Sequence Six
Member
Ledger's character was pretty cool but he was pretty much a well-acted thug in makeup. There was no style.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
LTTP: Batman '89 (It's awful)
- Thread starter neogaffer1
- Start date
- Status
I think this is easily one of the most overrated movies ever. I remember liking it when I was a kid, but I watched it recently and boy...it doesn't hold up at all. Returns is easily superior, even though it does go off the rails during the 2nd act. Danny DeVito really kills it as Penguin.
But I still can appreciate Batman '89 for what it did for the franchise and for movies in general. Without it, I doubt Mask of the Phantasm would've been made, as that movie is probably my favorite Batman movie ever, and I really doubt it'll ever be topped.
But I still can appreciate Batman '89 for what it did for the franchise and for movies in general. Without it, I doubt Mask of the Phantasm would've been made, as that movie is probably my favorite Batman movie ever, and I really doubt it'll ever be topped.
It's got a nice mood and the score makes it but what deep insights into the character is this giving us that the Nolan films couldn't possibly touch upon?
captainnapalm
Member
It's largely a matter of style, aesthetics and atmosphere - elements I feel are important to the character. Batman to me is kind of like a genre piece, incorporating certain elements, and the piece suffers when they are not there.
Nolan was never really interested in these genre elements after the first film. He was doing his own modern crime/spy/terrorism thing.
blast processed
Member
You know...that would be great! I never though of that.
Id also throw in that Elfman's score > Zimmer's score
You have no idea how badly I want this to happen. Both because Beyond is great and because Keaton would be perfect for Old Bruce
You have no idea how badly I want this to happen. Both because Beyond is great and because Keaton would be perfect for Old Bruce
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
This is so true. Even listening to various clips on repeat for five hours while waiting in line for the Batman ride to get fixed at Great America couldn't sour me on the awesomeness of Elfman's Batman soundtracks.
Batman Begins is a character study. The character has a genuine arc. We are given a window into his psyche for almost an hour. His journey is what makes that movie such a compelling introduction. Burton's films never even attempt that level of characterization.
He's given a very long origin story. I didn't find it believable so didn't find it compelling. It's a general problem I have with the Nolan films - trying to ground something ridiculous in gritty realism is less believable than a fantasy setting (like Burton's).
Characterization was done more efficiently in the Burton films. They didn't spend an hour on it, sure, but I think the characters were more relatable than anyone in the Nolan films.
captainnapalm
Member
I enjoyed Begins a lot, way more than the next two. And it does give Bruce Wayne the Year One treatment, which was great.
The Burton films kind of present him as an enigma, but they also reveal a lot about his character in their own way, mainly through Keaton's nuanced performance.
CharminUltra
Member
I'm going to be the cool kid and say that, while Returns is my "favorite," I'm just not a big fan of either of these adaptations in general. If I never see these movies again in my life think I'll be just fine.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Pretty much. Batman Returns would've been too, were it not for Catwoman and Penguin's performances.
Agreed, its a piece of shit. Really. Both films are bad, depressing and unwatchable.
I thought the same when I was a kid, still do now upon watching them. Horrible.
Keaton was good to watch though but doesnt seem as if he can throw a punch, unlike Bale. Has a body of a old hardcore cyclist and the flexibility of a wooden chair.
I thought the same when I was a kid, still do now upon watching them. Horrible.
Keaton was good to watch though but doesnt seem as if he can throw a punch, unlike Bale. Has a body of a old hardcore cyclist and the flexibility of a wooden chair.
triplestation
Member
Nicholson's joker is shit
Burton films are uncomfortable to watch and should be burned out of existence
Burton films are uncomfortable to watch and should be burned out of existence
Pagusas
Elden Member
I enjoy Nolan films, but I am getting more and more annoyed with how "preachy" they have become, and you nailed it. He's like the opposite of Josh Whedon, Nolan's characters are hollow and just vessels for the stories themes to be relayed. Its annoying. Where as Whedon lacks the better overarching themes but does a great job of making characters feel full of life, story and soul.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
So now it's about how he used it, rather than he used it at all? Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts.
Here's another example to go with 'The Killing Joke':
...another one in the major Batman story arc you read, 'Hush':
Even TAS Joker (arguably the quintessential version of the character) uses it:
So, disagree all you like, Nicholson's use of the 'bang' gun is very much in line with the Joker's character.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Licked back to life by cats, then she has a temper tantrum and smashes her apartment.
You sure you don't want to retract your statement?
The characters were MORE relatable in Burton's films? In what real world sense was Bruce Wayne more relatable in Burton's movie, You find the brooding, enigmatic billionaire freak more relatable?
To be honest, as a huge Batman fanatic, I'm not a big fan of the Burton films. Although 89 is better than Returns, that's not saying much. I hate mass murderer Batman (he kills more people than The Joker in this film), Keaton doesn't work for me as Bruce Wayne (which is more the script's fault than his), there are massive plotholes, Gotham feels like a set and not a real place, Gordon is portrayed TERRIBLY, and Burton clearly doesn't really care about Batman. His movies are more about the villains than the guy who's name is in the title.
Honestly, the risk of being crucified, I admit to like Batman Forever more than either of the Burton films. Is it a deeply flawed movie, oh yes. But at least it makes the attempt to be about Batman and explore his psychology.
Honestly, the risk of being crucified, I admit to like Batman Forever more than either of the Burton films. Is it a deeply flawed movie, oh yes. But at least it makes the attempt to be about Batman and explore his psychology.
Burton's Bruce is a cypher, and not in a good way. Burton clearly doesn't care about him, so he doesn't get nearly enough screentime. We never find out much about his character, because we're not in his head enough. He's a creepy, shut-in rich guy (which makes people not guessing that he's Batman even less believable) and that's about it.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
Fortunately you don't get to decide what gets burned out of existence, so those of us with impeccable taste in Batman films can continue to enjoy the exceptional Burton-era magic.
Still, I wonder... what makes them 'uncomfortable'? Is it like watching steamy sex scenes with your parents in the room?
captainnapalm
Member
And she maniacally stitches up her leather costume and changes her 'hello there' sign to 'hell here'.
If you don't understand why that's cool, I really can't help you.
crazyrabbits
Banned
I'm not saying it's not cool, because it is visually interesting. Insofar as the character goes, it's silly and comes out of left field.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Silly...? Not in a film where the premise is "Rich orphan pretends to be a bat and takes out his abandonment issues on mentally ill people".
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
I disagree, but I feel like your criticism exactly fits how I felt about the reveal of the new Joker that you have as your avatar.
Jacksinthe
Banned
I prefer Returns over every other Batman flick.
Keaton is by far the better Batman than the over-acted Bale. Bale was like watching Hayden Christensen play Anakin Skywalker. Cringeworthy.
HOWEVER
Bale played the better Wayne.
As for villains? Nothing tops Pfeiffer and DeVito.
So Returns it is.
Keaton is by far the better Batman than the over-acted Bale. Bale was like watching Hayden Christensen play Anakin Skywalker. Cringeworthy.
HOWEVER
Bale played the better Wayne.
As for villains? Nothing tops Pfeiffer and DeVito.
So Returns it is.
So much stupid shit in these movies.
crazyrabbits
Banned
I don't know about you, but I'm not big on the supernatural aspect of Catwoman's character. From what I understand, there was either a pie-in-the-sky idea or a plan on the drawing board to suggest that Selina was resurrected from the dead by an Egyptian goddess (which then showed up in the Halle Berry movie many years later, and that itself was a reworked spinoff film that was originally going to star Pfeiffer back in the mid-90's).
At least Bruce's character arc and motivations are relatively grounded. Catwoman's has none of that - she goes from a mousy secretary who can't protect herself to a resurrected wisecracking pseudo-thief who wants to kill Max but still shows up to work for him and is confused about her feelings for most of the movie.
The problems with the 90's Batman films go far beyond wonky characterization, though. As much as I hold a soft spot for them, they haven't aged well at all. You can pick out moments that looked cool back at the time it released, but now come off as corny or half-assed. Even the Nolan films are guilty of this.
I disagree, but I feel like your criticism exactly fits how I felt about the reveal of the new Joker that you have as your avatar.
Who knows. Leto's Joker could be a pile of ass, and I'll rightly call the filmmakers out on it.
The great thing about Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers is that they're so different from each other. One is a hammy gangster with a twisted sense of humor. The other is a sadistic anarchist. They both work in their respective settings as interpretations of the Joker character.
As for which one is the better performance, it's Ledger.
As for which one is the better performance, it's Ledger.
It's uneven but it has some good moments and the visual style is nice. Great theme too.
Still my favourite Batmobile too; amazing job of design.
It hasn't aged terrifically well overall although the key Joker scenes hold up very well I'd argue. The Joker is inherently good character for film though as seen with Ledger's performance too; just so juicy for an actor to portray.
Still my favourite Batmobile too; amazing job of design.
It hasn't aged terrifically well overall although the key Joker scenes hold up very well I'd argue. The Joker is inherently good character for film though as seen with Ledger's performance too; just so juicy for an actor to portray.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
I haven't shut myself off from the possibility of it being good, but the reveal caught me off guard. I like Leto in general, though, so hopefully it will be interesting.
The thing is, Burton and Keaton were coming off the wave of Beetlejuice, Burton's only major project before that was Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, and while Keaton had done a couple of serious roles, he was much more of a comedic actor (Mr. Mom, Gung Ho, etc).
People were kinda confounded that Burton and Keaton would be able to pull it off, but they did. (Keaton as a superhero? nahhhhh) Before this, most people's idea of Batman was
So when this came out, and struck a nice balance of the wackiness of Burton but the seriousness of the original comic books, and utilizing Keaton's skill to go back and forth between manic and dramatic, it really succeeded.
People were kinda confounded that Burton and Keaton would be able to pull it off, but they did. (Keaton as a superhero? nahhhhh) Before this, most people's idea of Batman was
So when this came out, and struck a nice balance of the wackiness of Burton but the seriousness of the original comic books, and utilizing Keaton's skill to go back and forth between manic and dramatic, it really succeeded.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
What I like about Batman in general is that it's mythos can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. There are a few key ingredients it needs to keep to remain a Batman story and those ingredients are very distinctive, so people can run wild with the mythos and it will still remain recognisably Batman. That's the case with the Burton films.
Personally, I like the gritty stories (The Dark Knight Returns), the psychological (Arkham Asylum: ASOSE), the fairy tales (Burton films), the Sci-Fi (Batman Beyond), comedy (Brave and the Bold), supernatural (Batman: Gothic), and a mix of all of the above (Morrison's RIP run). So I get a huge kick out of seeing how good directors, artists and writers approach the material.
Which is a longwinded way of saying, yes, I liked the Catwoman scene. It was different from what I was expecting, genuinely creepy and... uh... weirdly a little arousing. *ahem*
Doesnt Jack fall into a vat of chemicals and poof, he's the joker!
Batman parents die, then all of a sudden he's the Batman!
Multiple instances of dumb unexplained reason left me rejecting the characters and their motives, and it just gets worse. Sleeping gas and clumsy dancing...Ledger was nutty but seemed as of he could carry out his nutty plans, didn't need a gang of bafoons other than achieving his objective, fucking Nicholson is disarmed as soon as he's alone. A complete pussy.
captainnapalm
Member
There's nothing realistic about the cats coaxing her back to life and playing a part in her transformation, but it's just injecting that element of fantasy and heightened, stylized reality, the gothic Romanticism, which suits Batman's world so well. And it's done with oodles of early Burton style. Aesthetically, Burton and Batman were a match made in heaven.
Whereas Nolan and Batman felt like an increasingly uncomfortable fit as his films progressed.
They very heavily imply that Jack Napier is crazy and psychotic before he falls into the chemicals and turns into Joker. They even insinuate that Jack won't take over Carl Grissom's criminal empire once Carl is gone because Jack is too unstable. Basically the falling into chemicals and seeing himself in the mirror just makes him snap and not give a shit about hiding his craziness anymore. Plus later in the movie when Bruce and Alfred get Napier's criminal records they mention that Napier has a mental history that goes all the way back into his childhood.
So no, the movie doesn't play it as "he falls into chemicals and magically turns into Joker". In fact Burton's movie does an exceptional job of establishing Joker while Nolan really does not.
Yes. Nicholson's joker with his petty motivation of greed, power, and lust was more relatable than a grumbling thug in makeup out to make a philosophical statement. Nothing Bale did was as human as Keaton trying to work up the courage to say "I'm Batman" or his awkwardness at parties.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Although I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Burton's Joker, I'd point out that Nolan and Goyer specifically didn't want to establish the Joker in that way. They wanted him to be a constant; an "elemental".
I personally agree and prefer that approach to the character... not that I don't like Burton/Nicholson's take too.
Burton made the worst remake of all time with Planet of the Apes and his only good movies were his early ones. Pretty much the definition of a hack.
As for Batman '89. It's OK but hasn't aged very well.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I could be wrong but I'm not sure the "definition of a hack" covers directors with a very distinct and influential aesthetic.
You need to read more comics. Nolan did not ground anything in gritty realism. The comics already did that for him. Year One and Long Halloween are lifted in large amounts for his movies. Burton's movies had a feeling of watching stage plays with extremely poor acting.
This. Such a great villain reduced to such a pathetic role. One of the worst performances and movies I have seen.
You sure that's not a young Henry Fonda?
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
You need to watch more films.
Killing_Joke
Member
Any one who says Returns is a great Batman movie is the worst fucking trolling i ever seen on here. Granted Forever and B&R are grade A dog shit, but Returns is right up there with it. Visually it looks great (if your into typical Burton shit) but everything else is just bad. Very very bad.
89 is dope as fuck though. Still my overall favorite. It might suffer some 80's cheese but the iconic moments still hold up very strongly. https://youtu.be/K_Qj2xEbids?t=2m10s
The feels man.
89 is dope as fuck though. Still my overall favorite. It might suffer some 80's cheese but the iconic moments still hold up very strongly. https://youtu.be/K_Qj2xEbids?t=2m10s
The feels man.
Returns has its own issues but I have to raise an eyebrow to anyone who thinks Returns is on the same level as the Schumacher movies.
- Status