The
Film: Batman (1989) BUY IT
The Principals: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Tim Burton (dir)
The Premise: A wealthy Gotham socialite fills his nights with crime-fighting as a frightening, costumed hero called Batman. A mob-tied corporate lackey, after being horribly disfigured in a chemical accident, is inspired by the hero to begin an equally theatrical campaign of terror against the city.
“How about a magic trick?”
We’re right in the second reign of Batman as a cinematic franchise- one which saw the last movie become one of the most successful of all time, and set the stage for an interesting director to have unprecedented clout and resources. Lest we forget though, before The Dark Knight shattered records, Batman shattered records. Completely consuming the summer of 1989, it broke the opening weekend record as well as the “quickest to $100 million” milestone before winning the year (domestically at least) overall. What’s amazing to consider is that even though the development of the film was definitely pre-internet, there was still comic book fan nitpicking and even a letter-campaign aimed at Warner Brothers for the casting of Michael Keaton. Things never change.
Is It Good: Yeah, it holds up. What’s great is how unique it is among the entire Batman franchise in both tone and look. This is by no means a restrained film –the clashing architecture, operatic posing, and ridiculous villain ensure that– and yet it seems positively subdued compared to the lunacy that would follow in each of the sequels (even Burton’s own, which amps things up to 11). This leaves Batman the one film of the original franchise that works as a distinctive, character-filled comic book movie that is also grounded enough to be taken seriously on at least a few levels.
“Come on, I want you to do it, I want you to do it. Come on, hit me. HIT ME!”
Is It Worth A Look: It’s probably worth what is your ninth or tenth look, certainly. This is a comic book classic, and it’s one of the few, even now, to organically integrate an origin story into a first film without overwhelming it. Keaton is a great Batman, a serviceable Bruce Wayne, and an effective adversary to the thunderous force of Jack Nicholson’s Joker. The Prince music, now-retired Elfman theme, rough-around-the-edges suit, and large-scale matte work ground it in that late-80s, early-90s era, but it’s still aged well.
“This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.”
24 comments
Easily one of the greatest Tracey Walter roles ever.
No, it's not good. Nobody who made it thought it was good. It was the first Blitz Marketing movie. They marketed the living fuck out of it specifically because it sucked. Do your research.
This movie was mediocre in 1989 and it hasn't aged well at all. BATMAN RETURNS is the "good" Burton Batman.
Yup, it's still fun. I love Nolan, and his films ARE better, but his movies just aren't FUN like this. And Keaton's still my favorite live-action Batman.
I'll never understand people saying "not aging well." There's absolutely nothing wrong with a movie being dated and a product of its time.
Great movie, but I still say Returns is better, as is DeVito's Penguin performance.
In retrospect, this film doesn't play so much as a faithful adaptation of the comics as it does an "edgy" take on the Adam West series. In '89 I was beside myself with excitement that there was actually a live-action Batman movie in the world other than the silly one (and I was already an adult at the time lol), but now it just seems like an inert, pancake-flat non-story with cheap little Joker moments (really just Jack Nicholson moments) and unfunny one-liners. The only visceral thrill in the whole thing is the scene with the Batmobile speeding through the countryside. And it's the only time that car looks like its going faster than around 15mph. To be honest, although I enjoy the Nolan films, I don't really see them as the masterpieces people seem to think they are either. I'm far more excited for the Arkham City game than I am for Dark Knight Rises. As far as I'm concerned, that first game was absolutely the best representation of Batman I have seen outside of the actual comics.
Still the best Batman portrayal, still the best Batman film, still the best Batman visuals, still the best Batman music.
And it will forever remain so.
Seriously, piss off with the whole Batman Returns being better bullshit. Michelle Pfieffer was a fantastic Catwoman and Walken is fun but other than that it's a mess. The first one is way better.
Nolan's take on Batman is my preferred fanboy vision as it's not so much of the art-school goth, but it is missing some of the fun of the Burton films. I can't wait to see where he goes with the next one.
Nolan's Batman films have made Burton's Batman look TERRIBLE. I used to think Burton's Batman was rather good, certainly not as bad as some made out. But Nolan has made them look cheesy, dated and full of fluff. The only thing Batman does today is make you appreciate Nolan even more.
All of you comparing Burton's Batman to Nolan's are idiots. This is two different artists' takes on the same character. It's like comparing MacFarlane's Spiderman to Romita's Spiderman. Different interpretations people! While you may ENJOY one artist's vision better, it doesn't make it a better vision.
And BTW, Returns was WAY too dark and overtoned, and DeVito SUCKED as the Penguin (while I still love him as an actor, it seemed the fanboys cast him instead of Burton).
And Nolan's films will look just as dated in 20 years. I'm sorry, but Nolan's flicks make me like Burton's all the more. They are fucking FUN as shit. Nolan's Batman flicks, while good, have LITTLE rewatchability.
Even if Nolan had never made a Batman, this movie still would not have aged well. I was six when this came out and it was the world to me, but doesn't mean it's a good movie. It skates by on nostalgia for too many people.
Is no one going to give a positive call out to the great parallel images and lines? Also, phrasing and analysis. Well done Renn.
Mask of the Phantasm is better than Nolan's movies. Fact.
We would not have the "superhero" cinema we have today without this film. comparing this movie to the dark Knight is like comparing batman (66) to batman (89). Its an amazing film. It evolved the publics view, it made new fans. It gave us our much loved Keaton. Watch it with a memory of the times, its balanced, full or character & gave us one of the last pre CGI thrills. Its not perfect, however when Keaton puts the cape and cowel on after vicki vale being in the bat cave, if the hairs on your neck don't twinge, then your not a batman fan.
Under the Red Hood was very enjoyable as well. I did enjoy mask of the Phantasm, and the game Batman Arkham Asylum.
But gun to my head I would go: 1.batman begins
2. Batman (89)
3. batman Arkham Asylum
4. Under the Red Hood
Batman is probably the best reflection of where we are at this point in time in history. Remember when "Batman" first released and not only did it make the '60 series look silly, but Adam West was offended that he wasn't offered to reprise the role of Bats? Fast forward nearly twenty years and history repeats itself. Ledger's Joker made Nicholson's look like Cesar Romaro. Cue Jack getting pissed because he was snubbed as well. Burton and Nolan's visions are simply a reflection of their times. See: Pre vs Post 9/11. Movies aren't as fun anymore The Dark Knight was great, but damn, Iron Man was lot more fun.
It's weird, I just saw this again yesterday, and was thinking about how it wasn't as good as I remembered. Lots of fun character moments (and Keaton was much edgier than I remembered), but as much as the movie benefited from Burton's best instincts, it also suffered his worst. On the plus side (I suppose), I was surprised at how many times I knew the next line, or precise inflection of a line, even though I haven't seen this movie in well over 15 years. That's likely a testament to something well done. Again, with the Keaton: His character was so obviously crazy/complex/lost that he was less "knowable" than Ledger's Joker. I'd love to see a one-shot movie where they revisit Keaton's Batman to see what he'd become after 20-30 years. I would also have liked to have seen Keaton's Batman in Nolan's Gotham.
1) You could do Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns with Keaton.
2) I always thought Keaton would make a good Joker in the modern Nolan Batmans. It might revisit Beetlejuice a little too much, but I think he could really bring some great stuff.
this movie has most certainly not aged well. the effects and action scenes wouldn't pass muster in a direct to dvd flick nowadays. but beyond that, it's really not a good movie. the only things that really hold up are the architecture (which, honestly, burton doesn't photograph all that well) and elfman's score.
Ah, this one. I think one thing is indisputable here: Keaton remains a better Batman than Bale. No one can argue that. Hell, Keaton barely had to do anything with his voice to show a difference between Batman and Wayne. That shows effortlessness. Bale's Batman shows an actor trying to hard. But let it be said that Bale's Wayne is damn good. And for the record, I like both Jokers from both eras. They both are representative of their times, and both have their strong points.
Better than Nolan's. A great movie.
Saw it again last night. First time in a while.
Bad pacing, illogical script, poor character development, horrid dialogue, dumb action. Apart from a few good performances, great production design and a great score (Prince aside), this movie has not held up at all.
That is the honest truth from someone who loved this movie as a kid.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.