web
counter
 

Batman Returns: The Fire Rises

By Drew Morton | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (56)



batman_returns.jpg

The moviegoer hasn’t seen a whole lot of Michael Keaton lately. A staple of 1980s cinema, thanks to his roles in Night Shift (1982) and three Tim Burton films: Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989), and Batman Returns (1992), Keaton’s career slowly faded during the past 20 years with his main credits being voice work in Pixar movies (Cars, Toy Story 3) and his low-budget directorial debut The Merry Gentleman (2008), an understated and beautiful neo-noir. His career skyrocketed with a casting decision: normally a manic comedian, Keaton was cast as Batman. This scared the crap out of fans and, in one notable case, investors (the Wall Street Journal ran a front page story on Keaton’s casting at the time and was extremely skeptical) as the camp of the 1960’s television show left a huge stigma over Batman that Frank Miller and Alan Moore’s work had only begun to rectify.

Last weekend, the American Cinematheque ran a Keaton retrospective and the notorious eyebrow actor came out for Q&A during a double-bill of Beetlejuice and Multiplicity. I showed up the next night for a double-bill of the first two Batman films, the first of which was one of the first films I recall seeing in the theaters. The movie made me a movie fan, a Batman fan, and a comic book fan. I owned the toys, I owned the Prince soundtrack for a short time (until my mother heard the lyrics) and, most significantly, I owned the DC Movie Special comic book adaptation (scripted by Dennis O’Neil, one of the founding fathers of the camp-less Batman). My fascination with the first page of the comic book adaptation, featuring a film spool turned into the grid of the page, has become a totem of my descent into dissertation madness, a nexus of all the cultural objects I care deeply about. Obviously, and readers of my review of Batman will no doubt remember, the caped crusader as embodied by Michael Keaton cast a long shadow over my childhood and my blossoming obsession for comics and film.

Sitting in the double-bill, my first time seeing both films on a 35mm print since their original release dates, humbled my nostalgia. The first film seems to play better on the ivory reflective screen of my memory than it does on an actual screen in Santa Monica. Burton’s stylistic choices are odd; an out of focus zoom out from a roulette game, the goofy sequence in the art museum choreographed to a Prince track, his editing of action sequences, etc. Yet, for every odd stylistic choice Burton draws upon, making the film feel more and more like a cinematic time capsule of what both the blockbuster and Batman meant in the late 1980s, he completely nails the tone. Nicholson’s Joker, while easy to underestimate thanks to Heath Ledger’s showstopping performance, is pretty damn great. Anton Furst’s production design nails the grim and gritty approach of the seminal Miller and Moore Batman comics of the period. Batman, removed from the context of my six year old life, is not a perfect film but it was a pathfinder in how to do a complex superhero film.

I was more disheartened to watch Batman Returns after 20 years. I always remembered the film being darker than the original, more perverse, grittier. I remember hearing stories about how it scared kids to the point that Warner Brothers needed to franchise to lighten up to keep parents happy, once again spiraling into the flamboyant aesthetic of the television show and becoming, once again, a “bad” cultural object in the hands of Joel Schumacher. Yet, in retrospect, that seems like an odd reaction. We often remember Batman & Robin (1997) for bad puns and a disjointed narrative but, in reality, Returns predated that. The look of the film may be more refined; the production design, soundtrack, make up, and entire scope of Gotham City at Christmas time is stunning. However, the writing took a severe falling off. The project went from Sam Hamm, writer of the first film (who also wrote an excellent arc on the Batman comics entitled “Blind Justice,” a possible guide for the final Nolan Batman film), to Daniel Waters, writer of Heathers (1988), who turned the film into a social satire.

Returns is notorious for spending more time dealing with the villains than the hero. Batman only makes one appearance in the first hour of the film really, disarming a violent circus gang led by the Penguin (Danny DeVito) as they threaten businessman Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and the mayor of Gotham City. Yet, we soon discover that Penguin’s attack was all a ruse to team-up with the evil Shreck, who plans on building a power plant that will milk Gotham of all of its energy. In order for Shreck’s plan to succeed, he needs adequate mayoral candidate, which the Penguin, freshly thrown into the media spotlight, can fulfill. Then there’s the creation of the film’s second villain, Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). The first half of the movie is essentially a series of repeated origin stories (the creation of Penguin at the hands of cold hearted parents, the creation of Catwoman at the hands of the murderous Shreck) and the obvious shifting of the conflict’s wheels into motion at the hands of the villains (Shreck, via Walken’s unique delivery, wears his motives on his sleeve in a cringe-inducing monologue).

We lose focus on Batman for the complete opposite in subtle storytelling. Selina Kyle’s transformation into Catwoman is taken laughingly literally (thrown out a window to her death, she is resurrected by cats and returns home to disown her role as a feminine object). The subtext is great, but it’s handled with the gracefulness of using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Walken’s performance doesn’t help matters but again, the chief cause seems to be the screenplay. When there are glaring leaps of logic (all the bat signals in town project on Bruce Wayne’s house, making it obvious who the caped crusader is) and eyerollingly bad one-liners (Penguin on being abandoned in the sewer system by his parents: “I was their number one son but they treated me like number two!”), not even Stan Winston’s great makeup design and Danny Elfman’s superior score can cover up the unsightly blemishes of Batman Returns.

This past week, I interviewed former Batman and DC editor Denny O’Neil for my dissertation. We spoke about his comics and the Batman films and he said to me that his favorite adaptations of Batman were the Nolan films and, not surprisingly,”Batman: The Animated Series” (1992). It’s easy to say in retrospect that the Nolan movies are better than the Burton films because Burton helped forge the path and did some of the heavy lifting (not to slight Nolan’s contributions, most notably grounding the mythos in reality, but it’s easier to do that in the wake of a successful franchise). “The Animated Series,” on the other hand, was a contemporary of Burton’s films. It was a spin off that ended up eclipsing the original and it holds up much better than the first four films. Keaton has all but disappeared and Burton, despite an upcoming exhibition at LACMA, has become his own worst enemy, remaking the same handful of movies over and over again like an auteur version of Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog’s Day (1993). The real enduring star of the films was the inspiration, Batman himself and, despite the casting of Anne Hathaway, I’m glad Christopher Nolan is now in the pilot seat of the caped crusader’s cinematic legacy. The fire rises!









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Ten Most Promising TV Shows of the 2011-2012 Network Season | I Wish I Could Be As Carefree and Wild: The Coolest Muppets









Comments

I could not agree more with you. Batman Returns is over-hyped by a generation of people who saw it as pre-teens or teenagers. The writing is terrible and so are the performances. Yes, it's better than Batman Forever, but it's still not a good film.

For me, Burton's original still stands up because the writing is genuinely funny and Nicholson's Joker is entertaining for every second that he's on the screen.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2011 3:14 PM

I'm so glad to see a skeptical review of this movie. I caught it fairly recently on HBO and was shocked at just how corny it was. We can (and should) deride the Schumacher films all we want, but at least those were campy on purpose.

This movie waws also the start of the "Michelangelo: City Planner" style for Gotham, in the movies at least.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 20, 2011 3:15 PM

I probably recall Batman Returns more fondly than it deserves to be. It's likely due to the fact of Michelle Pfeiffer in her Catwoman outfit. I think those images cloud my judgment and general recollection of the film.

As for it being "too scary", I do remember when I saw it in the theater, some kid started bawling his eyes out when the Penguin bit that dude's nose and all the blood came out. I remember it very well, because my friend sat up in his seat and started to look around behind us and shouted, "Who the hell brought a kid to see this?"

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at May 20, 2011 3:24 PM

Batman was one of the first movies I saw in theaters. And much like you it made me a huge fan of the character. I caught a few minutes of Batman Returns a while back and had a similar reaction.

I won't totally ignore the first Batman movie because it did get me hooked. But aside from paying homage to that fact I don't have much use for it. It's pretty much all Nolan now. Assuming TDKR isn't disappointing I fear for the franchise moving forward. If someone fucks it up after Nolan there's no going back to an origin story to clean up the mess.

Posted by: Dave at May 20, 2011 3:27 PM

I JUST watched this movie two days ago and I felt the exact same way as you. The writing was terrible; campy, even. Michelle Pfeiffer did A LOT more with that role than the screenplay offered even though she talked to herself for the first half of the movie. Also, you don't get to see Batman until 12 minutes into the film (yes, I checked the running time.)

Even the Penguin's plans seemed sloppy and ridiculous. Watching him address an assembly of actual penguins made me go "Oh, come OOOON!!"

The visuals are Tim Burton all the way and some of them are stunning, but after seeing Nolan's Batman films they all seemed pretty childish. And may I say, I'm relieved that the new Batman films don't include a circus music score somewhere in the plot.

Tim Burton once assure he had never read a comic book in his life (this one time he was feuding with Kevin Smith), and it shows on his Batman films. Thank Godtopus that his Superman Lives project never saw the light of day.

Posted by: Sofia at May 20, 2011 3:34 PM

"a totem of my dissent into dissertation madness"

A pun? Or an aversion to "descent"?

Reads nicely, though, in an odd quirky way.

Posted by: Whatever4 at May 20, 2011 3:38 PM

Well, I have to politely disagree.

I still love Batman Returns. I love the elements of what I felt were self parody. And I LOVE Walken's Max Shreck. There's an exchange that's absolutely hilarious, where Wayne is delivering an mini-righteous "our fair city, justice, creeps like you, blah blah" speech to Shreck at the ball. Shreck responds, "Yawn."

And twirls away.

There are definitely cartoonish elements in the Burton films, especially when compared to Nolan's work. But I felt these elements were consciously added, and that the films had a charming bit of self awareness about the the world in which they were playing.

And Keaton still has the best Bat-voice of all live action versions. Though he may be inadvertently responsible for all the ensuing bad attempts that followed his.

Posted by: Hawkeye Fierce at May 20, 2011 3:39 PM

Keaton was game, however he was never physically suited to be an alpha-ninja crime-fighting badass. Bale's version drives that home in spades. Hell, come to think of it, Val Kilmer put him to shame also.

Dave, rest assured that Hollywood can always go back to an origin story; the unnecessary Superman and Spider-Man reboots are proof in the making. I'm fully anticipating the announcement of a Green Lantern reboot about a month after the original film's release. :-|

Posted by: Barry at May 20, 2011 3:44 PM

Those Burton films were terrible and this comes from someone who, as a little kid, loved the campy Batman TV series in the '60's. My expectations weren't that high. I don't in anyway blame Keaton. I thought he was a decent enough Batman. I blame Tim Burton totally. And, of course, it only got progressively worse until it fatally descended into Bat-nipples.

Chris Nolan's re-boot is one of the great stories in cinematic comic book history. His thanks should go, not to Tim Burton, but to Frank Miller for his ground-breaking Batman: The Dark Knight Returns comic novel. Awesomely awesome.

I can only hope that Superman finally gets the film treatment he deserves.

Posted by: James S at May 20, 2011 3:48 PM

I loved Batman Returns. LOVED. IT. When I was 11.

Once I saw Nolan's 1st Batman, I went back and rewatched the four that began with Michael Keaton. And you're right. The first one is the only one worth a damn.

Even though DeVito's Penguin is awesome, and Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman is (dare I say it) purrrfect (I dare), the movie is still a mess. It's not about Batman. It's about the rogues. And badly so, at that.

It was as much of a mess as this entire, disjointed comment is! Bam! Harsh self- evaluation!

Posted by: superasente at May 20, 2011 3:52 PM

i remember BATMAN RETURNS for the villains(especially Catwoman) because in Burton's BATMAN movies,all is about the villains ,not that Keaton is a bad actor but his character isn't interesting and Keaton looks alike too much Julien Lepers(a french tv anchor)

Posted by: carrie at May 20, 2011 3:53 PM

My reflection on Batman Retuns is the same now as it was when I first saw it in the cinema. Batman kills people. Instantly, it excludes itself from any sort of canon. I'm a massive Batman fan, and I've re-watched every Batman movie except Returns, however deliberately or inadvertantly shit they might be. Batman Returns can fuck off. This was a lovely balanced review, though; much better than mine.

Posted by: Zuffle at May 20, 2011 3:55 PM

Agreed on the Burton Batman still being relevant and trailblazing for the subsequent handling of superhero films. Also agree with the Batman Returns breakdown. A truly terrible film, casting DeVito was a mistake and didnkt fit with the tone of the production. As was the decision to turn the Penguin into a disgusting freak.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 20, 2011 4:01 PM

I, too, interviewed Denny O'Neil for my undergrad thesis. And thanks to some experience in the film industry, I was able to interview Paul Dini about Batman: The Animated Series.

I still love that thesis...writing it was hell, but the best kind of hell.

Posted by: Lexie at May 20, 2011 4:52 PM

I couldn't disagree more. Returns is the perfect comic book film. It's fun, it's funny, it's brilliantly performed and it's full of eye-popping spectacle and action. It's camp, but not too campy; it's serious, but not so much. It exists in a world where people dressing up as animals and fighting one another seems like a reasonable response. It's why I've not been able to get on board with the Nolan films: it presents the idea that a man would dress as a bat for a little light vigilantism is a perfectly normal idea and to be applauded. No, he's a freak, and so is Catwoman, and so is the Penguin, and somehow these deluded weirdos connect and disconnect and collide against a backdrop of nuttiness. Gotham City isn't a real world. Batman isn't a realistic character. Returns treats it as such with a great sense of fun.

Posted by: Scott at May 20, 2011 5:26 PM

I'd still rather watch Burton's original Batman than those that came after, including the Nolan ones. I wouldn't say it's a better film than The Dark Knight, but it's very fun and quotable. Plus, Danny Elfman composed one of the greatest film scores ever for it.

Returns didn't work for me because it played too tonally uneven. For whatever reason, its particular blend of humor and earnestness fell flat for me. I did love Michelle Pfeiffer back then, though.

Thanks as always for your retrospectives, Drew!

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 20, 2011 6:49 PM

Eh, I love both Burton Batmen. To think the director didn't include those elements on purpose, is to admit to never having seen any of his movies in that period. Or, to be too clouded by his current "achievements" to see the younger was a different artist. He was much more self aware then than he is now.

Posted by: RobP at May 20, 2011 7:11 PM

I always hated the Burton Batman movies. Love Batman, wanted to love the films, oohed and ahhed over the production design, and winced at the awful scripts and Burton's wooden, sloppy direction. A terrible action director and incapable of building tension. Thank God for Nolan and BATMAN BEGINS.

Posted by: bbmcrae at May 20, 2011 9:01 PM

Though the Burton films led to the animated series, so that made it worth it.

Posted by: bbmcrae at May 20, 2011 9:03 PM

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that most of you just want to hate on the Burton films because Nolan came along and showed you all how cool Batman can be when you remove the comic-book nature/style of the source material. You guys like realistic. Great we get it.

Drew, I'm sorry, but how about a real review? You wrote seven paragraphs, most of which describe your feelings towards the Batman films in general.

The three you devoted to the actual movie were generic and obvious. You didn't bother to take the time to discuss the fact that maybe the Burton Batman films aren't meant to be "action" films in the purest sense of the word, or how there are a handful of great and talented actors in Return that get a chance to ham up the place and chew up the scenery.

And the drama! Why no discussion of the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Selena Kyle and their alter-egos?

And the rest of you are just going to sit here and tell me that the end scene where Michael Keaton and Pfiffer pull off their masks and reveal their true identities out of love is bad? Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing, bad for the franchise...bad? Seriously? Catwoman's a wreck, Shreck is there cracking wise, and then there's Keaton, giving more depth to the character than Bale could ever hope for.

The movie is Fun. Campy. Colorful. And rather dark. Like a comic should be.

Batman Returns is a comic book movie. Probably one of the better ones. Is it perfect? Of course not. Batman Begins succeed at the expense of its soul. It's a great film, but there's nothing comicbook-esque about it.

Posted by: Some Guy at May 20, 2011 9:38 PM

The movie made me a movie fan, a Batman fan, and a comic book fan.

This (re: Batman). I was obsessed with being the Caped Crusader when this movie came out and it took me many years to come to terms with the fact that Bob Kane was the creator and there was an Adam West 1960s camp version. This is also when I fell in love with the Burton-Elfman relationship, although you're definitely right about how Burton's become his own worst enemy in recent years.

However, when it comes to Batman Returns, it's not my favorite for many reasons. The first is its darker tone; I think this began the descent into the Groundhog's Day allusion to making the same film over and over you made. When you compare Batman and Batman Returns together, you can tell it's the same director, but the .. polish? of the second film, coupled with the awful storyline (there's an organic feel to how all characters are portrayed in the first movie, most notably Billy Dee Williams' Harvey Dent), really detracts from what was building up to be a great strength of Burton's.

The second was the fact that I wasn't at all satisfied by the portrayal of Selina Kyle/Catwoman, as much as I love Michelle Pfeiffer. At the time Batman Returns was released, I was also thoroughly engrossed in Batman: the Animated Series. I fell in love with "The Cat and the Claw," which introduced us to a subtly sexy Selina Kyle/Catwoman. I didn't understand, as a child or even now 19 years later, why she destroyed things that made her feminine -- just to don stitched latex and ankle-twisting high heels. She became a two-dimensional throwaway character trying to tout a twisted version of "girl power" to me. That still didn't stop me from buying everything Catwoman, though I attribute that to the animated series, not the movie.

The "actor who can eat a bad script and shit gold" didn't hold up, either, although I usually admire anything Walken does. You have two franchise-established villains (Penguin, Catwoman) and you introduce a Snidely Whiplash equivalent? For what purpose? "Doh-ho, I'm going to sap the city of its energy! Doh-ho!" It was ridiculous. Jack Nicholson turned "My face on the one-dollar bill" into a fairly believable line.

Came back to this post an hour later. Forgot what I was writing. You kids get off my lawn.

Posted by: duckandcover at May 20, 2011 9:44 PM

I was obsessed with being the Caped Crusader

When I was a small child I used to go up on ze...ze...ze rooftop, and pretend I was ze Batman.

When I was a kid I jumped off my roof dressed as Batman. At least I think I did. It might have been a dream.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 20, 2011 9:55 PM

Anyone who fails to recognize the greatness of Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman just plain don't know shit about fuck.

Posted by: firedmyass at May 20, 2011 10:17 PM

I'm left with a strong urge to revisit Batman: The Animated Series.

Posted by: Uda at May 20, 2011 11:45 PM

Uda, I did just that this week. Watched the entire first season box set. Next week is season 2!

Posted by: Sean at May 21, 2011 12:54 AM

I'm sorry, but the idea that either of these "films" embody what a comic book, much less Batman comic book are exactly why I hate comic book movie fans more than the movies themselves.

The camp may have been seen in the early 50's comics, where camp seems to be a side-effect of the era more than a conscious effort, but the camp in Burton's craptacular shitfests is completely derived from the true camp of the 60's televsion series starring Adam West, which never captured a single iota of what Batman comics were truly about. A superhero and his journey, his villains and his compatriots.

Comics are serious bizness. Batman was always a dark morality tale more in line with the Nolan restart than any of the crappy saturday morning cartoon Batman jerkfests that Burton spanked on-screen.

Yeah, Nicholson is amazing. That's like saying "wow, I was surprised D D Lewis was so good in that awful Dicaprio movie". Michael Keaton FFS?! Balding, weak chinned and emotionally vacant Batman? Danny DeVito drooling green fish guts all over his bib?! "Wait till I show you mu flipper trick"? What Batman comics are we referring to here, because I recall none of that drivel in any issue I ever read, and I read the ones with Batman's and Superman's sons teaming up.

Posted by: Protoguy at May 21, 2011 3:12 AM

Nice web log, would of created the web log bit longer, loved reading it though.

Posted by: Cheap Products at May 21, 2011 3:42 AM

and had a similar reaction.
I won't totally ignore the first Batman movie because it did get me hooked. But aside from paying homage to that fact I don't have much use for it. It's pretty much all Nolan now. Assuming TDKR isn't disappointing I fear for the franchise moving forward. If someone fucks it up after Nolan there's no going back to an origin story to clean up the mess.

Posted by: cosplay costumes at May 21, 2011 4:43 AM

You, sir, my dear, have missed the point. You do not walk into a man's house and claim his couch is the wrong color. And you certainly do not begin to dissect a Tim Burton movie from '92 that was based half-ly on a campy TV show and "loosely" on a gothic take on said TV show or previous comic book-iness. It's Batman. It's fucking Batman, you moron. You wanna dissect the Caped Crusader?? Do it in the comfort and privacy of your own house, you sad bastard. You sad, pathetic bastard.

Posted by: MeNameIs at May 21, 2011 10:25 AM

But good review, by the way!

Posted by: MeNameIs at May 21, 2011 10:25 AM

@Cheap Products - If you are referring to my weblog, I am open to suggestions. Every time I change the width on the format Blogger spazzes and makes it worse.

As for Batman, I have the same reaction to the Burton films as I do to the Rankin Bass versions of the Hobbit and Return of the King. It's a look and feel that cheapens the depth and heart of the story. Like a cartoon version of Schindler's List where Hitler really dreams of Nazis and Jews tromping arm and arm through a new Reich where everyone gets along in harmony. Cack.

And it is so nice to see that someone else thought the scene in the museum with the horrid Prince music was as awful as I do.

Posted by: Protoguy at May 21, 2011 1:50 PM

well, i think we can all agree, it was no 'a bug's life'.

Posted by: gp at May 21, 2011 10:29 PM

One of the critical things that the Nolan films got right over the Burton movies is that his Batman does not kill people. I almost cheered out loud during Batman Begins when Bruce refused to execute the guy in Ra's' temple, and again in TDK when he saved the Joker.

Posted by: Jon at May 21, 2011 11:51 PM

Say what you want about the film, but Michelle Pfeiffer is a miles better catwoman than Anne Hathaway wil ever be. Worst casting decision I have ever made- I hate that overrated, profoundly irritating set of teeth and boobs.

Posted by: biride at May 22, 2011 9:39 AM

woops, I meant ever heard of being made. whatever I'm tired

Posted by: biride at May 22, 2011 9:40 AM

Love and acceptance, pass the message and keep up the great work here

Posted by: Susann Martineze at May 22, 2011 11:06 AM

"but Michelle Pfeiffer is a miles better catwoman than Anne Hathaway wil ever be. Worst casting decision I have ever made- I hate that overrated, profoundly irritating set of teeth and boobs."
Posted by: biride at May 22, 2011 9:39 AM


THIS! so much THIS! I have yet to see anything Hathaway has done that justifies all the hype.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 22, 2011 12:04 PM

Weren't we saying the same about Ledger as the Joker? Let's actually wait for the movie to come out before calling it the "worst casting decision ever."

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 22, 2011 12:18 PM

I don't need to wait to see the movie to point out what is plain to see from her body of work. And her first shortcoming is her obvious lack of physical attributes for the role, she's not fit enough, she's waaay too pixie/twee whatever you want to call it. Halle Berrie's Catwoman was pure shit but girlfriend at least had the goods to fill the catsuit. If Flittery Mcpixie over here isn't believable in costume she's lost half the battle before the movie even starts.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 22, 2011 12:45 PM

Hi site owner you can check this method for making some money online, I really recommend it. And good luck with it, also thanks for your time writing this post and best wishes with your blog.

Posted by: Annette Jones at May 22, 2011 4:55 PM

@Some Guy "Batman Begins succeed at the expense of its soul. It's a great film, but there's nothing comicbook-esque about it." How about having Batman and Ras in it? They seemed pretty comicbook-esque.....but I could be wrong. But hey, I do agree with you on the Burton films. I loved them when i was a kid, and I appreciate them now that I'm older (even though I can't stand Burton). For a guy that didn't read the comics, Burton was pretty good at the relationship between Batman and Catwoman. What Nolan did with the films was amazing and I watch those movies with my daughter. The only thing "bad" that I think came out of Nolans franchise being such a success, is the fact that every director/writer wants to make the new movies more "darker and realistic". You cant make Spider-Man or Superman realistic! I can't see a "darker" Superman movie happening, but they could kill off Lex and put an actual powerful villain that's not overused by now. Sorry, got off subject. I do like the Burton movies, but I do think that Nolan did a better job. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I mean no disrespect towards you.

Posted by: Big Dawg at May 23, 2011 1:13 AM

okay, i had to speak up
i'm about to defend batman returns

first about it being dark, the batman is supposed to be dark, frightening. period, that was his whole deal; "criminals are a cowardly lot."
about it starring the villians: you already know who batman is, what hes about and that he's going to whoop some ass. doesn't need to star batman. what it needs to do is clearly demonstrate the villians and why a guy with too much $$ and time dressing up like a sexgimp and jumping off roofs makes sence. granted that the orrigins on both the villains weren't quite right. that's called creative liscense and it why heath ledgers joker wore "face paint". when you're the director you can do these things and people buy into it, or they don't.
personally i like the circus freak penguin, mad at the word that rejects him from birth living in the sewers. makes a little more sence than a short guy with a pointy nose, a hat, and a lot of umbrellas.
(also mr. cobblepot sr is peewee herman.)
catwoman was a little 2d, but most liberated woman types are on film. submissive secratary gets tossed out window, survives and decides to dress up and spend her evenings rescuing ladys from those terrible penis people, or vandalizing her boss's property, or flirting with another wierdo on a costume. didn't make sence then, still doesn't now, know why? it's a woman. convoluted logic and enforcing theirown doulbestandard is what they do. the good thing is, it didn't need to make sence. the character was built on her being a little nuts and finally leting that take over. crazy people don't make sence untill yo stand way back and delineate their whole psychosis. and IF you do that, cat woman makes plenty of sence.

and max schreck is why the whole things works.
walkin made this move hold water. he's so evil that even though you know right away that this is a bad guy, you like him, and you let him build parts for his deathray. it's the strength of his personality. so a giant capacitor that stores power rather than generating it doesn't make sence, neither did leaving a single exhaust port large enough to torpedo and vulnerable enough to destroy the empires most valuable weapon.
max schreck was the worst of the 3 villians, he was so bad that burton who didn't know crap about comic books had to make him up. A guy who could play 3 sides against eachother and get away with it. he almost won, and if he'd have snuck off while bruce and selina were having their touching moment, he would have. but that's not how comic book villains work most of the time. they stay and await their frame on the page, where they say something dispicable and end up electrocuted and dead with in a few more panels. that how comic villains work, especially the ones created specifically for one story arc, Like MAX.
as for batman killing people. He didn't exactly kill the joker in the first movie. He has accidentally let some people die in the books and he sort of let Mr. J die in 1989. If you watch, and try to think about it, he bat roped the joker to a statue so he couldn't get away, while rescuing token love intrest/broad in peril from certain death. Thats how the batman opperates, a villain give's him that "save them/catch me" choice, he some how swings both but not always very gracefully (the ease of the solution is often the inverse of the wirting quality)
well the gargoyle didn't hold and mr J didnt let go of the ladder (cuz he was crazy!) and batmans buisy saving damsle. Joker dies (probably). No reason to get all upset. Specialy since for that particular batman Mr J killed Tom and Martha. Not to mention the whole "I wont kill you but i Dont have to save you" from precious Nolan no-fun batman. that's right, batman killed ras (probably) SEE? same thing.
and i say probably because of this little leap of logic. anyone who's ever seen the a-team (the real a-team {peppard/schultz/bennedict/T,} not that vomitous mmovie that was one long trailer for a movie that won't materialize thanks to how bad the long trailer was)... oh ya
the a-team threw people off of stuff, blew things up all around them and even dumped hours and hours woth of bullets out of their mini-14's at the bad guys. nobody died. nobody died.
so whos to say if the goons in axis chemical didn't dust off and go join a new gang, like "phew, that sure was close huh generic badguy name"
"you could say that again, generic bad guy name"
who's to say that the clown that get stuck with tnt and tossed in to a manhole died like you or I would in simialr circumstance. he survived getting punched in the face by batman, what's tnt compared to a batpunch?
the joker might have survived that fall, catwoman did.
just because you assume that these people were "killed" by burtons batman doesn't really mean that they were. COMIC BOOK characters don't die as easily as you and I here in gritty reality land (which isn't where batman is from unfortunatly)
the army of penguins was great. flightless birds with SAM's on their backs, trained or remotly controlled (somehow?) to fire those missles in unison on command and create CHAOS?!? and the red triangle gang? how awesome is it to get to see 1 wierdo on all black fight a few handfulls of colorfully dressed firebreathing swordswallowing wierdos in the middle of a x-mas tress lighting ceramony. THAT is comic book stuff right there!

Nolan would rather show you cat woman trimming her toenails cuz that's gritty and real (and whack). Nolan's batman has to struggle to climb up a building, cuz it's gritty and real (adam west clibed buildings with no effort, while simulating a sexual act with a boy in green speedos)
Batman isn't gritty and real. Batmans a blackline drawing, with ink and little dialogue ballons. Sure, scary i'll go with that; but gritty and real? no this isn't a true story and there's no reason to pretend that it is.

onto a mutch needed attack on this nolan thing.

1: the batmobile is not a tank, it's the batmobile. would anyone want to see james bond driving a hummer with armor plates and shit, when it could be a sleek alpha-romeo that happens to be bulletproof and stacked with rockets? no, and that's why nolans gritty real batmobile is bunk.
it's a tank, and batman doesn't need a tank untill well after he retired.

2: bruce wayne has bank, lots of $$. Lots. like whoa. a guy that rich would get all bound up an heartsick of a broad as plain as maggie (droopy dog) gillnhoweveruspellit. whack casting makes his "heartache" seem silly and unbelievable. why would 2 respectable and well to do men like bruce and harvey bother competeing over perpetual sad face lady? was she the best they could do when tom wouldn't let kate off the compound?

3: the joker does not have scars, and he does not wear paint. go way back to the 30's and 40's no paint no scars. he is perminently disfigured and knocked clean off his rocker by a chemical bath he took at a playing car company. every thing heath did was good, but it wasn't the joker. they should have called him "the emo knife guy" or "the sortof looks like the crow guy" or even "the just cuz i was a gay cowboy a minute ago doesn't mean i can't be scary guy" it damn sure weren't the joker.
it was
...
over compensating... by a lot
what it was, if you look objectivly is a guy who was a homo a secondago, really digging deep in the the darkest part of his queerness to find something scary sortof like a hannibal lecter, and in no way related to the joker. once he found that they painted his face and forgot to make his hair green . and all these emo fans boys went banananas. sorry emo's - no joy buzzer / acid lapel flower. no joker. go read the laughing fish.

4: the batvoice.
i dont have to say anything about it do i? listen to keaton in either of his batmovies. "get in the car" outside the"musical museum. "shut up you're going to prison" to max in the sewer . it can't be topped. and Bales is the worst of all. WEST was better by far, and he sounded the same with and with out the mask.
come to think of it, ADAM west gets a bad rap, it was a little campy, but he was a good bruce wayne, and a decent batman.

5: it's not CSI:GC, and it shouldn't be. It's batman. Don't get me wrong, a good crime story is always cool, and I have the full run of GCPD, and it's damn good (check out the joker interrigation inthat a few years before Nolan's Movie... it's better and it came first)
it's not about crime though, it's about crime fighters, one in particular.

6: the soundtrack. bleh, sounds just like every other psuedo thriller. they need to bring back the elfman soundtrack, cuz that's what batman sounds like. no debate.

7: i could go on, but why bother,

Posted by: doctorMRsir at May 23, 2011 11:05 AM

8: I could read that ridiculously long comment, but why bother?

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 23, 2011 11:22 AM

man, I thought I was...verbose...

Posted by: Protoguy at May 23, 2011 12:49 PM

Here, I'll defend Batman Returns: I love it. I watch it at least once a year. Loved it when it came out when I was a teen, still love it now. The end.

Posted by: chriso at May 24, 2011 1:16 AM

And I'm still nostalgic for the old Hercules cartoons. Doesn't mean they were good.

Nostalgia is not a basis for a review.

Posted by: Protoguy at May 24, 2011 2:48 AM

Late to the party but for all its flaws, Batman Returns has some beautiful moments. As was mentioned in the review the set design and cinematography are stunning at times. The scene where Bruce and Selena discover each other's secret identity is played perfectly. The Penguin is grotesque and yes, the bad guys damn near beat Batman in this one. I still love it when Penguin snarls "You don't really think you'll WIN, do you?"

The movie is a mess, but it's still very watchable and once you get past the horrible cheesy stuff (the Bat CD Player was particularly awful) there is enough good stuff to make the movie worthwhile. It's certainly has a grim and gothic tone, but that makes it stylistically much more like a "normal" Tim Burton movie than his first Batman.

Posted by: TylerDFC at May 25, 2011 11:45 AM

I would like to show my appreciation for your generosity for men and women that require guidance on that idea. Your personal commitment to getting the message up and down has been astonishingly practical and have continuously helped people much like me to realize their objectives. The useful guide means much a person like me and additionally to my office workers. Thank you; from all of us.

Posted by: laser quit smoking at May 26, 2011 7:50 AM

You have a few helpful ideas! Perhaps I should think of trying to do this myself.

Posted by: 50th Birthday Party at May 31, 2011 2:12 PM

I find looking for sexy dress like browsing on the web for the info that you urgently need to find. In this case it is spot on. Right on the subject and not too long. Cheers.

Posted by: Sexy Dress at June 4, 2011 9:28 PM

This is a well done article that I have bookmarked for future reading. Have a good.

Posted by: http://www.bulktableware.com at June 7, 2011 6:28 PM

I feel like you could probably teach a class on how to make a great blog. This is fantastic! I have to say, what really got me was your design. You certainly know how to make your blog more than just a rant about an issue. Youve made it possible for people to connect. Good for you, because not that many people know what theyre doing.

Posted by: amoxil online drugs at June 11, 2011 6:01 PM

Greatings, ¡Gracias! Ahora me iré en este blog cada día!

Posted by: hot asian gf at June 22, 2011 6:17 PM

hi-ya, I like all your posts, keep them coming.

Posted by: Alfonso Reeher at June 23, 2011 10:36 AM

I love your blog.. great colours & concept. Have you actually layout this excellent website on your own or maybe would an individual rely on someone else to make it work for yourself? Plz act in response when I!|m aiming to design my web site and also would like to understand where by you got the following by. thanks

Posted by: exchange outsource at June 24, 2011 12:36 AM

Thanks for posting this

Posted by: Maren Porzio at June 29, 2011 1:06 PM