1upmushroom wrote:I'm surprised Phlibbit hasn't responsded, being a burton fan.
I'm much, much more of a Batman fan than I am a Burton fan, although I like a lot of Burton's stuff. If you didn't know, I've written Batman-related comic book reviews for years over at
Batman-On-Film and started doing others over at
Modern Myth Media.
Anyway, about the Batman films specifically: they're all good in one way or another. It's just a testament to how versatile Batman is as a character. Think about just how many interpretations we've seen over the years from the comics, movie serials, movies, cartoons, games, etc. He just "works" as long as the core aspects of the character are maintained. Some of the films (like Burton's) don't adhere to some of these, but those errors are forgivable because of everything else those films brought to the genre and the character.
So anyway, I'll let you know kind of my overall take on the films but I really can't rate them because they're all so different. Some of them you can watch over and over and some you kind of have to psyche yourself up to watch them.
1upmushroom wrote:Let's face it, in terms of film franchises Batman has been treated very well. Granted,there have been flops, it's mostly gold. Here are my honest opinions. Be aware this are my opinions only.
1. Batman 1989: 5 out of 5. Simplly, the perfect Batman film. It's action packed, it has serious moments, Jack Nicholson as the Joker, an amazing score by Danny Elfman, and of course it's seriously yet very goofy at the same time.
It's good. Not perfect by any means--it's quite flawed as a film actually. But it's just so
different, especially for the time it was made. Anton Furst's set design is brilliant and it gives the whole atmosphere of the film this timeless kind of quality that I think really suits the story that was being told. Keaton was such an inspired choice for Bruce Wayne/Batman but again, it perfectly fit with what Tim Burton wanted to do with the character. Nicholson's Joker also works in the context of the film--he really reminds me of the Joker from the 1970s Rogers/Engelhart stories. And of course, Danny Elfman's score is just brilliant.
1upmushroom wrote:2. Batman Returns: 4 out of 5. A superb sequel with great style, great action scenes, Danny Devito as the Penguin, and another great score. However, the problem with this sequel is that it's a bit more darker than needed. Also since it's so dark, you need to be in a certain mood to enjoy it.
Other than the Nolan films, Batman Returns is one of the Batman films I respect the most. It has the most thought put into it out of a vast majority of superhero films in terms of the characters and themes. It's just brilliant on so many levels. The mood and atmosphere, the darkness really works for the film. Like I said earlier (and like you stated, 1up), it's a film you really have to be in a certain mood to watch but it's held up very well over the years in my opinion. DeVito as the Penguin was so interesting, and while a lot of people don't like the direction Burton took the character because it's nothing like the comics, I thought it was really great. There wasn't a whole lot of substance to the character at the time the film was made and I think he was probably the most tricky thing to integrate into the film.
Just read some of the early Sam Hamm drafts for "Batman II" and you'll see what I mean--the Penguin in that script is just horrible. While Batman Returns started the trend of "focusing" on the villains, it makes sense here because of the reflections they all have between one another (Batman/Catwoman/Penguin/Max Shreck). Studio involvement could've been a lot worse for this film, by the way--in early drafts Shreck was actually Penguin's brother (which I think is kind of interesting) and Marlon Wayans was cast as Robin. Burton cut that stuff out of the film though so it wouldn't be so crowded and I'm glad he focused on the characters that he did.
Overall, it's not "my Batman" but it's one hell of a
film.
1upmushroom wrote:3. Batman Forever: 3 out of 5. Not a bad sequel, but it's a bit silly now and by far the first Batman managed to get the balance right. Though I enjoyed the set very well with the neon and all.
This film had a lot going for it, but studio involvement, bad casting and dumbing down of the script really hurt the film overall. Tommy Lee Jones was a horrible, horrible Two-Face and I don't know if that's his fault, or the script's, or Schumacher's (a lot of fans think it was Tommy Lee's fault). Overall, Tommy Lee's Two-Face is trying too hard to be the Joker and Jim Carrey's Riddler is trying too hard to be Frank Gorshin's Riddler. The whole thing feels like a amped-up version of the 60s show although Batman & Robin was even worse for that.
A lot of the themes they attempted to explore were very good ones in terms of Bruce's struggle with giving up being Batman and his interactions with Dick Grayson, but they cut all the good stuff out of the film. Schumacher's Director's Cut would fix a LOT of problems I have with this film and it would be much better because of it.
1upmushroom wrote:4. Batman amd Robin: 1 out of 5. It sucks, but you already know that.
Although Batman & Robin is a rushed, hopeless cash-in that they only made two years after Batman Forever, it has a few (and I mean a
few) redeeming qualities. Mainly the stuff with Bruce and Alfred.
Think about it--George Clooney is one hell of an actor, and he was in this film way before he made it big in Hollywood. With the right script and director, Clooney could've made a fantastic Bruce Wayne/Batman.
Also, if you can find it online, there's a fanedit of this film called
Batman & Robin: De-assified in which an attempt was made to remove all the camp and crap from the movie. It's an interesting watch.
For some other cool tidbits about the film,
check out my thread over at BOF about my observations from the
B&R "Making Of" book.
1upmushroom wrote:5. Batman Begins: 4 out of 5. Not sure about this one. I just like it, it's a good reboot.
I don't get people's current dislike or backlash toward Nolan's films. I just don't get it. These films are fantastic, and they're the DEFINITIVE versions of the character. The other films are great interpretations, but what Nolan did will stand the test of time.
It's like Nolan and Goyer took Bill Finger and Bob Kane's original concept and ideas for Batman and translated it into plausible reality and they really gave weight to Bruce Wayne's plight and his journey. Nolan's Batman is "my Batman," plain and simple. Of the Nolan films so far,
Begins is the most rewatchable and timeless. I have a good hunch that many of the themes here are going to carry on into
The Dark Knight Rises.
1upmushroom wrote:6. The Dark Knight: 4 out of 5. Great movie for one reason. Heath Ledger as the Joker. Other than it's too gritty for Batman to be taken seriously. I mean it's a man in a Bat suit beating up a man in clown makeup for Godsake.
The Joker is only one reason why this film is so great. Like I said above with how the filmmakers approached Batman, "Team Nolan" did the same for the Joker. They do a great job of getting to the "core" of these characters and making them work in a realistic context.
Still, TDK is a hard film for repeat viewings just because of the depressing nature of the story and its outcome--but it is essential for what makes Batman important and what makes him a symbol.
