In retrospect, Batman(1989) is really baadd

[Greg Cox]

Hell, I could make the same argument for the Superman movie (the 1979 one) where the "big reveal" of Superman comes after probably almost 30 minutes of story build up when Lois is in the crashing helicopter.

.

That's a judgment call. I love the Donner movie, but I also have vivid memories of taking my little brothers and sisters to see it. Long before the Fortress of Solitude, they were all squirming impatiently. "Where is Superman?"

Not an unreasonable question.

The problem with extended origin stories is that the first movie often ends up feeling like an extended prologue to the movie you really want to see. Which may explain why the second film in a superhero series is often the most popular. The origin stuff is over and they can finally get around to giving you a full-length SPIDER-MAN movie or whatever.

 

[Gojira]

I was in my late 20s when Batman 89 came out. I watched it again this winter and I still like it a great deal. Yes it is slow compared to today's standards and that makes me wonder if our movies reflect short attention spans or our hectic lifestyles?

Sorry for my digression. I think Keaton did a fantastic job as Wayne/Batman. I too was worried when he was fist cast but I really think he pulled it off.

I think Burton's Batman harkens back to a comic book style mixed with film noir type of movie. Nolan's Batman is more realistic and less of a comic book style.

I like both flavors of Batman movies (I even like the 66 Batman movie and series with Adam West) and they all are different artistic takes on the character.

Batman Returns was still enjoyable but I actually like Batman Forever better. I liked the addition of Chris O'Donnel as Robin and the fact that Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson did not have a smooth transition into a partnership. I like Bruce struggling with his need to be Batman. The villains are a bit too campy for my taste but all in all a good movie.

I cannot stand Batman and Robin and it is a testament to how far the franchise fell in quality from the 89 Batman.

 

[od0_ital]

Not to mention the sneaky misdirection where you think you're watching Batman's origin, but it turns out to be just a random family whom Batman rescues . . . .

Batman doesn't rescue that family in the beginnin'. They got robbed, the muggers ran away, and Batman caught up with 'em while they were dividin' up the loot on the rooftop.

 

[broberfett]

I didn't think it lived up to the hype in 1989 either, but I thought it was the only truly good Batman of the Burton era. Looking at it now on TV for the first time in ages, it has bad dialogue, mediocre production design, sub par FX (noticeable green/blue screen errors) poor acting, and the worst Bruce Wayne/Batman ever. Compare it to the Batman Begins movie...that WAS ABOUT BATMAN! This is about Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery. What a miserable film. I'm even sad I own it on DVD (but didn't watch it when I bought it--now that was a sign).

Edit: OK the music is pretty good...

RAMA

I agree totally. I never got into the hype over it. I am glad that it resulted in the wonderful Batman the Animated Series though.

 

[RAMA]

An origin story that didn't make you realize it WAS an origin story? Now that can't be good, can it...

RAMA

It's actually brilliant.

Look, I agree with all your criticisms about the film. It's not all that great. But you can't hold this against it. I'd love to see more comic book movies done that way!

Its obviously an origin story, right from the first SCENE! He had to tell the criminals who he was and spread the word. Nothing brilliant about it. If you didnt realize then they didn't do their job, or you were too busy eating popcorn.

Agreed. While there's certain aspects that are clearly dated now (the effects, those awful Prince songs), I think the way Burton was able to capture the pulpy, operatic, larger than life world of the original comics holds up perfectly.

Superman is much older, more dated, but a MUCH better movie and origin story, so the year does not make any difference. Poor matting and model work in a big budget Hollywood movie in 1989 is also inexcusable.

RAMA

 

[Too Much Fun]

I don't have a lot of attachment to this movie. I was too young to see it when it came out, so I only had enthusiasm for merchandise related to it, like action figures and trading cards. I didn't see it till I was much older and by then I didn't care much. There's just one criticism I have to take issue with, even as someone who isn't a big fan of the movie:

mediocre production design

What? There are only two things in this movie I think everyone should acknowledge as objectively excellent - the Batman theme music and the production design. The look of Gotham City is marvelous. By far more original and creative than anything else in it. Tim Burton's early movies always looked amazing, they just didn't always have characters and stories as interesting and wonderfully three-dimensional as the look of the worlds they lived in.

 

[RandyS]

I didn't think it lived up to the hype in 1989 either, but I thought it was the only truly good Batman of the Burton era. Looking at it now on TV for the first time in ages, it has bad dialogue, mediocre production design, sub par FX (noticeable green/blue screen errors) poor acting, and the worst Bruce Wayne/Batman ever. Compare it to the Batman Begins movie...that WAS ABOUT BATMAN! This is about Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery. What a miserable film. I'm even sad I own it on DVD (but didn't watch it when I bought it--now that was a sign).

RAMA

I loved it when I was 10 or 11, but I watched it 5 or so years ago, and I agree; it hasn't held up at all.

I was 19 when it came out, and to this day it was the longest line I have ever seen for ANY movie ever, and it was the 10 o'clock showing!! It was almost a riot.

RAMA

I was also 19 when it out and and a similar experience. We arrived an hour early and my family (mom, brothers and stepdad) went into the arcade while my best friend and I went into the theater and saved everybody seats. And it's a good thing we did, because even at an hour ahead of time the theater was already standing room only. This was back when they showed those old movie trivia films (anybody remember those?) before the previews. My friend and I sat through seven showings of that while we waited for the movie. Suffice it to say, we got REALLY good at the answers.

That said, I disagree that the movie is bad. I recently re-watched all seven movies in order, and to me, 1989 is still the best of the four Burton/Shumacker films. Actually, it's the best Batman film period.

 

[StarTrek1701]

RAMA is blasphemous!

I think it did hold up pretty well and still one of my favorite movies of all time. Keaton was quite good as Batman, Bale is too, but Bale's "growling" is a sound for sore ears!

 

[Aeon]

I love Batman Returns! It's one of my favorite Christmas movies.

The 1989 film on the other hand... I don't really like it.

 

[Dream]

I thought Batman was okay. I thought Batman Returns was better though.

 

[Frontier]

It's nice to hear some folks who also see the 89-97 Batman films as less-than. I've felt so alone on this front for so many years.

I think they can be easily divided without anyone admitting any faults or failings.

Batman 89, 92 where the best example of gothic batman on film. Batman 95 and 97 put the comic into comic-book. And Batman 05, 08 have been the most realistic.

They've all been true to one vision of the Bat, just different ones.

When you set aside your favorite vision though, and look at the meat and potatoes of the film as just a film, it provides different points of view.

As a film, Batman 89 is pretty sucky. Actors, script, casting, portrayals. It's just a bad movie, that is also the best version of gothic Batman.

Batman 92 was gothic gone grotesque and farther-fetched. It was overkill on the good aspects of 89. The acting was just as bad. The script was worse. The casting was a little better.

Batman 95 was an attempt to balance, that in the end, fell short. The casting was the worst at the time, but the story was a little better.

Batman 97 was just a farce, that will forever haunt us.

Batman 05 takes a bit too much air out of the tires of the fantasy, brings things so far down to earth it kind of hurts at first. It finally gave us good actors though.

 

[Shazam!]

An origin story that didn't make you realize it WAS an origin story? Now that can't be good, can it...

Actually, that's fucking brilliant filmmaking.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Speaking of origin films, Batman (89) is a more coherent, more internally consistent film than Batman Begins. IMO, of course.

 

[scnj]

The first draft screenplay of the '89 Batman is one of the best screenplays I've ever read. Unfortunately, the film doesn't live up to it, mainly because I've never liked Nicholson's Joker.

 

[Shazam!]

Batman 05 takes a bit too much air out of the tires of the fantasy, brings things so far down to earth it kind of hurts at first. It finally gave us good actors though.

Somebody needs to tell Nolan that Batman is a character in a kid's comic.

 

[C_Miller]

Batman 05 takes a bit too much air out of the tires of the fantasy, brings things so far down to earth it kind of hurts at first. It finally gave us good actors though.

Somebody needs to tell Nolan that Batman is a character in a kid's comic.

If that's the case, you need to tell some of the comic book creators first...

 

[Starkers]

Ah the Summer of 89...I couldn't wait for Batman, but when I saw it...I dunno, I wasn't hugely impressed. I think I'd just overhyped it in my head; with repeat viewings I like it better, but I still much prefer Returns. Nicholson was poorly cast IMO, and overshadows Batman too much. Keaton's great, I thought it was good casting at the time and still do now. Much as I like TDK, it is (as with far too many modern films) somewhat long and bloated. I still think the toss up for my favourite Batman films is between Begins and Returns. I do kinda like Forever but obviously B&R is the worst!

Burton's notion of Gotham is wonderfully gothic, but it also feels too much like a set at times (a great set but still) whereas Nolan's gotham (especially in TDK) feels a lot more ordinary, but also feels like a real City.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I remember the hype for this that year. It seemed that no other movie had ever been so hyped as this one. For many of us who weren't comic buffs, it came as a surprise to see that Batman wasn't going to be played for laughs, that there was going to be a dark, action-packed movie. And most of us approved of the casting of Nicholson (though once I saw Beetlejuice, I wondered why Burton didn't just put Keaton in that role).

I have to say, for me the movie just spectacularly failed to live up to the hype. It looked great, had a great score and I enjoyed Jack's performance (though it was more about Jack being Jack than being Joker). But it dragged in places and Batman was a supporting character in his titular movie.

I've seen it a few times since and leaving aside my qualms about disregarding aspects from the comic (Batman killing people, Joker killing the Waynes, Gordon not being at all like his comic equivalent, Keaton not being my idea of Bruce Wayne), I still think it's just an okay movie. Compared to the likes of Die Hard or Lethal Weapon from around the same era it just doesn't hold up. I don't think it's anywhere near as good a movie as Superman The Movie, never mind Batman Begins.

I wouldn't describe Batman as really bad but I now think Batman Returns has dated so badly and when it came out, I thought it better than its predecessor. Now I see it and it's only marginally better than the 1966 movie.

 

[Marc]

Gotta disagree here. This is my favorite Batman movie. Gorgeous visuals, atmosphere, music.

I admire the new films, too, but they're almost a little too "realistic." To my mind, there's nothing in them to match, say, that great shot of the Joker's bleached hand rising from the green toxic waste, or the Batmobile racing through a shadowy forest with autumn leaves blowing in its wake.

That's pure pulp poetry!

Agreed 100%. Also, I liked Burton's Gotham better than Nolan's. Gotham City is supposed to have as much of a personality as any flesh and blood character. It's supposed to dark and dirty and noir-ish, and Burton nailed this. Nolan's Gotham could be any city.

Gotham had character in the fillm?

maybe in the green screen/matte painting shots but at the ground level, it looked like it was filmed on a studio backlot

 

[Misfit Toy]

Gotta disagree here. This is my favorite Batman movie. Gorgeous visuals, atmosphere, music.

I admire the new films, too, but they're almost a little too "realistic." To my mind, there's nothing in them to match, say, that great shot of the Joker's bleached hand rising from the green toxic waste, or the Batmobile racing through a shadowy forest with autumn leaves blowing in its wake.

That's pure pulp poetry!

Some good backgrounds and models, just not shot very well. Design work was nice, it just comes together badly and looks cheap. Studio lot sets don't do the movie justice at all and wastes the effort by Anton Furst. The "acid-waste" was cartoony. The models look fake, especially the bat plane.

Burton has made a few good movies, but he's no genius. Most of his movies fall flat, style over stubstance. His casting of movies is often terrible.

I think you're judging the movie based on 2011 standards. Judged on 1989 standards, it deserved all of the accolades that it received at the time.