Batman (1989) - Page 2

It's better than Star Wars.

EDIT: But in all seriousness, you don't have to like the movie to realise that Joker was picking his own theme music. He's got a henchman carrying a boombox, he calls to him to press play, and then he starts with his dancing/anarchy/destruction thing. The only other Prince song in the film is at the parade. Again, this is music that the Joker is playing (since he calls for the sound to be cut off later, so he can make his whole "hubba hubba hubba, money money money" speech). It's what he likes to party too. It's not that hard to see.

Just think, if Selleck would have gotten the roles in Indiana Jones AND Batman, if he would still have a career...

I mean, was Magnum P.I. that good of a show to pass up on a few movie roles that did not relate to playing Baseball in Japan?

Where you see one kind of calculation, I see another -- "Hey, here's a chance to put some Prince songs into the film, give the Joker's henchman a boom box!" It just always plays that way for me.

Whereas I see it that Burton was lumbered with having these Prince songs in the film and managed to work out a way to use them which made sense and gave another facet to his villain.

I recently re-watched this last week. As I child, I fucking LOVED this movie of course.

But watching now through the eyes of a 26 year old in 2008, the movie just felt way, way too dated to me. And it's not that I can't tolerate a dated movie. I just don't think this one really holds up well over time.

For a start, overall I found Nicholson's Joker to be far too over the top. Some of it was flat out cringe-inducing for me. Like at the end, when he's dancing around on the ledge while Bats and Vickie dangle from the edge, making fucking FART noises!? Mother of god, I don't know how he wasn't directed away from doing shit like that. It felt like he was ready to have them yell 'cut,' but they just wouldn't so he was like "eh, okay... I'll do a little MORE of the dance. And here's ANOTHER fart noise." I couldn't believe how bad some of it was.

What made it worse is the few moments that I felt his Joker was truly awesome and iconic/true-to-form. For instance: the scene where he kills Jack Palance. That whole scene is fucking awesome, and is a very convincing Joker to me. Also the buzzer/shocker scene. "I'm glad you're dead." Awesome. Quill in the neck: Awesome.

Art museum scene? Not Awesome. I felt this and many other moments of the film were damn near as campy as the TV series. Not all mind you, but a lot.

Also, the action is beyond lame and really doesn't hold up well. The chase with the batmobile? Please. It was so funny because I remembered the bit of the grapple-hook to round the corner being so cool when I was a youngin, but now it just seemed laughable. You can clearly tell the car is doing MAYBE twenty miles an hour.

Also, Robert Wuhl makes me want to punch myself in the crotch for the entirety of his performance. I seriously don't know what they were thinking there.

I don't hate the film by any means, it still holds a nostalgic place in my heart. But I have to say, it was almost hard for me to sit through now.

I like Batman Returns far better.

How can you not like the Joker attacking a restaurant which also happens to include an ensemble of the worlds greatest art pieces?

A total dated sloppy clunky mess of a movie.

I probably watched it 400 times between 1989 and 1992.

I still like it quite a bit, but it's not as good as RETURNS.
I love Bob, and Jack, and Prince, and Palance.

Hate Wuhl and Hootkins and Kim.




Also - "Never rub another man's rhubarb is a reference I think to the film RHUBARB

This has been, and always shall be, my favorite Batman movie. I say that of course not having seen "The Dark Knight."

I may be the only person that feels this way...but Micheal Keaton is the only big screen Batman to be able to play both Bruce Wayne and Batman.

There are lots of individual scenes I like in this film, but it never worked for me as a whole, and I suspect that incoherent mess of a finale was part of the reason why.
Much prefer Returns, for reasons gone over many times before.

I'm not sure about Batman, but I know with Indiana Jones Selleck really wanted the part. Problem was he had already signed the Magnum contract and the producers would not allow him the time off to shoot the movie. Ironically, the start date of Magnum was pushed back and Selleck could have filmed Raiders without it interferring with the Magnum schedule. Ofcourse by the time he found this out Harrison had been cast and he was shit out of luck.

Really? I think the problem was that he was not allowed to show this part of the character often enough. In the restaurant scene (swimming with the models) and the party scene (pretending to be drunk and insulting everyone) he pulled it off very convincingly. The script didn't showcase alot of these moments though.

My exact words. It seems he develops a playboy persona at TDK.

I'll agree and disagree. I agree that Keaton for the most part does a pretty good job of balancing the two, but I actually agree with Bob Kane that Val Kilmer was the best of the original Batmen, although I can't remember where he said it. I think Kilmer does a better job of keeping Bruce Wayne haunted by his parents and his duties but still able to act like a normal member of society. Although picking between him and Keaton is not easy.


Agreed. Bale very clearly plays it as a Bruce Wayne who's not interested in the acting and only does it when he has to. He'd much rather be the recluse and it takes a fair bit of convincing for him to be anything but. Maybe if the current story lasts for another film or two we'll start to see more Bruce.

EDIT: I go back and forth on what flaws this movie has, but the one I have the hardest time forgiving is making Napier the killer of the Waynes. Warner Bros. did that a couple times in 1989 between this and Lethal Weapon 2 and it still strikes me as a little too convenient to buy into personally.

I mentioned my love for Kilmer's Wayne in another thread but I concur. I would have loved to see Kilmer in a better version but he was the best Wayne and arguably the best Batman.

I don't have much love left for Burton's Batman movies. I enjoy Burton's work but he seemed more interested in creating a gothic fairy tale and shoehorning Batman into it. I shouldn't blame him for all its flaws and weaknesses (well, because I love Burton) but I just don't register either film as enjoyable.

Selleck got to work out his frustrations by making Lassiter in 1984, which at least from an old poster with him standing in front of a biplane, looks extremely Indiana Jones-like and involves fighting Nazis for jewels.

In the Making of a Hero doc on Youtube, Peters mentions that his first choice for Batman was Bill Murray.

I think it would be interesting if Sean Young hadn't fallen off that horse.

Actually, I thought High Road to China was much more of an Indiana Jones booby prize for Selleck than Lassiter. Lassiter was a cat burglar movie.

Bill Murray was a casting leftover from the period when Warners wanted to make Batman into a big budget comedy. They wanted Eddie Murphy for Robin.

You're right. Here he is in front of the biplane:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3007945984/tt0085678

i think kilmer also had the best batman costume. well..before he morphed into the shiny power ranger anyway.

the heavy leather just seemed perfect for the fighting

Best Batman movie of the 90s: Mask of the Phantasm. It wasn't even close. Oh, how I was mocked.

I always thought Keaton would have been a good choice for the Joker, but was pretty lousy as Batman. Reading this thread, years later, is the first time I ever heard that was considered.

Mask of the Phantasm rules all. SubZero is pretty great as well, it's a real pie in the face to Batman & Robin to say the least. Not so impressed with Mystery of the Batwoman.

Mystery Of The Batwoman was ok, if only for the fact that it was John Vernon's last role before he passed away, and one final time for him to play Rupert Thorne.

Mask Of The Phantasm is tops. Saw it in the theater, and was mesmerized.

Of all the actors to play Batman/Bruce Wayne, I still think Keaton is the best.

Burton's Batman is kind of a mixed bag--it's a great-looking movie with an awesome score, some memorable lines and some funny scenes with Jack hamming it up, but the story is just really shallow. Keaton was surprisingly good, though. He played Bruce Wayne with the right mix of moodiness and quirk. And his Batman voice was certainly better than Bale's.

Mask of the Phantasm is great, but it still feels like an extended episode of the animated series. Not that I mind that since I absolutely love the animated series to death and consider it the best representation of Batman period (comics, animated or otherwise), but it didn't feel like a proper film. I never really cared for the other animated Bat-films though other than the Batman Beyond one, Return of the Joker, which was jarring the first time I watched it given that it was the first time that they were really able to portray the Joker as twisted as they had always wanted to. Seeing what he did to Tim Drake still creeps me out.

Back on topic, though, I was rewatching Batman Begins, and while Bale gives the superior performance as both Wayne and Batman, that movie fails in comparison to Batman '89 simply in terms of atmosphere. It rarely felt like the Gotham portrayed in Begins was one that truly needed someone like Batman to be there. The Gotham of Batman '89 feels crowded and alive with scum.

I think I have to agree with the Mask of the Phantasm/Animated Series being the best screen incarnation of Batman to date.

Back on topic, though, I was rewatching Batman Begins, and while Bale gives the superior performance as both Wayne and Batman, that movie fails in comparison to Batman '89 simply in terms of atmosphere. It rarely felt like the Gotham portrayed in Begins was one that truly needed someone like Batman to be there. The Gotham of Batman '89 feels crowded and alive with scum.

Yeah, the production design on the '89 Batman is just fantastic, definitely superior in atmosphere (though not story) to Begins. The opening scene with Batman scaring the bejeezus out of the two criminals is great too. It's a movie with a lot of great things about it, but it just doesn't truly cohere at the end.

Reading this thread made me pop in my old snapper release of the flick since I have yet to get the box set, and just from the beginning it's shown how far Gotham has devolved into crime. It looks dirty and dingy, the streets are crowded with prostitutes and thugs. Completely agree on the atmosphere lacking in Begins.

The rooftop scene is noteworthy for being the first and last time Burton/Schumacher's Batman fights any actual street criminals. Ever.

Was on TV the other night and still loved it.

It's not flawless, but its my favourite of the pre-TDK Batmans (which I haven't seen).

Although Mask of the Phantasm was sublime.

I wish people would stop merging the Burton and Schumacher Batman films...they are not similar at all. Both of Schumachers Bat films are Elektra level horrible with bat nipples,an awful Robin, the 2 worst Batmen Val Kilmer, George Cloony, and underwhelmingly written villains. While Tim Burton focused more on the Supervillain, but he delivered enough action and excitement needed in great superhero films like Batman and Batman Returns.

Well, there was when the Kilmer/Batman went after Robin who stole his car but all the street punks just ran away when he floated down towards them.. I guess cause of those nipples.

Peters is a crazy fuck indeed. But I don't believe he had the insight to cast Keaton as Batman. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I seem to remember hearing that Burton got shit from damn near everyone for casting him...including Peters.

What was strange about the '89 Batman. Was that the comic had to be shoehorned to fit that particular look.

When a film is successful, Peters is responsible for everything that worked. That's the law.

Revisited this after a decade or so...I actually appreciate it now far more than I ever did as a kid. It's been mentioned, but this film does such a great job of creating a world for its characters to inhabit. From the architecture to the extras, it's unique, immersive, and really the one thing (well, other than Elfman's score) the 1989 film holds highly over Begins' head (although you could argue that Begins, set in a more natural 'real' environment, doesn't require as much world-building).

One thing that really stuck out, and I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned, is the sound work, specifically the sound effects. Even for a film that's twenty years old, they're sorely lacking. Gunshots are of that old-timey TV western variety (with the ricochet), punches aren't crisp, and vehicular effects (particularly the Batwing and the Batmobile's shields) are lazily constructed (or sometimes nonexistent). Thinking back to films of that year, I don't recall Indy, Bond, Lethal Weapon 2, or even the Abyss having such lackluster sound. It sounds like a movie at least ten years older than it really is. I know this is a borderline knit-picky thing to bring up, but man did it stick out. Anyone know of any reasons why? I seem to remember the production ran behind schedule (the first teaser was music-free), maybe sound suffered as a result? A conscious choice on Burton's part?

Actually, I felt the same way last time I watched it. There are some good moments, but for the most part, the sound design is pretty uninspired. And The Abyss actually has brilliant sound design. It's one of my all-time favorites in that aspect. It's one of the things that makes the whole movie so oppressively claustrophobic.

I don't mind the old timey sound effects. Fits the mixture of old gangster flicks (tommy guns, and six shot revolvers, as well as the occasional .45, as well as some of the outfits that the gangsters wear), and modern aspects (cars, technology, the Prince music).

Just like when I watch an old spaghetti western, I have to hear those old pistol and rifle sounds. If it's redone in 5.1 it loses its charm. Like the 5.1 effects in The Terminator's dvd release. Glad that dvd has it's mono track as well. I was so used to hearing those old sound effects that the first time watching it with 5.1 was jarring.

I like the old time gunshots and the camera sound effects seem to be from a similar time period as well. I think they contribute to an old time noir feeling and a certain timelessness that seems to pervade the movie.

EDIT: Is there an Eko in this thread?

That's a good point, and I think it works fairly well in the Axis Chemicals sequence. But outside of that, it just could have used a little more imagination.

I can deal with the gunshots as an aesthetic choice, but I'll 'Eko' Greg David and call the rest unimaginative.

Going back aways in the thread, we were talking third act problems, and I find it interesting that Batman '89 and Begins share the same problem: how to raise the endgame stakes?

Batman '89 tries to endanger the lives of all of Gotham at the parade. But that entire sequence never feels big. It looks like they had maybe thirty extras, I never got the sense the entire city or even hundreds of people were at risk. And let's not mention Joker's mystical anti-aircraft powers.

Begins has the more esoteric 'Gotham is threatened by microwaved water that will make people go crazy' bit, which just seems so overly complicated. It lacks the simple threat of a bomb, or even Smilex gas.

Back to '89, something else I really enjoyed were the fights. I don't mean this as a dig towards Begins, but the '89 fights are well choreographed, well edited, and for the most part plausible (quite an achievement considering how bulky that costume must be). They're nothing mind-blowing, but just competently done.

The alley fight with Bob and the thugs, as well as the one with the swords that just appears after he jumps over the fence is awesome, as well as the end "fight" in the cathedral with the few thugs that re up there. Still love the bit where that one guy (Lawrence with the ghettoblaster I believe it was) jumps down and falls through the floor.

Also awesome, the one sided fight between Batman and The Joker.

On the Dogma commentary (well one of them, I think there's two) Kevin Smith comments on the opening church scene saying that it felt like the 89 Batman in that there were not near enough extras to buy as a crowd scene. I remember popping in Batman at that point and sure enough, I think your criticism of the parade is valid for a lot of the film. Seems to me at least.

Another little bit that kind of bugs me about the film: they reuse the same section of street for a lot of scenes (the murder of the Waynes, the opening with the lost family and the Batmobile chase), they pass that theater on the corner a number of times. I understand there are limitations for shooting on a backlot, but I think they could've been a little more creative with what they had to work with.

The biggest problem I have with it today is the incredibly clunky pacing. It doesn't really build to a climax. Can't believe I had the patience to watch this so many times as a little kid.

Favorite outfit: Wayne's awesome black turtleneck.

It's even worse in Returns. Marvel at the production design all you want, but Burton's Gotham never feels like anything more than a "kewl" looking set.

I was always curious how those goons got to the top of the tower before the Joker did ...


I still like this movie a lot, mostly because it reminds me of an old movie serial (including their faults.) It's about as good a representation of Batman circa-1940 as you'll get.

I haven't been able to watch this end-to-end in years, it's just such a goofy mess. There's bits and pieces and performances I still like, but it's just so much cobbled studio notes transmogrified into a half-hearted vision. The scenes added up do not become a real movie. For all the problems with Returns, at least it was essentially Burton's own.

I knew I remembered this quote from somewhere. An RS interview with Burton before Returns came out. Found the whole thing here.

There's more in there about Vicki Vale in the Batcave, and Warner Bros. marketing forcing Prince into the picture. And it's a good thing the intarwebs weren't in full force in '92, or the fury unleashed by

taken out of context would have been deafening.

Imagining Bill Murray's sad little mouth in the Keaton Batsuit is funnier than the entirety of STRIPES.

This trumps BEGINS in every way. It's amazing how little BEGINS improved on the flaws in this. Take the crowd scenes in the climax. A little small-scale, sure, but in BEGINS, I seem to recall the "citywide chaos" consisting of about 12 people running around in all this steam amongst a bunch of tents or something. It was like a TV movie.

The whole poison gas parade thing worked for me. It was when the Batwing flew up into the clouds and positioned itself over the moon reflection that things got a little weird. Following that up with him locking his missles in on the Joker and missing him with every one while old Jack doesn't bat an eye helped in adding to the confusion. It was like they just decided to GET NUTS for the third act.