You can see the most recently posted comments here, 8 at a time; or, if you prefer, we've got a news feed...
Arthur B on Lumley's Little Bites
at 10:58 on 22-02-2017 - link
No need - I don't feel like I'm missing out horrendously from not having read it.
Looking at The Taint, it's a collection of Lumley's longer Mythos stories, which I think helps a bit since he's able to develop his ideas more convincingly.
Shim on Lumley's Little Bites
at 22:38 on 21-02-2017 - link
The Horror at Oakdeene, a rarely-reprinted Lumley story that, based on what I am able to discover about it, seems to be a fairly simple “asylum inmates attempt to summon a Great Old One” deal
I actually have this one - it's in The Taint. Happy to pass it along if you'd like.
Happily it also contains The House of the Temple, which I agree was one of the strongest stories and is a good implementation of the trope. My take from that very small selection of 7 stories is that Lumley works best when he shakes off the Derleth/Lovecraft style and writes something a bit looser and more natural.
- Arthur B on Lumley's Little Bites at 13:59 on 19-02-2017 - link I think it was a combination of the Necroscope series losing my interest and the Titus Crow novels being rage-inducingly bad.
Helter Shelter on Lumley's Little Bites
at 11:18 on 19-02-2017 - link
Excellent review as always.
May I ask what it was that put you off Lumley in when you were younger?
Jubal on The Self-Hating Pantomime
at 18:59 on 27-01-2017 - link
Oh yeah, agreed. I should have mentioned the fact that it completely wimps out of the Alfred subplot. Understandable for a cartoonish film, but certainly not for the tone the subplot was aiming for. Perhaps if they'd made it "Alfred's sick and Batman must find a cure before it's too late" from the start, it might have fit better.
The genuinely tender moments between Bruce and Alfred have stuck with me though, as much as Arnie and Uma chewing the day-glo scnenery.
Arthur B on The Self-Hating Pantomime
at 17:00 on 27-01-2017 - link
Bruce Wayne having to deal with the fact that Alfred is mortal and, even assuming the best possible outcomes, is near-certain to predecease him is, I agree, a good idea for a subplot... but it would work a lot better shifted to a different Batman movie. Not an outright un-cartoony one, but a less cartoony one - if there was just a bit less of a gulf between the "woo wow cartoon badassery" sections and the "Um, this is something our badassery can't fix" sections you wouldn't lose the audience when swinging over the chasm between them.
It doesn't help that, as it turns out, this is actually a problem which Bruce totally can punch and superscience his way out of: Alfred's sick with an earlier stage of the same disease Mr. Freeze's wife has, and after defeating Mr. Freeze (with punching) and proving to him that it was Poison Ivy that tried to defrost Mrs. Freeze (using superscience - well, a tablet screen, but that was superscience in 1997), he's able to convince Freeze to hand over the cure (which is also superscience).
So fighting baddies and using whizzy gadgets turned out to be the solution after all, which rather chickens out of the "This is actually a problem that there is no neat solution to" angle. That's the other reason I think it should have been saved for a less cartoonish Batman movie - if you are going to do that confronting mortality thing, you need it to be in a setting where mortality is actually a problem, otherwise what you get is hollow, insincere, and unsatisfying. Woo, yay, Batman can defeat mortality by punching the right person. That's certainly an approach to the universal dilemma of entropy that we audience members can relate to!
The writing for Robin here was just a bit odd and I honestly don't entirely blame O'Donnell for struggling with it - you're right that it seems to assume he's much younger than he actually is, which is odd because he was a returning cast member from Batman Forever so it's not like Goldsman didn't know who he was writing for. (Also, wasn't he an adult in the previous film?) Plus the whole "Batman isn't sure he can keep Robin safe" subplot seems really off. It seems like something that should really have been part of Robin's origin story, rather than something that's handled later, and it relies on Batman showing a Very Specific Level of concern - namely, he's worried enough to be paternalistic and overprotective, but he's not worried enough to leave Dick at home.
I just checked the Razzie results for the 1998 ceremony and it turns out Uma lost the Worst Supporting Actress Razzie she was nominated for to... Alicia Silverstone, for her Batgirl role. That, I think, is entirely fair: aside from the fact that I honestly think Uma's performance was actually pretty good by the standards of the sort of movie this was trying to be, Alicia is outright awful in this. She somehow manages to be too cheesy in the serious bits whilst at the same time not convincingly embracing the cheese in the cartoonish bits, so she ends up being in the worst of all possible worlds.
O'Donnell also got a worst supporting actor nomination (along with Arnie as Freeze), but lost out in favour of slamming Dennis Rodman, whose Double Team performance meant that movie got 3 wins to Batman & Robin's 1. Also The Postman got 5 awards during the year, and this was the same year that Speed 2 beat Batman & Robin for worst sequel/remake.
Man, what was with Hollywood in 1997? That's like an incredible year for awful movies.
Jubal on The Self-Hating Pantomime
at 16:33 on 27-01-2017 - link
I think part of the trouble with the Alfred subplot is not simply that it exists at all in a film that should have stuck to neon-hued BIFF POW KERTHWACK campery, but that taken purely on its own terms it works quite well. As a tale of a young man forced to confront mortality in his father figure in a way he can't just thump or use gadgets against, contrasting with Alfred's calmly stoic acceptance, those scenes really do come off. Clooney seems much happier working with those parts than the campery, and of course a veteran thesp like Gough has no trouble with it, and the effect is to throw the awkward inconsistencies into even sharper relief than if it was something that could just be glossed over.
And, of course, there's Chris O'Donnell. Quite why anyone decided to cast him in the role is beyond me. Not only is he generally not very good, but an awful lot of his lines and scenes in here seem to assume he's about fifteen or so, which O'Donnell is very evidently not. Burt Ward was also in his twenties when he played the TV Robin, but looked young enough to get away with it.
Arthur B on The Self-Hating Pantomime
at 21:23 on 26-01-2017 - link
Batman and Robin certainly didn't make a loss, but it was the least profitable of that run of Batman films to the tune of about $100 million - and crucially, it only made a profit because it had decent overseas box office returns. As I understand it, the big studios tend to regard films as a failure if they don't get a profit on the domestic box office alone; that may be less true these days, but it was probably more true in the 1990s.
Plus it made a lot of its money in the first week or so; once the word of mouth got out its returns tanked.