Oh, I didn't really forget PEE WEE; I don't really think of it in the same class of films that Burton does today. It's a movie that looks like anyone could have done it, and you'll find almost none of Burton's style in it.

As for comic book movies, SUPERMAN I and II are fine, but they show their age (BATMAN will likely be in that category soon, it already is in a way due to that Prince soundtrack). UNBREAKABLE is a better movie than BATMAN, but it is not based on a comic book, and that's generally what I mean by "comic book movie"; UNBREAKABLE is an archetypal film--if someone made a movie with the same types of characters, you would not get comparisons to BATMAN or SUPERMAN because UNBREAKABLE is unique to the genre. In any case, I like the hell out of that first BATMAN because of Jack Nicholson, its dark mood, and Michael Keaton playing the most tortured, conflicted superhero we had seen before 1989 (Can you believe that's 15 years ago?). Almost every single comic book movie made since has followed its pattern--that's quintessential. I think any flaw that anyone can pick out of BATMAN stems from retrospect.

What Warner Brothers and Tim Burton did back then was to re-establish what a comic book movie should be, because SUPERMAN III and IV had veered the genre into some lame territory. You're seeing the same thing with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN--now filmmakers are veering from the mistakes those films made and making them better. As much as I dump on the X-MEN movies, they are far and away better films than those pieces of shit.

Actually, I'm quite surprised nowadays to see so much backlash over BATMAN, and so many people seem to even prefer BATMAN RETURNS. I thought pretty much everyone liked BATMAN when it came out...now there's criticism about one thing or another.

One other thing about TORQUE that might explain my disdain for it--I had to watch it early in the morning just before a shift in which I would work from 11 AM to 1 AM. I really tried to enjoy the picture "for what it is" but I found too much to dislike about it. I feel when a director shows off in such a way as to call attention to his own camerawork, it's distracting. And like I said, it would have been better for me if had been, believe it or not, MORE ridiculous. So my complaint about this movie--not ridiculous enough? Does that make sense? I say, have a 200 MPH chase in downtown traffic--yes--but also have the bikes drive onto cars (instead of avoiding them, which is why I found it to be...too sincere) and doing all sorts of impossible junk--I'd have Martin Henderson spin around and drive backwards, put on the brakes, and clothesline the bad guy, while saving a little girl from an oncoming car--now that would be fun!