable of the 90’s. When people think of what best represents Tim Burton’s visual artistry as a director this is always mentioned alongside Edward Scissorhands and it should be.

Michelle Pfeiffer is fantastic as Catwoman, but I think Danny DeVito is even better as the grotesque Penguin. Michael Keaton excels once again as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. A crazed Chistopher Walken, Danny Elfman’s score, a cameo from Pee-Wee Herman! What’s not to like? It’s the rare sequel that not only doesn’t suck, but builds on everything that was special about its predecessor.

What Doesn’t:
The screenplay. The scenes with Catwoman work well, but any with mousy secretary Selena Kyle and her ridiculous backstory don’t. The movie suffers from having to split time between her and Penguin and as a result, both villains suffer. Each really needed a film apiece to convey the depth of their stories and adding Walken to the mix didn’t help their cause. It has a “been there, done that” feel to it because Burton essentially made the same film as his original, but inserted different villains.

Verdict:
A lot of people consider this their favorite Batman film and I can see why. Despite the writing flaws, it’s mostly terrific.


2. Batman Begins (2005)
What Works:
The best acting of any Batman film. Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy. It doesn’t get any better than that. You can tell Christopher Nolan took the job of resuscitating this franchise seriously and the results clearly show on screen. It’s a tight origin story to re-establish the character and almost flawlessly directed. Like Keaton before him, Bale is awesome as Bruce Wayne AND Batman. If Schumacher found exactly the wrong tone, Nolan's feels just right.

What Doesn’t:
I'll give you a hint: She's married to Tom Cruise. All Maggie Gyllenhaal has to do is show up and she’ll likely make a better Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes. It’s not so much that Holmes gives a bad performance per se, just that she adds nothing to the role and shared little chemistry with Bale. But in her defense the Rachel character is thanklessly written and poorly developed, so it’s hard to distinguish how much of this can actually be attributed to her.

While played exceptionally well by Neeson and Murphy, Ra’s al Ghul and Scarecrow just aren’t strong, recognizable villains. Also, having two or more major villains never works as well as having a single strong one. It's a mistake that’s been made repeatedly in the franchise’s history and a potential problem to watch out for in The Dark Knight.

Verdict:
Nolan deserves a standing ovation. This was incredibly difficult to pull off, but he did and the film benefits from being completely unlike any other on this list. It really is a re-imagining, but I think he's capable of even more.



1. Batman (1989)
What Works:
Strong screenplay, strong visuals, Elfman’s score, Keaton’s performance, and it features the best looks for the bat suit, the batmobile and the batcave. Nearly everything clicks. It also proves why there should only be one main villain in a Batman film. And boy is it that villain ever a strong one.

At risk of eating these words later, I hope that regardless of what Heath Ledger does with his Joker,  that it isn’t lost on current audiences that Jack Nicholson really shines here. And no, I’m not among those who feel he “upstaged” the film or Keaton. When I think of Batman or Bruce Wayne I still think of Keaton immediately and while Bale may have been the best actor to play the role, he hasn’t changed that in my mind. At least not yet.

What Doesn’t:
Kim Basinger’s Vicky Vale, who’s a very bland, flavor-of-the-week love interest in a film that deserves better. Basinger’s performance is fine, but the character is a throwaway. To be honest, all these films have serious problems portraying strong female characters and this definitely isn't an exception. The movie hasn’t aged as well as I thought it would and that’s mainly because Burton has spent his entire career re-making it over and over again (most recently with Sweeney Todd), thus lessening its impact. His Gothic universe is really starting to wear out its welcome.

Verdict:
A very close call but this edges out Batman Begins, if just barely. It still holds the top slot but its grip is slipping.

From The Vault: Batman Forever

Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman, Chris O’Donnell, Drew Barrymore, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, Debi Mazar
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: PG-13
Release Date: 1995

**1/2 (out of ****)

Riddle me this: What big name director almost single-handedly ruined the Batman franchise over a decade ago? If you answered Joel Schumacher, congratulations. It took me almost 13 years to recover from the trauma of actually seeing this in theaters when it opened in 1995 and calm down enough to finally write this review. I figured it might be fun now to revisit a film I hated years ago and see if anything’s changed at all.

First, the good news. It’s not nearly as bad as I remembered it and this time around I did notice a few things the Batman Forever actually did really well that I had overlooked. Now the bad news. The things about it that didn’t work are still very much there, and one aspect in particular looks worse than I ever remembered it. It’s a performance actually. And it comes from an Academy Award winning actor. That this man is not only still working after giving a performance so awful, but was nominated for Best Actor this year as well as appearing in the year’s Best Picture, should be considered a miracle. He deserves credit for that at least. I don’t know many other actors whose reputations could survive giving a performance so mind blowingly terrible.

In a bizarre way, Batman Forever works for what it is: A joke. And I do think it works better now as one than it did 13 years ago. For those who found Burton’s versions too dark and depressing (I didn’t) and are searching for an alternative take on "The Dark Knight" this fits the bill. For Batman purists, however, it can’t be viewed as anything other than an abomination (although I do know a few diehards who love it). But on the bright side, at least it isn’t boring or uninteresting.

It’s worth noting that the DVD I’m reviewing isn’t the 2-disc Collectors Edition that was released in 2005 as part of the entire Batman series box set. Rather this is the crappy, bare bones, double-sided full screen and widescreen single disc edition that came out in 1997. I’m mentioning that because the DVD transfer is absolutely terrible and for a film whose primary assets are visual it made the viewing a more unpleasant experience than it should have been I’m sure. The colors are a little washed out and I could even swear the print was scratched (and this film isn’t THAT old). It looked more like Planet Terror than Batman Forever. For anyone who actually enjoyed the film (show of hands?) and owns this edition, without even viewing the other I can tell you it’s worth the upgrade. I’m disappointed because I was really curious to get Schumacher’s explanation for some of the nonsense he inflicted upon us.

I remember reading a review of this a while back that complained that you shouldn’t be able to tell a director’s sexual preference just by watching their film. That’s very funny…and also very true. All joking aside, it is interesting to analyze the decisions Schumacher made and his possible reasoning behind them. Although Tim Burton handed over the directorial reins to Schumacher he stayed on as a producer, but how much input he actually had in this effort we’ll never know. My guess is very little. In a questionable decision, Schumacher completely did away with Danny Elfman’s score from the Burton movies, but I thought it was the right call. It wouldn’t have fit this material and Elliot Goldenthal’s score here works. There’s no sense picking a fight over that.

The most controversial decision surrounded the casting of a stoic (some would say wooden) Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman because the fantastic Michael Keaton wisely passed on returning for a third outing. When I first saw the film I absolutely hated Kilmer’s performance with a passion but now seeing it again I realize he did the best he could in a thankless situation. He’s okay in the role and appropriately brooding when he needs to be, which is all the time. I’d rank his performance below Keaton’s (which I still believe is the definitive portrayal) and Bale’s but I’d have to see George Clooney’s interpretation again to determine how it ranks against that. Matching it up against Adam West’s seems a little ridiculous since that’s a whole different animal altogether. Kilmer does probably look the best in the actual costume and it’s an interesting factoid that Batman creator Bob Kane has said that of all the actors who have donned the bat suit, Kilmer is actually his favorite.

The plot of Batman Forever concerns Batman’s attempts to rescue a very colorful Gotham City from Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), who was previously known as District Attorney Harvey Dent before half his face was burned and horrifically disfigured by acid (which we see in a 15 second flashback). He’s joined by Edward E. Nigma a.k.a. The Riddler (Jim Carrey) a mad scientist employed by Wayne enterprises who goes off the deep end. Batman is joined in his fight against villainy by the young Dick Grayson (Chris O’Donnell) who has his sights set on Two-Face after he murdered his acrobatic circus performing parents in cold blood. He eventually takes on the moniker of Robin, but his role in this film is considerably less important than you may expect given the ads and the posters. Nicole Kidman is Dr. Chase Meridian, a clinical psychiatrist with a dual interest in Bruce Wayne and Batman, but not necessarily in that order.

Chris O’ Donnell has taken a thrashing for years for his performance as Robin, but really he’s perfect and this character is one of the few things this movie gets completely right. No one would have been a better fit for the part and I’m not sure what else people expected from him that he didn’t give. The scene where Two-Face kills his family (a big change from the comic) is the most effective of the film and he does a good job establishing his role in very little time. Another memorable scene where he steals the Batmobile and goes for a joyride is a clever idea that plays well. The only problem is that because Kilmer’s Batman/Bruce Wayne is fairly young he’s not quite believable as an older mentor to Robin. They seem more like equals both, joined by the murder of their parents at the hands of career criminals. The only remaining links left to Burton’s films are Pat Hingle’s Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough’s Alfred. Alfred is actually better utilized here than in Burton’s efforts and gets in some good one-liners. Sure, he’s no Michael Caine, but who is?

As big a fan as I am of everything Burton did with the franchise I have to admit Schumacher did one thing better. Nicole Kidman’s Dr. Chase Meridian completely blows Kim Basinger’s Vicky Vale out of the water as Batman’s love interest. First of all, my god does Kidman look amazing in this. I’d go as far as to say this probably the hottest female character you’re ever likely to see in a superhero movie. And to think the idiots at Warner Brothers actually resisted Schumacher’s attempts to cast Kidman, claiming she wasn’t sexy enough. I can’t imagine anyone not wanting to be trapped in the Batcave with her. But the character herself is interesting as well. She has feelings for both Batman and Bruce Wayne but can’t seem to reconcile either of them. And Bruce doesn’t really know how he should feel about it. Happy? Jealous? That’s how conflicted this guy is. It’s pretty funny to have a love interest whose only real goal in the movie is to screw Batman. You can’t tell me we’ve seen something like that before. Kidman is known for making strange, risk-taking film choices (even more so now) so it’s ironic that in even her most mainstream vehicle she still finds a way to make her role completely insane. She’s the real star of this movie.

The major problems in the film are with the villains and considering they eat up most of the screen time it does create a big issue. Jim Carry was hot off the heels of the success of Dumb and Dumber and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when he was cast in the role of The Riddler and it was, for the most part, a good choice. He’s clearly basing his performance on Frank Gorshin’s from the 1960’s television series and I can’t say that was a wrong way to go. I just wish he turned it down a notch and Oscar winner Akiva Goldsmith’s script didn’t contain so much of that mad scientist garbage at the beginning of the film. Can anyone explain to me what that brain sucking machine The Riddler created is even supposed to do? With those boxes in every home and people glued to their TV sets the entire silly premise brought back bad memories of Halloween III: Season of The Witch.

We know which team Schumacher plays for (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but was it really necessary to deck The Riddler out in eyeliner and mascara? He looked more like a drag queen than a criminal mastermind. Supposedly, Robin Williams was the original choice to play the role and I’m actually glad he didn’t get it. If Carrey was just a notch over-the-top than Williams would have needed a cage to contain his overacting. We dodged a bullet there. It’s a shame that Carrey guy never really went on to do anything else. I’m kidding of course. He went on to have a very respectable career… dressing as an elephant and shilling his movies on American Idol.

Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face is a complete disaster and nearly ruins the entire film. If Carrey was basing his Riddler on Gorshin than Jones was basing his Two-Face on Jack Nicholson’s Joker. Except he was trying to copy it, incorporating only the worst elements of that performance. With his annoying cackle and garish attire every second he’s on screen is nothing short of pure torture. Schumacher also felt it would be a good idea to give him a really pretty, colorful disfigurement because we all know how beautiful it looks when your badly burned face matches your suit. If Oscars were given for the worst achievement in costume and make-up this film would have them locked up. Not surprisingly, the "genius" make-up artist behind this endeavor is Rick Baker who you may recall from his Oscar-nominated work…in Norbit.

Besides rushing through Two-Face’s story arc too quickly and giving us virtually no backstory on him, serious creative liberties were taken as well, all of which hurt the character. In the comic he was known for his signature coin toss, which fatefully controls all of his evil decision-making. Here, like a petulant infant, he tosses the coin incessantly until he gets the desired result. Anton Sigurh this guy most definitely is not. He also has some arm candy to go along with his two personalities in Sugar and Spice (Drew Barrymore and Debi Mazar respectively). Barrymore looks good but barely has a single line of dialogue the entire film. Although he’s supposed to be the lead villain, Jones just ends up playing lackey to Carrey’s substantially more entertaining Riddler for most of the film.

The one saving grace of Two-Face (SPOILER AHEAD!) is that he meets a final, conclusive demise at the end, eliminating any chance of Tommy Lee Jones returning. The alternate ending which saw Two-Face sitting at the kitchen table with his wife complaining about how crime in Gotham city has passed him by as the screen fades to black was apparently rejected. I remember reading an interview with Jones a few months back where he first learned that Aaron Eckhart would be taking over the role of Harvey Dent a.k.a. Two-Face in this summer’s The Dark Knight. When asked if he was ever interested in reprising the role he answered simply: "No." It’s a relief that he has just as little interest playing the role again as I do seeing him in it. I’ve been so traumatized by his work in the film that my heart sank when I heard Two-Face was returning in any incarnation for a sequel, even though Eckhart could probably sleep walk through the role and still fare better than Jones. I just have no interest in seeing that character ever again. The sad part of it is that if The Riddler were just toughened up a little and Two-Face was excised from the movie entirely we could have really had something here.

This is just a guess but it seems Schumacher was going for the campy feel of the 60’s TV show with this movie. If he was he failed because even the worst episode of that terrific show was slightly better than this. He took those campy tendencies to new heights with his sequel, 1997’s Batman and Robin. Compared to that this almost looks restrained. And the title of this film I’ll never understand. Batman…Forever? It sounds like a musical. What’s scarier was there was actually another Schumacher helmed sequel planned that would have been called…Batman Triumphant. Who comes up with these titles? With his gigantic set pieces, bat-suits with nipples and rainbow color schemes Schumacher’s primary goal was to sell a lot of toys and make tons of money. Second on the agenda was making a good movie. That he almost accomplished the latter could be chalked up as an accident. I realize now that Schumacher is really guilty of only one crime: Going too far.

Amazingly, this film scored three Academy Award nominations for Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Sound, the most of any Batman film to date. It kills me to admit it but those nominations weren’t necessarily undeserved, as it’s a great looking and sounding film. Schumacher was trying to stage a full-on assault on our senses and provide an amusement park thrill ride, so to that end this could be considered a success. It’s surprisingly well-paced and ends before you even know it started, never dragging once during its two hour running time. It played much better for me this time, but as tempting as it may be, I still can’t recommend it because, well, it’s just not a very good movie. I will say this is a better film than Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns, but that doesn’t mean I’m eager to give Schumacher a third chance to redeem himself.

The biggest revelation to come out of my re-watching of Batman Forever was that I didn’t hate it. Maybe I’ve just softened with age or it could be that because Christopher Nolan has successfully resurrected the franchise I’m able to put my bitterness toward the film behind me and put it in its proper historical context. It can now be viewed as an interesting cinematic curiosity and an alternative interpretation of an iconic character. Tilda Swinton’s hilarious Oscar acceptance speech this year got me thinking about Schumacher’s Batman films again and made me wonder how history will judge them and him. It’s never good when your movies have become the punch line of an Oscar joke. And in case you were wondering, yes, I am eventually planning to review Batman and Robin, with a very special emphasis on George Clooney’s performance.

Schumacher survived this, but that’s not to say his career ever fully recovered. He went on to direct solid features like Tigerland and Phone Booth and not so solid ones like The Number 23 starring his old pal Jim Carrey. Looking at the glass as half-full, we can thank Schumacher for his mistakes because without them we probably wouldn’t be enjoying the emergence of more serious superhero movies like Batman Begins and the upcoming Iron Man and The Dark Knight films. Unfortunately, the negative effects of his work can still be seen on films like The Fantastic Four series. His greatest contribution is that by turning Batman into a joke he unintentionally caused us to appreciate what makes superhero films special to begin with…at least the ones not directed by him.

The Number 23

Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen, Danny Huston, Logan Lerman, Rhona Mitra
Running Time: 108 min. Rating: Unrated

**1/2 (out of ****)

Joel Schumacher is a director who possesses a talent not many filmmakers can claim to have, or would want. He has the ability to make even the most extraordinary story seem pedestrian. He's been doing this his entire career with the lone exception of 2003's Phone Booth, but that had a script so strong Ed Wood couldn't have botched it. His latest, The Number 23 starring Jim Carrey in a rare dramatic departure, unfortunately continues the curse of Schumacher.

This is really a tale of two movies. One of which is completely ridiculous while the other is somewhat engaging. Schumacher is helped however by a strong, risk taking performance by Carrey that peaks late in the third act and a script by Fernley Phillips that actually contains some interesting ideas. I'd go as far as to say the actual concept behind the story is one of the best in a while and the script for the most part delivers. This could have been a very good movie, maybe even a great one. It's too bad Schumacher wasn't interested in telling the story, or more accurately, he was too interested in telling it in a way that would damn it with ineffectiveness. As a result, minor story problems become major ones and a film with a lot of promise falls short.

Carrey plays Walter Sparrow a mild mannered dogcatcher who on his birthday receives an interesting, mysterious gift from his wife Agatha (Virginia Madsen). It's a book titled "The Number 23" written under the pseudonym of Topsy Kretts that she found at a used bookstore in the neighborhood. From the very first chapter Walter notices the book contains remarkable similarities to his own life. I should pause to say that these "remarkable similarities" aren't that remarkable at all and anyone could probably pick up any random book from the store and find similar coincidences if they looked for them. Amazingly though, and to the script's credit, this is actually acknowledged by his wife. The story itself tells of a detective named Fingerling (also played by Carrey) investigating the death of the "Suicide Blonde" whose obsession with the number 23 led her to take the life of herself and her boyfriend. Soon Fingerling himself becomes obsessed with unraveling the mystery of the number. Instead it leads him into a violent descent of madness and torment that strains his relationship with his lover Fabrizia (Madsen again).

Like his alter ego, Walter begins an investigation into the number and discovers certain names, addresses, time periods, and birth dates in his own life all add up to or involve the number 23 in some way. He's soon scribbling all over the walls and his body determined to solve the riddle, whatever it may be. Walter also discovers the book is tied to a real murder of a woman (Rhona Mitra) and is determined to find the author who he's convinced is responsible for it, even if it means involving his son (Logan Lerman) and destroying his marriage. The trailer would lead you to believe the actual number 23 figures significantly into the story but it doesn't. At least not how you think it does. It's really just a red herring. However, the book "The Number 23" is very important and the mystery behind that pays off big.

This is a film with a double structure, but unfortunately one structure is far superior to the other. When we're in real life with Walter attempting to unlock the mysteries of the book the movie is smart and gripping, but the detective story within the book is so bad that it's flat-out painful to watch. If you've always wanted to see Jim Carrey as a hard boiled, tormented, tattooed womanizing film noir detective then these scenes are for you. If you're like me and don't then these scenes play like bad outtakes and bloopers from Sin City. Imagine Schumacher directing a 1940's film noir but with the same sensibility he brought to Batman & Robin and you have a good idea how these scenes play out. I'd imagine this is one of those cases where everything plays much better on page than on screen because Schumacher shoots this in his typical self-masturbatory music video style with lightening speed cuts that completely distract from the story. That makes nearly the entire first half of the film unwatchable.

Carrey does the best he can as this detective but the fact he's terribly miscast in this type of role is inescapable. You know these scenes are bad when the fascinating thing I can find about them is that Virginia Madsen looks better with dark hair. Luckily for us the novel ends at chapter 22 and the rest of the movie deals with him trying to figure out who wrote it and why. There's also a psychiatrist (played in both stories by Danny Huston) who Walter/Fingerling suspects is having an affair with Agatha/Fabrizia. This character is pretty much useless but thankfully for Huston his supporting role here isn't embarrassing as his unfortunate one 2004's disturbing Birth. For me it was just a relief to see him in a movie where he's not publicly spanking reincarnated little boys.

The last half hour of this film with its big twist ending is kind of a cheat and silly, but I have to be honest and say it was entertaining as hell. Carrey may have been miscast in the role of noir detective but he excels as a tormented man wrestling with his own obsession and insanity as he completely owns the third act of the film. It helps that toward the end the movie finally explores the existential crisis of a man realizing a book may have been based on his life. I couldn't help but be reminded of Stranger Than Fiction as I watched even though that film was a dramatic comedy and this is a mystery/suspense thriller. Both do involve the main characters coming to the realization their lives are not what they think they are. I was surprised Phillips' script did at least attempt to explore some ideas and when I look back on it the plot does add up and make sense. This is a film that would probably play better on a second viewing, even if I regret to inform you that I will not be partaking in one anytime soon.

The Number 23 is somewhat similar to Premonition in tone and execution except the script here is competent and Carrey is a better dramatic actor than Bullock. Plus, unlike that mess, you can actually follow the plot. What really would have helped this film is if Schumacher stopped showing off and told the novel's story the same interesting way he told Walter's. After all, everyone can relate to a character who thinks they're the star of their own life story. Had that been filmed not as a joke, but with realism and feeling then the remaining pieces would have fallen into place to make this a success. I remember reading the synopsis of this film when it was in pre-production years ago and being excited and optimistic about the promising premise. Now I'm just left wondering what could have been.