Review: Batman (1989)

When the camp appeal of the Batman television show wore off, the show was cancelled and comic sales plumated yet again. In 1969, writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams set out to return Batman to the dark, grim avenger Bob Kane and Bill Finger invisioned him as. Though O'Neil and Adams had tremendous success in returning Batman to his darker ways, becoming extremely popular with fans, their efforts still did little to help the declining comic sales..

In 1978, Superman exploded on the movie screen, so naturally, Warner Bros. decided to follow him up with Batman. But as DC Comics completed the task of making the Batman comics darker again, it now fell upon Warner Bros. to deliver a dark Batman film that would be as acceptable to the public as the television series was back in the '60s.

The project went through several scripts (one script combined the darkness of the '30s comics with the campiness of the '50s & '60s comics) and several different director & actor combinations (such as Ivan Reitman to direct, and Bill Murray as Batman). But with the talents of Tim Burton and actor Michael Keaton, along with the determination of die-hard Batman fan & producer Michael Uslan, the first dark Batman film from Warner Bros. was delivered to the public in 1989.

The film's plot appears pretty straightforward. Batman is a mysterious vigilante whom everyone, from reporters to public officials, believes is made up, save for two journalists, Alexander Knox and Vicki Vale. Jack Napier is the right hand man of mob leader who becomes horribly disfigured in a failed attempt to hide their mob connections, when Batman drops Napier into a vat of comicals, effectively turning him into The Joker. Though they never meet face to face until over half-way through, the tension between The Joker and Batman builds up as the film goes on, seeing Batman attempting to stop Joker's smilex toxin from spreading all over Gotham, and Joker find ways to steal back all the press Batman has been "stealing" from him.

Now what is there to like about this film?

For starters, the world that Tim Burton creates is simply wonderful. A hybrid of '40s and '80s culture, the world of Gotham City is a timeless gothic, visually stunning, like hell has frozen over. Gotham City, influenced by art deco designs, establishes the world for the audience that allows for the fantastic to become believable, a world where a homicidal clown battles a man dressed as a bat.

The music is absolutely fantastic. Danny Elfman's score is very operatic, complimenting the world of Gotham City very very well. The Batman march is quite possibly the most famous of Batman themes for years to come; they simply walk hand in hand together.

The character of Batman is honestly not my favorite interpretation, but it is still very much Batman. Michael Keaton is fantastic at playing the troubled Bruce Wayne, a lot of the time letting his eyes tell of the character what the narrative doesn't. The Batman in this film, like his Golden Age counter-part, is a murderer, and though while I'm a fan of a Batman who doesn't kill, the film sets up a very interesting story for Burton to continue in later films, that I honestly would love to see.

While Nicholson is not my personal favorite choice to play The Joker, he's absolutely fantastic in the role, giving a ridiculous amount of energy into the cackling face of evil, a man who sees death as art and Gotham City as a blank canvas for his twisted expression. You can definitely tell Nicholson is having fun.

Now, with all that good said, is there any bad? Yes there is.

The writing can honestly get very sloppy at some parts, particularly Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne's relationship. Bruce Wayne goes out on one date with Vicki, and all of a sudden he's convinced that she's the one? Bruce is ready to tell Vicki that he's Batman? Out of all the things that i find gel with this world, this simply does not fit.

To make matters worse, whether Bruce would've told Vale or not is irrelevent, because Alfred goes ahead and lets Vicki into the Batcave, anyways. It does fit with Alfred's desire in the film to see Bruce Wayne end up with someone and not become entirely consumed by Batman, but for Alfred to let her in after only one date?...seriously, that is Alfred's last day at Wayne Manor. Hell, considering Batman's murderous ways, I wouldn't even be surprised if Bruce personally kills him himself later on.

To add to this, while I'm completely fine with the film exploring Batman's darker side as a murderer, to have him kill people but then the police and political leaders lift him up as a hero is just puzzling to me. Given the world these characters exist in, it wouldn't surprise me if everyone is just so happy that Batman disposed of evil that they don't care how he does it, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't feel weird at all to see the film end that way.

Despite sloppy writing, the film is visually memorable. While not my personal brand of Batman, the film provides us with characters who are very much in vein of the comic book counter-parts, played very well by top notch actors. The story is classic Batman, and the music is fantastic.

Final Grade

Batman (1989): 8.5/10

Next week, Burton's follow up to this film, Batman Returns (1992).

Review: Batman - The Movie (1966)

In 1954, came "Seduction of the Innocent". This book, written by American psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, was a full-blown attack on comics, claiming them to be a huge corruptor of the youth of America. Several heroes were targeted, but the worst recipient of this attack was Batman & Robin, as Wertham went on to claim Batman & Robin as homosexual lovers.

As a result of this book, the Comics Code Authority was put into place for all comic properties, and, by force this time, the Batman comics got significantly lighter, campier, and dumber.

Whatever darkness Batman had was now gone, and in its place was full-blown science fiction, with Batman & Robin now travelling through space, time, and fighting aliens. Even characters like Batgirl and Batwoman were introduced to refute alligations of a homosexual relationship between Batman and the Boy Wonder, not to mention the introduction of Bat-mite and Ace the Bat Hound.

Sales got so incredibly bad for Batman comics that DC Comics was considering cancelling the character altogether. But thanks to Batman: The Movie (1966) and its television counterpart, this never happened.

Batman: The Movie (1966), for this reason alone, is the most important Batman movie ever made. Not only did the movie bring Batman into popular consciousness, as well as make several of our elders Batman fans in the process, but it also helped increase sales of Batman comics, saving the character from being killed off.

But that is not why I'm going to give this movie a favourable review. Batman: The Movie (1966) gets a fair rating from me because it's enjoyable and funny to watch.

I could very well be wrong about this, but assuming you are indeed a fan of Batman, you probably love the dark, serious Batman we know of today, right? We'll...so do I. In fact I prefer it by a large margin. But that isn't to say that this movie isn't worth watching because it's the exact opposite of our preferred Batman. It's funny, cheesey, stupid, ridiculous, and I love it for that.

The plot itself is nothing to get excited about (a dehydration ray is stolen and Batman & Robin must get it back), except for the fact that four Batman villains: Joker, Penguin, Riddler, and Catwoman, are the main villains Batman has to go up against.

Really, gags aside, everyone in this movie is so much fun to watch. Adam West and Burt Ward are a delight as both Batman & Robin, with their "amazing" skills at solving Riddler's puzzles, and their hilarious & unexpecting one-liners ("Holey heart-failure!"), to name a few. These guys know the role they play isn't a serious one, and take it upon themselves to deliver the most entertaining performances possible.

The villains...what can be said about the villains that doesn't already apply to Batman & Robin (other than the whole good and evil thing)? They're just as over-the-top, just as goofy, just as entertaining to watch.

Now...the gags...I wont say much about the gags, because these gems have to be seen to believed & it's better if I don't spoil them for you, but I will say that you can expect lots of ludicrous things from this movie when Bruce Wayne & Dick Grayson are able to suit up into their superhero alter egos by simply flicking a switch as they slide down a pole.

With all that said, the film does have its small moments where it comes to a hault. There's a love story here that is only in place to advance what ever plot the film has, and I admit, the scenes revolving around Bruce Wayne and Kitka kinda drag, but from these moments spring more ridiculous moments (include one that doesn't quite refute the homosexual claims made agains the characters years earlier).

In the end, you really should go into this movie expecting a lot of fun, stupid stuff to happen. Wanting a serious Batman film? I don't think I need to tell you where to go to see that. But nevertheless, Batman: The Movie (1966) is worht seeing, and not just because of its importance, but because it's just a really fun time. The movie never tries to be anything more than a ton of campy and jokes, and on that level, it succeeds greatly.

Final Grade

Batman: The Movie : 8/10

Columbia made their serials, and 20th Century-Fox made its camp-fest. Next week, I look at Warner Bros. turn to bring The Bat to the big screen.

Review: Batman (1943), Batman & Robin (1949) - the film serials

Being my first blog entry, I'll take the time to quickly say what my blog will consist of. For the most part, I'll be reviewing movies. Sometimes I'll throw in a video game review or a review of a tv show, but for the most part the subject of this blog will be films. With that said, my reviews will not be an in-depth critical analysis. What I will aim to do with my reviews is decide if the films are entertaining, if they accomplish what they set out to do, if they engage the audience, and so on.

So with that said...

Batman quickly became a popular character once he came on the scene in 1939, so there was no doubt that a production company would bring Batman to the big screen very soon. By the time the first Batman serial made it to the big screen, the Golden Age Batman was long gone.

For Batman's first year of existence, his Golden Age, he was a dark creature of the night, like we know him to be now. Only differences is that Batman in his original incarnation worked solo, was a murderer who gleefully killed criminals, and even carried a gun.

By the beginning of the 1940s, several changes were in place. Batman had gained a sidekick in Robin (a move that increased comic sales), Batman was no longer restricted to Detective Comics & was given his own comic book, and it was in the very first issue of Batman #1 that 2 of Batman's most famous & popular villains, The Joker and Catwoman, were introduced.

But amongst all these additions, Batman & Batman comics were stripped of the darkness brought in Batman's first year. Batman was no longer a killer, and the comics got considerably lighter, in favor of protraying Batman as a respectable citizen. This image of Batman would last for most of the '40s, the decade that brought the first 2 instances of Batman on film, in Batman (1943) and Batman & Robin (1949).

These first 2 trips for Batman to the big screen were done in the style of a movie serial. Basically, every week people would make the trips to the theater to watch a 15-25 minute episode of the serial, which would always end on a cliff hanger, which would continue next week, for several weeks.

The plot of Batman (1943) delt with a Japanese scientist named Dr. Daka who has a giant lazer that destroys walls, an alligator pit, and can turn men into zombies to do his bidding. The plot of Batman & Robin (1949) is something of a who-is-it, as they battle the mysterious Wizard.

If my plot summaries sound indifferent or lazy, it's because I honestly couldn't care anyless about either of these films. Neither is technically well made, and neither is very exciting at all.

One of my first thoughts while watching either of these is why would you include such boring villains as Daka and The Wizard (who were created for these serials), when more visually interesting villains like The Joker & Catwoman are at your fingertips? Daka is no more than propaganda, and The Wizard is just flatout boring.

The cliffhanger endings leave a lot to be desired. Aside from the fact that there is obviously no way that either Batman or Robin is going to die in either of their crashes, explosions, etc., the serials often cheat the viewer, cutting out parts or showing altering shots of the cliffhangers that seem to imply a dreadful end for our heroes, only to have them come back next week having escaped from doom by a stroke of luck. The ability for our heroes to escape these parells don't come from within themselves, it comes from the hands of our lazy film makers.

In fact, in the cliffhanger of episode 10 of Batman (1943), Batman finds himslf trapped in a plane that ends up crashing, with absolutely no way for Batman to escape. So what's the conclusion at the beginning of episode 11? Batman walks away from the crash unharmed and only slightly dazed. When your hero is able to survive a plane crash with not a single scratch on him, without any logical explanation, then whatever potential the serial had to thrill you & keep you on the edge of your seat is gone. The film makers have completely cheated on this one, so who knows if they'll cheat again. All possible danger for our heroes & their allies has disappearred, so why should we even continue watching this?

While it's kinda cool seeing a Batman that's not all flash & all the heart you'd expect from the character, it means absolutely nothing when it becomes very clear that these are serials where Batman & Robin have nothing to loose and everything to gain.

On a smaller note, not much good can be said about the technical aspects of the film. Continuity isn't good, special effets aren't good, and the costuming is very bad and looks very cheap.

So...is there anything good about these serials?

Not really. And while Batman & Robin (1949) has no redeeming values, Batman (1943) on the other hand is a very important serial to the Batman mythos. Not only did Batman (1943) provide what is the bare bones prototype for the Batmobile (it's just a regular car, if you're wondering), but it also turned Alfred, who is an fat amatuer detective in the comics at the time, into the butler we know of today, but Batman (1943) also provided us with the Batcave.

So really, while neither film is entertaining enough or well written or technically well made, Batman (1943)'s significant contributions to the Batman mythos can't go unnoticed, so it deserves a rating of some sort.

Final Grades

Batman (1943): 2.5/10, Batman & Robin (1949): 0/10

Next week, I take a look at a significantly better movie in Batman: The Movie (1966).