"Batman (1989)".

[DarthBoy]

Anyone remembered when it came out in 1989? i sure as hell did when i was 7 seeing this in a theater back in the summer of 1989, made me a Batman fan.

[Super Aurora]

Joker was A M A Z I N G. Period

[Disney-Fan]

Horrible movie. Terribly overrated. And the Joker? Pardon the pun, but he was a total joke.

[PixarFan2006]

I have never seen ANY of the Batman movies. I think he is one of the most overrated superheros in my opinion.

[darth_deetoo]

I remember seeing it on the release date in the UK. I think we had a strike at work that day over some pay issues, and so had a chance to go to the first showing in my town. This was back in the days before we had a multiplex and it was a bit of a fleapit cinema (now closed down). The crowds were massive, and everyone was really pumped for it.

It got a lot of criticism for lack of plot, and the Joker overshadowing Batman - but the villains are one of the big things about the Batman comics, and I thought Michael Keaton gave an excellent, understated performance as Batman / Bruce Wayne. I still think he was one of the best Batmen.

I still think it holds up well today and is a great example of a superhero film. The Spidey films may have overshadowed it in technical terms, but it still ranks as one of the best superhero films ever made, up there with Spidey and Superman.

[DarthPrime]

Batman was a great film... hey it still is.

I don't remember seeing it in the theater, but I do remember watching it when it came out on VHS. Sadly after Batman the sequels slowly went downhill before hitting rock bottom with Batman and Robin.

Anyway Batman is still one of my favorite superhero movies, and at one time it was easily my favorite Batman film. That is until Batman Begins came out.

[Lazario]

Horrible movie. Terribly overrated. And the Joker? Pardon the pun, but he was a total joke.

No way - the movie was amazing!

Maybe you didn't like it because it's very cold, dark, manic, black, and mean-spirited. All of which it was. But it was just brilliant beyond brilliant. And I loved every single damn second of it. And I still do - which I can't say about too many movies. It's not horrible by any means.

And the Joker was amazing too. So Evil... So Cruel... So Funny! In fact, "a joke"? How do you figure that? He was so incredibly serious and vicious. What did you expect? Something more in line with Jim Carrey's interpretation of The Riddler? Jack Nicholson's Joker is one of the most timelessly entertaining villains in film history!

The film also had amazing music, production design, camerawork, sets, and a supporting cast to die for.

[Disney-Fan]

Horrible movie. Terribly overrated. And the Joker? Pardon the pun, but he was a total joke.

No way - the movie was amazing!

Well, to each his own I guess. It was far from amazing to me.

Maybe you didn't like it because it's very cold, dark, manic, black, and mean-spirited. All of which it was. But it was just brilliant beyond brilliant. And I loved every single damn second of it. And I still do - which I can't say about too many movies. It's not horrible by any means.

It's not horrible, no, but I didn't see a damn thing special about it (storywise, characters etc).
And for the record, I live for cold, dark movies. They're usually the coolest ones!

And the Joker was amazing too. So Evil... So Cruel... So Funny! In fact, "a joke"? How do you figure that? He was so incredibly serious and vicious. What did you expect? Something more in line with Jim Carrey's interpretation of The Riddler? Jack Nicholson's Joker is one of the most timelessly entertaining villains in film history!

He was a walking joke that by the end of the movie seemed to remind me more of the class clown than anything else. And, well, when comparing him to Jim Carrey (in that god awful movie which I refuse to believe ever happened) it's kind of easy to make Nicholson's character seem great. Entertaining? Maybe. Scary, villianous? Not in the least, especially not by today's standards. Come '08 with Nolan's Batman sequel we'll see one scary Joker.

The film also had amazing music, production design, camerawork, sets, and a supporting cast to die for.

I'll give credit where credit's due. I agree on all of the above. But I expect at least that much from a Burton production!

[SpringHeelJack]

It's good. But "Batman Returns" is my favorite Batman movie ever. It has great design, Danny Elfman music, brilliant casting, and it is also a Christmas movie to enjoy at that most festive time of year.

[Escapay]

I think he is one of the most overrated superheros in my opinion.

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

*Escapay runs around in circles screaming "NO NO NO!" wildly to himself, causing some paramedics to come in and shoot him with a tranquilizer gun, where he begins to slow down and suddenly collapses in a blissful sleep*

*He wakes up, in a straitjacket, in some mental hospital. He speaks in a calm and soothing tone that was brought on by a barrage of drugs and sedatives*

Batman is not overrated.

He's a very multi-layered character.

And when played properly by Christian Bale and/or Val Kilmer, makes for really good cinema.

Escapay

[slave2moonlight]

This was a great film, but after "Batman Begins" came out, I realized how cartoony and Tim Burton-esque the '89 film was. I still like it and the first sequel, and even Batman Forever has some redeeming qualities (though I have very few nice things to say about Batman and Robin), and I do want the new DVD set of those 4 films, but "Batman Begins" is possibly my favorite superhero movie ever. I positively love all the Batman/Gordon interaction in the new film especially.

[memnv]

I also thought this film was amazing, I remember going to a midnight showing when it came out, one only a handful of timesI have done that

[Lazario]

And for the record, I live for cold, dark movies. They're usually the coolest ones!

Now that I think about it... Aladdin was kind of edgy, wasn't it?

It's not horrible, no, but I didn't see a damn thing special about it (storywise, characters etc).

Well... "special" is a funny word. Unique is much better. This is the first film adapation of Batman that actually realized there wasn't a lot to the character of the superhero. And that if they have divulged any more details, or assumed anymore, or tried to make it any more immediate and real for people - Batman, a mysterious figure, would have lost his mystery. And just been a superhero like all the others. But Batman is different, and finally he was treated as he really was. A figure of the shadows, with an inner struggle, who was conflicted about what he did and who he was.

He was a walking joke that by the end of the movie seemed to remind me more of the class clown than anything else.

Well... if you were paying really close attention to the character, you would have noticed that he was going completely insane. Insane people do things like make farting noises and dance on the ledges of tall, gothic buildings. C'mon. We all know there was basically no place left for him to go, though it was suspenseful to see him trying to knock Batman and Vicky Vale off the edge of the church. Besides - class clowns aren't usually smart enough to come up with lines like "We're Beauty and The Beast... Though if anyone but me calls you Beast, I'll rip their lungs out." So even in the Joker's Final Hour, he was still brilliant.

And... do "Class Clowns" usually kill people? I don't think so.

well, when comparing him to Jim Carrey (in that god awful movie which I refuse to believe ever happened)

My Hero! Of course though... I really liked the film's music. Seal's "Kiss from a Rose" was great.

it's kind of easy to make Nicholson's character seem great. Entertaining? Maybe. Scary, villianous? Not in the least, especially not by today's standards. Come '08 with Nolan's Batman sequel we'll see one scary Joker.

Okay... now Jack Nicholson's Joker isn't villainous because you're hoping the '08 Joker will outdue him? That's a very unexpected turn of discussion. I don't care about The '08 Batman. So whatever might come from that, it's completely irrelevant to the '89 Batman. And I'm sorry, but with a name like The Joker... I wasn't expecting Michael Myers or Hannibal Lecter. I wasn't expecting a boogeyman! I was expecting a criminal with human attributes. What does "scary" even have to do with any of it? Who says The Joker is supposed to be scary?

The film also had amazing music, production design, camerawork, sets, and a supporting cast to die for.

I'll give credit where credit's due. I agree on all of the above. But I expect at least that much from a Burton production!

And yet -- we still got more. Great characters, great performances - and they all fit within the concept of the film. I don't know what you expected, but it so sounds to me like you didn't get-it. The whole idea of the film may have flown right by you.

This was a great film, but after "Batman Begins" came out, I realized how cartoony and Tim Burton-esque the '89 film was.

Hey, now that you mention it... That's something Batman Begins will never have. Good thinking, S2M!

[Disney-Fan]

Now that I think about it... Aladdin was kind of edgy, wasn't it?

Haha, yeah. All those creepy adult undertones. Especially all those sexual vibes between the Genie and Aladdin.

Well... "special" is a funny word. Unique is much better. This is the first film adapation of Batman that actually realized there wasn't a lot to the character of the superhero. And that if they have divulged any more details, or assumed anymore, or tried to make it any more immediate and real for people - Batman, a mysterious figure, would have lost his mystery.

OK, I'll give you that.

But Batman is different, and finally he was treated as he really was. A figure of the shadows, with an inner struggle, who was conflicted about what he did and who he was.

OK, see, here is one of my main gripes with the movie. I know that your description is the true character of Batman, I doubt most would argue about that. It's the thing I love most about him. His inner struggle. But I just didn't feel it in the '89 movie. He seemed too bland, too much of a cartoon action figure. There was way too much focus on the cool suit, the flashy car, and the well-choreographed action sequences and not enough focus on his inner-journey. His quest to create a symbol for justice and intolerrance for crime.

Well... if you were paying really close attention to the character, you would have noticed that he was going completely insane. Insane people do things like make farting noises and dance on the ledges of tall, gothic buildings.

There are other ways to exhibit insane that don't go off the edge with complete and utterly ridiculous campiness.

And... do "Class Clowns" usually kill people? I don't think so.

Depends which ones!

My Hero! Of course though... I really liked the film's music. Seal's "Kiss from a Rose" was great.

No arguments there. Great song. Horrible movie. Happens all too often nowadays.

Okay... now Jack Nicholson's Joker isn't villainous because you're hoping the '08 Joker will outdue him? That's a very unexpected turn of discussion. I don't care about The '08 Batman. So whatever might come from that, it's completely irrelevant to the '89 Batman.

Oh, no no. One Joker has nothing to do with the other, I agree completely. I just believe that Nolan's interpretation of The Joker will be much closer to what I had in mind for this character. (Probably be horror movie insane-like, self-righteous almost, and much more of a sinster and cynical clown).

Who says The Joker is supposed to be scary?

Again, just my understanding of the character. Besides, any villian that looses its' scary edge is, in my opinion, pointless and just turns out to be one more comedic-relief character. And in hollywood movies we have a bit too many of those without turning the villians into a comedy show.

And yet -- we still got more. Great characters, great performances - and they all fit within the concept of the film. I don't know what you expected, but it so sounds to me like you didn't get-it. The whole idea of the film may have flown right by you.

You know what, maybe. But if the film couldn't get its' point across, than something must have went eerily wrong in the process of telling the story. But, again, just my humble opinion.

[Lazario]

I just didn't feel it in the '89 movie. He seemed too bland, too much of a cartoon action figure. There was way too much focus on the cool suit, the flashy car, and the well-choreographed action sequences and not enough focus on his inner-journey. His quest to create a symbol for justice and intolerrance for crime.

Well yes there was a lot of focus on the suit, the car, and the action sequences. But it was an exciting movie. Those are the things that made it exciting. I see what you're saying - but if I felt the way you did, I would just remind myself that this is 1 adaptation of the movie. It can focus on whatever it wanted to as long as it delivered an exciting movie. And it did. It also delivered very interesting characters. Admittedly, Batman didn't get as much attention as Vicky Vale or the Joker. But that's what Tim Burton felt was the best way to handle Batman as a character. Now I'm sorry but, taking your suggestion, would have really spoiled some of the mean-spirited fun of the villains and really had people debating forever on the whole illogical nature of the characters and plot. It would have been placing too much attention on areas that at the time wouldn't have improved the film or done anything with the character. Some things are spoiled when they're taken too seriously. Besides, Burton is a master of chaos. There's a gleeful darkness to the movie. That works so well, I don't know who would spend as much time as you arguing what was lacking with the Batman character. I know he's a lot of people's favorites. But Burton still did good with the movie. He just did it in a different way.

There are other ways to exhibit insane that don't go off the edge with complete and utterly ridiculous campiness.

The Joker was already campy to begin with. And Jack Nicholson still did it well. So that really doesn't matter. Should there never be any campiness in movies? If so, all movies would be bland and boring.

No arguments there. Great song. Horrible movie. Happens all too often nowadays.

That's been a tradition as far back as with teen movies like Pretty in Pink and St. Elmo's Fire - songs superior to the movies. Nowadays - I don't know about you, but I don't see too many songs selling movies anymore.

Oh, no no. One Joker has nothing to do with the other, I agree completely. I just believe that Nolan's interpretation of The Joker will be much closer to what I had in mind for this character. (Probably be horror movie insane-like, self-righteous almost, and much more of a sinster and cynical clown).

But my point was that we can't downgrade Batman '89 because of the concept of things coming up in the future. As for what qualities should his charater possess? Think about what was best for that film. Look at it, feel it, listen to it... And then you can pretty much tell the Joker we got was more than suitable.

Again, just my understanding of the character. Besides, any villian that looses its' scary edge is, in my opinion, pointless and just turns out to be one more comedic-relief character. And in hollywood movies we have a bit too many of those without turning the villians into a comedy show.

Agreed. However, that is what Burton does. Most of his films have that sense of humor. Which doesn't overshadow the visual design of the film, but instead works with it to create something amazing. Batman '89 was never a comedy show. In fact, like I said, the Joker's nastiness and the darkness of his humor served to make him very menacing. How the heck else would you categorize that "Money" scene? He's not saying "if you gotta go, go with a smile," then jumping off his float, running around, throwing Creme Pies in people's faces. He's executing them all together with a killer, toxic gas. And look at those balloons! If you didn't think they were scary - you don't know what scary is. I still have nightmares about those things! (not really)

You know what, maybe. But if the film couldn't get its' point across, than something must have went eerily wrong in the process of telling the story. But, again, just my humble opinion.

Give me a break. The film did get it's point across! Why do you think people still love the movie today? It's not just because of the flashy costumes, sleek props, and fast-paced action sequences. It's because the look and feel of the movie are timeless. And it wouldn't have worked if they tried to make it what Batman Begins ultimately became.

[slave2moonlight]

On the issue of camp...

Totally campy movies are entertaining to me, but I only like them in small doses and rarely have them on my top movie list. By totally campy, I do mean John Waters type stuff. I like some of it sometimes. I'm not in love with it, and don't like to get too much of it at any given time. However, my Batman fandom, and he IS my favorite superhero (I know it's cliche, but he's the one without any superpowers, so he's pretty freakin' awesome), stems mostly from his film and TV appearances, for me, starting back with the reruns of the ultra-campy Batman TV series of the 60s. From then until the 89 movie, it seems that everyone considered Batman an extremely campy character (that is, the average Joe public, not the comic fans). I never read superhero comics, though I did read comics, and I did know a little about characters outside my own collection. However, I was always a big superhero fan. As a very little kid, the Batman 60's TV series didn't seem campy to me. I was a little kid, after all. I also watched Batman in various animated forms, though the animated forms of that time were a bit campy as well (we're talking the LATE 70's and 80's stuff, as I was born in '75). Then, the '89 movie came out, and for the time, it was fantastic, but some folks were actually complaining that they had ruined the characters because they took the 60's campiness out of them (as if Batman started out in the 60's, with the campy incarnation, though I guess that's how many folks, like myself, were first introduced to him). It's funny to look back on the 89 film now, and now the campiness actually seems much more apparent. However, I really don't think the campiness is over the top, or even inappropriate. To me, '89 Batman works. I just don't see it as the best incarnation of Batman.

I just prefer the very real style of Batman Begins. It's not that campy can't work for superheroes, it's just that I think they've suffered enough from it. I think there's about 2 seconds of campiness in that film (not including extras/bit players, who always seem a little campy due to their acting skills), and it is so subtle, but so good. It's the scene where Cilian Murphy (Scarecrow) is talking to his thugs about Batman, after letting them know that he is stalking them. He says something like, "but the Batman has a talent for disruption..." It's the way he says the word "Batman." It harkens back to the villains of the 60's show and the old cartoons, but not to the extent that the Schumacher villains did. It's so small and subtle, but it's beautiful. So well stated. The reason I love Batman Begins is because it's got all these great little moments like that, and because it is the closest thing to what I (and many others) feel is the best incarnation of Batman on screen so far, "Batman the Animated Series." While the '89 film paved the way for Batman the Animated Series, it was that show itself that really woke me up to Batman the way (I feel) he SHOULD be portrayed. When Batman Begins came along, here was a movie where Gordon looked like he came right out of the cartoon or comic, and they had those great scenes like Batman talking to Gordon when he's taking out the trash before the rainstorm, and when they're talking at the end, and the Joker card is revealed. Those two are my favorite scenes in the film, along with that Cilian Murphy line, but there are other great scenes.

But, to go over the previous four films separately:

Batman '89: Excellent movie, though not my idea of the perfect incarnation of Batman. Yes, it's very Tim Burtonesque, and I love Tim Burton's work, but I do feel he's a bit overrated. I rarely say that about someone or something that I love, but I think people can be blinded by his unique artistic style. I don't think all his films are great; sometimes his unique style is a bit too bizarre for me or the subject matter. It's just a matter of personal taste, but everything he does is so stylized, and when you're doing an established character like Batman, that can be a bit odd if it's taken too far. However, I'm not saying he took it too far. I think Batman is one of his better films (off the top of my head though, my favorite of his films is "Sleepy Hollow;" That one is a masterpiece, though it is so different from the original story and shouldn't be considered the difinitive Sleepy Hollow). No, I actually feel Batman '89 was a great advancement for the character and a great film, just not as close to perfect as Batman Begins for my idea of a proper Batman. As for the Joker, he was almost just right. I would like to see him even more psychotic though, and I think/hope that's what we'll see in Batman: Dark Knight (if that's still the title), though I'm unsure about the casting choice. I pictured someone more like Crispin Glover in the role. I would have LOVED that! Michael Keaton is definitely my second favorite live-action Batman. Oh yes, and on an added note, I loved the 30s/40s retro style of this film, which seemed less pronounced in Batman Returns.

Batman Returns: This is the one that has even more of a Tim Burton look. Actually, I've heard there are reasons for this, but I don't know how much of them are just rumor (regarding the first film and just how much Burton actually did on it), so I won't go into them. However, I love this film too. It's campier than the first, possibly too much at times, and, though I haven't seen this one in a while (sold most of my VHS tapes and haven't gotten all of them on DVD yet, like the 90's Batman flicks), I seem to remember it made Gotham City feel smaller somehow. Still, over all, a very good film and probably more "fun" than the first, if not as "real." But, that's the trade off when you add more and more camp. You lose more and more realism to add fun, and sometimes it's not for the best, as in the next two Batman films.

Batman Forever: For some reason, Schumacher and the others who made this film so different from the first got the idea that it was the campiness of 60's Batman that made the first two films hits. Frankly, I thought it was obvious that the departure from that style of Batman was what made him a hit in the Burton flicks. So, Schumacher amped the campiness up, though not fully, for Batman Forever. First time I saw it (and I saw all of these in theaters, by the way, usually on opening night), I was pretty disgusted. I wanted to really like it, but I was already not happy knowing that Batman had been recast. I had no idea it would be as different from the first two films as it was though. Despite Nicole Kidman looking mouth watering, there was campy acting all around. Jim Carey was actually a good choice to play the Riddler, I though, but, as with everything else in the film, too much glitter and neon (yet nothing compared to Schumacher's second Batman outing). Carey's glittery outfit and attitude towards the end was just too much, and while I still believe he could play a great Riddler, most of the time he didn't. He was going for the camp, and Tommy Lee Jones seemed to be playing along with him in a secret competition. Val Kilmer was actually not bad, but a bit too wooden. I didn't think Robin was badly cast either and the costume looked pretty neat, but they needed to take out that whole scene where he was showing off while doing his laundry and acting like an ass. That was painful to watch. Overall, the film is watchable, but there are far too many moments that make me wince. Where it is most successful is the superhero action and look (nipples aside, or did those not come till part 4?), which was far superior to the previous films of a stiffer suit that had stiffer fighting, and the outstanding soundtrack. "Kiss From a Rose" is easily a favorite song of mine.

Batman and Robin: Shame on everybody.

Ha, actually, I can't say I blame everybody or every aspect. I don't think George Clooney was a bad choice for Batman, I think he had a horrible script, I think he needed some Batman-geared acting classes, but I thought he had a good look for Batman and could have pulled it off under better circumstances. The script was just awful, as were all the visuals. I adore Batgirl, but I prefer her as Barbara Gordon, with redhair that comes out of her cowl, and Sarah Michelle Gellar would have been a perfect choice. Though I worshipped her in Clueless for her hotness, Alicia was already losing her looks by this point. Everyone's acting was awful, but especially the villains and everything about them was horrible. I hope we do get to see Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze done right someday. I was never a fan of Bane though. Actually, I never liked Two-Face that much either, but I think he could be done well. Unfortunately, they'll be using him in the upcoming films, even though I think characters like Riddler and Catwoman are more interesting (I'd LOVE to see Paul Giamatti as the Mad Hatter!). Overall, Batman and Robin was like a mega-budget version of the 60's TV show, and I don't know where they got the idea that anyone wanted to see such a thing. I think most of us would have preferred a DVD release of the 60's show. Anyway, there was already a big screen movie made for that show.

Batman Begins presents Batman in a serious way with such a subtle and almost non-existant level of camp, and it's nearly exactly what I had been wanting. Though Keaton is my second fave, he seemed to be focused on playing Bruce Wayne, Kilmer seemed focused on playing Batman, white I really felt Christian Bale's interpretation was perfect. Definitely Zorro inspired, but that's as it should be. I wish they had kept it a Zorro film that Bruce went to see the night his parents were killed, but I only have minor quibbles like that one about this fantastic new film, which I hope results in some fantastic sequels.

[SpringHeelJack]

I always thought Patrick Stewart would make an excellent Mr. Freeze. And maybe he wouldn't have to read dreck like "Cool party!" and "What killed da dinosaws? De Ice Age!" (never mind that that's not even remotely historically accurate). Sadly, I doubt we'll see him in Chris Nolan's ultra-realistic Batman universe.

[slave2moonlight]

I always thought Patrick Stewart would make an excellent Mr. Freeze. And maybe he wouldn't have to read dreck like "Cool party!" and "What killed da dinosaws? De Ice Age!" (never mind that that's not even remotely historically accurate). Sadly, I doubt we'll see him in Chris Nolan's ultra-realistic Batman universe.

I don't think Nolan would have to rule out any characters to handle them in an untra-realistic (so to speak), ultra-serious way. However, he might think so, ha. But, I think he is going for a younger cast will all the characters, and currently I don't think they're are looking at more than two sequels. I'm sure that will change if they're successful enough, but they usually change directors and/or cast members as well, and that's often where the trouble starts...

Personally, I always wanted to see Christopher Lloyd as Freeze. He reminds me so much of the version from Batman the Animated Series. Well, when thinking of Judge Doom from Roger Rabbit, with some personality changes, of course.

[Escapay]

Though I worshipped her in Clueless for her hotness, Alicia was already losing her looks by this point.

Wow. What a difference a mere two whole years make in the eyes of slave2moonlight. Could you be any more shallow?

I personally think she's still just as hot as she was...ohmygodhasitbeenthatlong...13 years ago.

Escapay

[slave2moonlight]

Some time ago, I made a fake Batman Begins sequel movie poster. Here it is. Three things: One, that's Johnny Depp as Riddler, but I couldn't only find one pretty crappy picture that was usable. Two, I couldn't think of a redheaded actress at the right age for Poison Ivy, and just stuck Lindsay Lohan in there. Frankly, I can't really see her in a Nolan Batman flick. Now, I think I want to change the pic and put in Isla Fisher. Three, I did this when I had nothing but a pretty crappy art program on my computer and not much experience with it. I need to redo it sometime.

The cast includes some returning cast members, plus:

Joker: Crispin Glover
Mad Hatter: Paul Giamatti
Riddler: Johnny Depp
Catwoman: Claire Forlani
Harley Quinn: Sheri Moon
Clayface: Gary Sinise
Freeze: Christopher Lloyd
Killer Croc: Vin Diesel
TwoFace: Billy Zane
Poison Ivy: emergency choice of Lindsay Lohan, but I'll replace her with Isla Fisher now that I've thought of her
and Penguin: Paul Williams (is he still alive?)

If I redid this today, I'd probably change a few other cast members too, largely because of age and such. Like... maybe Lindy Booth as Harley Quinn. Sheri is perfect for the role (thinking of Baby in "House of 1,000 Corpses"), but I always felt she kinda looked old.