Batman Returns

[Mola Rob]

Burton seems so focused on the images and "moments" he sees in his head that he wants to see translated to screen that he ignores the "rules" of the Batman universe and plows ahead anyway

Matt I think you nailed it perfectly with that statement

I really disliked Batman Returns when I first saw it in the theater and after my second viewing a few months ago that opinion still stands. I did like quite a bit in the 89 Batman but Returns was so artificial in the way the scenes played out I was totally thrown out of the story, it's just too illogical and random. It's too bad because Keaton made a good Batman and the visual design of both of Burton's Batman movies is amazing. I still love the look of these movies way better than the Nolan versions.

 

[darthgordon]

I agree and disagree with some points you’ve made.

I very much agree that Burton is visual director and less concerned with plot and character development.

I disagree with your assessment that Catwoman is uninteresting. I guess you have to have been where this character is at to understand and then find her development interesting.

Selina Kyle is a meek woman and somewhat childish. She craves all kinds of things- a bigger career, a more exciting life, romance. Unfortunately, she’s cowardly and somewhat childish. She doesn’t take charge of anything. She’s smart and physically strong, but lacks emotional strength. She moved away from home to the big city and then sort of folded. The men she dates are weak, but treat her like a doormat because she’s even weaker than they are. She doesn’t even appear to have a strong social network. She has her controlling mother and a cat.

She collects childish things such as dolls, stuffed animals and pink shirts with pictures of little kitty cats on them.

So one night she’s heading back to the office and gets attacked. She’s saved by Batman… a man who appears very strong in his character while wearing a costume and taking charge of his life. The idea to her is a little thrilling but she’s not there yet… not really taking charge.

Then she’s pushed out a window. Now, I never assumed that she really died in the fall. She fell through an awning that helped break her fall just enough that the fall didn’t kill her. She was lying on the ground knocked out and dazed, not dead. The cats are really irrelevant to the story… but the idea is that she is being reborn into a new life.

So she goes home after almost dying and completely loses it. She destroys everything that she has that would be considered “cute” or for children. She separates herself from her former weaker self by doing so. Then she needs that strength… she needs what Batman has. So she makes herself a costume. She’s going to get strength from it and turn the tables. Had she had that strength to stand up for herself before, she wouldn’t have needed Batman, who wasn’t there to protect her when she almost died falling out of a window.

So she goes out into the night and beats down a rapist… one of the biggest and most offensive enemies of women. Something she never would have done before. Then she tells the woman that she saved that she’s weak and responsible for not standing up for herself. She’s talking not only to her, but to her former self that she sees in this woman.

To me it’s actually a very interesting character development. Does it fit in with the comics? Well, Catwoman’s story kind of changed a couple of times anyway.

Also, it gave us something that no other Batman movie did before and has done since- given Batman a love interest that he actually has some chemistry with. I don’t know why everyone in Hollywood insists that in order to do a Batman movie, he has to have a love interest, but the actors in Returns are the only ones thus far that I’ve seen with any real chemistry between them (probably because they were dating at the time).

 

[Zombie_61]

I think this is also a result of his complete lack of respect (or possibly interest in) the source material. Watching those movies today, I realize with stark clarity what I knew 20 years ago: Burton is no Batman fan. He doesn't even really know the character. If anything, his movies come across as a sophisticated , not-played-for-laughs version of the 60's/West show. Certainly not as a visualization of the current state of affairs in the DC titles.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading an interview with Burton (to promote the '89 film) in which he stated he didn't read comic books when he was young, and had never read a Batman comic book. Regardless of whether or not this is accurate, I agree he was unfamiliar with the characters. I also agree Burton is a director who seems to be far more interested in visuals than he is in storytelling.

Of that "generation" of Batman films (Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin) the only one I can still watch and get any enjoyment out of is Batman. Batman Returns might be watchable if Burton had chosen one villain or the other; as it is, it's just too long and uninteresting. Batman Forever might be watchable if it hadn't become "The Jim Carrey Show", and Batman and Robin...well, you know. :unsure

 

[EvilRocketeer]

Burton is not a writer/director. He is a director, and needs to be paired with writing talent to be able to produce great work. Thankfully, from my observations of screenplay to finished product, when he finds one that works, he's extraordinarily faithful to what is on the page.

The two Batman movies he made are probably the only two of his movies I really don't like at all.

wait wait.....let me wipe my eyes....you didnt like a burton film? :eek

haha, i am only pulling your leg. I actually always like reading your posts. You have great passion for his work. For me, I loved his early work, but his recent work has grown stale as a salty potato chip laying in the sun for years...Everything seems routine. Not much surprise or joy in his films anymore. Became pretty predictable and expected....The most recent film that I enjoy and like is BIG FISH

I love the first Batman. It was such a great film and lead way for my favorite batman cartoon series (animated adventures). Batman Returns on the other hand scared the crap out of me as a child. I enjoyed it, but seeing danny devato as the penguin just gave me the hibbies gibbies.

They werent the greatest batman films, but compared to the rest...they hold their own and are near the top

 

[davey77]

my issue with time burton is that he only ever makes the same film over and over.

my moneys on his next film being a quirky story about a mysterious character, with quirky production design, johnny depp starring (cos keaton cant make it) and helena bonam carter as the shoehorned in female character.

the only films that he has made that dont follow this formula are planet of the apes and mars attacks. two films that people either forget that he did, or try not to remember because they were poor.

tim burton cannot be bettered at his style, but he is not as good as he is hyped up to be. he can only do one thing. again, he does it better than anyoen else. but he is a one trick pony.

back on topic, returns is my fave of the first 4 batman films, though i wholeheartedly agree that might be childhood nostalgia bias. same with forever - the filmmaker in me thinks its dire, but the 5 year old in me will always come through lol.

 

[Solo4114]

I liked and still like Sleepy Hollow.

 

[Jeyl]

....Batman Returns..... Hmm.......

I was eight years old when this movie was released, and I was thankfully with parents who were not afraid to take me to 'questionable' movies. After all, I remember seeing Total Recall in the theaters at the age of six. But Batman Returns was unique because at that age, it had those Catwoman/Batman moments that really confused me as a child. Ooo. So confused.

But did I like the movie? Sure. I certainly don't hate it. I'm glad Michael Keaton got top billing finally and I loved Danny Devito performance. I thought the effects were great as well. Seeing Batman unfold his wings and soar over Gotham was my favorite moment in the film because he finally flew on his own! And I loved the Batmissile. Not even kidding. When they released the Die Cast vehicles for the film, the only one I got was the Batmissile. I played with that toy for hours and hours even though it was the most unpractical car that could ever exist.

But I do have SOME issues with the film. Like why is Gotham so deserted looking during the Penguin attack when it's always been populated every other time? How did Batman know that the Penguin was going to use real Penguins via a certain signal that could be modified and put into a switch box? Where the *&%$ did those bats come from during the final confrontation? Why did the Penguin die like that? Argh.

 

[0neiros]

For those of you that don't like this movie, at least you don't have blood gushing from your nose.

 

[nick daring]

Returns is a dud. Boring penguin politics movie. Catwoman doens't make sense and batman is a snorefest. Some pretty visuals though. There is nothing like Batman in the winter.

Batman 89 I will defend to my dying breath. That movie has an awesome energy and drive to it that even the Nolan movies can't match in my book. Gritty and tough while also being larger than life and romantic. And while it's got some dark adult themes and visuals going on it's still fun enough that an 11 year old will have a good time watching it (Yes, I'm looking at you TDK).

Batman 89 has set the tone of the comics and animated series since. Comicbook gotham was mainly just New York with a funny name in the comics through the 70's and 80's. Gotham 89 is presented as a city out of time. A weird mix of 30's and 40's detective moviesand action serials, with 70's cars and crime drama and a dash of 80's art and fashion scene thrown in. The Tim Burton moods, Bob Ringwood costumes, and Anton Furst sets and vehicles are a magic combination of production design.

Fanboys pick out a handful of annoying things that rub against the traditions of the comics, but that is some pretty minor stuff compared to how much they got right and how much they improved on. Like I said, that movie defined what the official Batman was ever since.

The Prince music is a weird choice. I'll give you that.

Nick

 

[davey77]

ok at the risk of being one of those fanboys nick, ive been resisting the urge to criticise burtons batman (as even though i think burton is a one trick pony, i do like his take on batman) i have to say it.

the one thing that gets me about the 89 movie? not the guns, not the killing - usually first on a list of things tim burton shouldnt have changed.

jack. nicholson. was. not. the. joker. he was jack nicholson in make up. a great performance, jack napier was a brilliant character, i like the CONCEPT of nicholsons version of the joker. but he really wasnt the joker. thats the one thing id do differently with batman 89. more faithful joker.

there i said it. i'll be in tibet untill im welcome back here again...

 

[cayman shen]

For those of you that don't like this movie, at least you don't have blood gushing from your nose.

lol:lol

 

[MattMunson]

Fanboys pick out a handful of annoying things that rub against the traditions of the comics, but that is some pretty minor stuff compared to how much they got right and how much they improved on.

I would hardly call re-designing the origin story so that it can be wrapped up at the end of the movie a "handful of annoying things that rub against the traditions of the comics".

Were it not Batman, I could understand the need to tie up the arc. Pick a standard "hero" origin. He is created in tragedy by the act of a criminal. Criminal drives him to become crime fighter. Hero captures criminal, and can rest.

But a KEY and CRITICAL part of the Batman mythos is that Bruce never gets that closure. He never has the satisfaction of finding and punishing Jack Napier in the comics, and TDK did a good job of incorporating recent comic book mythos into the move. While Napier is killed (in BB), it was not at his hands.

So if you ask me, Burton REALLY screwed the pooch on that one by removing Batmans raison d'etre by not only turning Jack Napier into the Joker, but then having him killed at the end. After all, now Bruce can rest, as he's avenged his parents, and his torment is relieved.

Maybe good story telling for a non batman movie, but it makes ZERO sense in the context of the film.


With ALL of that said, and my overall lack of overwhelmishness for the first movie, I completely grant it that it changed the superhero movie genre. It reinvigorated it, redefined it, and set it on the path it rides high on today. And for that I'm thankful.

Oh, and Kim Bassinger was the worst casting choice ever for that role. I realize she was a last minute replacement, but bad acting, bad writing, and prom dresses do not make for a good femme fatale. sorry.

 

[MattMunson]

jack. nicholson. was. not. the. joker. he was jack nicholson in make up.

I TOTALLY agree, and this is a criticism that typically falls on deaf ears. What I hear time and time again is "Jack Nicholson IS the Joker". Well, sir, then you do not know the joker.

This kind of ties into my earlier comment about how it almost seemed like Burton was really just updating the 60's show, sans laughs, rather than making an adaptation of the contemporary comic book story lines. It was Jack Nicholson as Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Just like it was Jim Carrey as Jim Carrey as the Riddler.

But, there's thanks to be given. From what I understand, Keaton was doing ALL kinds of on set improvs to try to breathe a little comedic life into the batman character, and somehow Burton had the good sense to squash them either on set or in the editing room. I still to this day never liked Keaton as Batman, but it was serviceable. He's a very short man, and is far too wooden in his movements to be believable as Batman, but hey, that's just my opinion. Conversely, I think Bale was the perfect casting choice. I really cannot imagine in my head a better choice for Bruce/Bats.

 

[nick daring]

Yeah, Kim Basinger sucks. Sean Young was supposed to get the role. The official story is that she fell off a horse and broke a bone. I think they just realized she was crazy and gave her the boot.

It's a tough call when you are investing a gazillion bucks into an unproven genre of movie. They took the safe path by tying up everything with a bow. It's emotionly gratifying to viewers when the kinda thing happens. Cathartic even. While it IS very anti-Batman to do this the trope is such a deeply entrenched movie rhythm I just can't see them taking the risk in 1989. I for one LOVE the existential delema of Batman.

Apparently audiences agreed it was the right choice despite our fanboy teeth grinding. That movie made a crap load of money at the end of the day.

Another crappy thing about Batman 89- Bruce wayne in jeans, black turtle neck and jeans in the batcave. Such a fashion flub cannot be defended.

Nick

 

[SSgt Burton]

He never has the satisfaction of finding and punishing Jack Napier in the comics, and TDK did a good job of incorporating recent comic book mythos into the move. While Napier is killed (in BB), it was not at his hands.

Pssst... "Joe Chill" shot Bruce Wayne's parents in both the comics and BB, not Jack Napier.


Just saying.


Kevin

 

[darthgordon]

ok at the risk of being one of those fanboys nick, ive been resisting the urge to criticise burtons batman (as even though i think burton is a one trick pony, i do like his take on batman) i have to say it.

the one thing that gets me about the 89 movie? not the guns, not the killing - usually first on a list of things tim burton shouldnt have changed.

jack. nicholson. was. not. the. joker. he was jack nicholson in make up. a great performance, jack napier was a brilliant character, i like the CONCEPT of nicholsons version of the joker. but he really wasnt the joker. thats the one thing id do differently with batman 89. more faithful joker.

there i said it. i'll be in tibet untill im welcome back here again...

I honestly couldn't disagree more with this statement. I have no idea who you think Jack Nicholson is, but he is not a raving maniac or a murderer.

To me Jack did everything right in his performance (okay, there's a few things I'd change). He has a wild and scary look in his eyes that makes him look crazed an unpredictable, yet very intelligent. His constant laughter was great. You actually feel like he finds his murders funny... and yet he still has a sort of charisma that makes you believe that other men would follow his crazy schemes.

His make-up and costume are great. They are the Joker. His skin is bleached, his hair is green and he's got an insane grin that believe it or not, your common movie goer still has no idea how it was done.

Don't forget also that he's translating a comic book character onto the screen that had only been before by Cesar Romero and poorly attempted in a few '70s animated series.

We all see things differently when we read the comics. Pictures and words don't show us an actual performance or give us a voice... only what we make up in our heads.

Now, to me, the Joker has Jack's facial expressions and Hamil's voice... but to you, maybe Ledger is better.

I've heard some complain that Hopkins wasn't Lecter too.

 

[darthgordon]

Pssst... "Joe Chill" shot Bruce Wayne's parents in both the comics and BB, not Jack Napier.


Just saying.


Kevin

That whole thing was just as crappy an explanation as the Joker doing it.

To me, Batman should have never known who the killers of his parents were. It causes the character to lose motivation. In fact it was supposed to be as such for many years until someone decided they wanted to write about Batman learning who the killer of his parents was.

Either way, you can thank the writers' strike and Tim Burton for making the Joker the killer of the Waynes. He takes full responsibility for it, even though he knows we want to string him up for it.

 

[jarvis]

I agree that Burton would be more suited working as an art director on films rather than actually directing them. Returns was a mess. He does occasionally get things right regardless of his lack of story telling abilities and Batman 89 is a classic. Much like his friend Johnny Depp he's been making pretty awful movies for the last decade or so. Ed Wood is my favorite followed by Batman, Beetlejuice and Edward Scissor hands.

 

[davey77]

I honestly couldn't disagree more with this statement. I have no idea who you think Jack Nicholson is, but he is not a raving maniac or a murderer.

To me Jack did everything right in his performance (okay, there's a few things I'd change). He has a wild and scary look in his eyes that makes him look crazed an unpredictable, yet very intelligent. His constant laughter was great. You actually feel like he finds his murders funny... and yet he still has a sort of charisma that makes you believe that other men would follow his crazy schemes.

His make-up and costume are great. They are the Joker. His skin is bleached, his hair is green and he's got an insane grin that believe it or not, your common movie goer still has no idea how it was done.

Don't forget also that he's translating a comic book character onto the screen that had only been before by Cesar Romero and poorly attempted in a few '70s animated series.

We all see things differently when we read the comics. Pictures and words don't show us an actual performance or give us a voice... only what we make up in our heads.

Now, to me, the Joker has Jack's facial expressions and Hamil's voice... but to you, maybe Ledger is better.

I've heard some complain that Hopkins wasn't Lecter too.

ok, ill specify that i meant he was jack nicholson oplaying the same character he always plays... in make up.

to me the comics have hammils voice, and the expressions drawn by the artist... like, thats what theyre there for? ive never had to imagine a comic characters facial expressions...

and no. jack isnt the joker. hes A joker.

i do agree with the other points that arent great, like napier as his parents killer, keaton as best at the time though not necessarily good in his own right once compared to bale... but i just get round that using the old its a seperate canon thing that you can decided with a franchise... like how dc have decided that anything set in batmans future (frank miller's) is non canon, so as not to disrupt their ongoing stories.

i just take the films for what they are... one guys take on batman. not the definitive batman (though nolan comes close)

 

[darthgordon]

ok, ill specify that i meant he was jack nicholson oplaying the same character he always plays... in make up.

Kind of like saying Humphrey Bogart was always playing the same character... or Sean Connery, or Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart or Brad Pitt... all based on what? The fact that they don't disguise their voices or because they played similar characters before?

As far as not picturing a comic book character's facial expression or mannerisms... really? Do the panels really convey everything to you without inference? I doubt that. You are making a lot of decisions based on the few frames that you see, whether you know it or not.

Besides that, different artists and different writers come at the characters different ways.

We seem to have built up in our heads what we believe these characters to be 100% based on what we've seen in the last 10 or 20 years. We forget that there have been 70 years of Batman and his rogues. We forget the major changes over the decades. We forget the different writer and artists' conceptions of the characters over the years.

There is no definitive Batman. There's a big convoluted story that really makes no sense if you read it from beginning to end. Thanks to DC there's several different universes and none of it matters anyway.