In Fantazone #1 (1989) Batman writer Sam Hamm explained "It struck me as a much better solution to treat his origin as a mystery and gradually work back to it." Would it make you feel any better and appreciate Batman (1989) as an adult comics fan if you knew that was a 1939 comic book based thing? It was based on how Batman was treated as a mystery in 1939 to the comic reading audience when Batman was first introduced in Detective Comics #27 (1939) "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" written by Bill Finger and art by Bob Kane and his origin wasn't even revealed until Detective Comics #33 (1939) in the little two page origin "Legend: The Batman And How He Came to Be" written by Bill Finger and art by Bob Kane and Sheldon Moldoff. In Comics Scene #3 (1988) Sam Hamm explained that "I felt it was just like that original Batman story in 1939 which starts out with this mysterious Batman who goes off on his exploits. And the shock at the end is it turns out to be Bruce Wayne. The twin agendas I thought were right to work with were: 1) Determine what is the kind of story structure that will make Batman sufficiently menacing. He's a frightening character. His whole gimmick, the only reason to wear the bat costume, is to frighten people. And 2) Do what that initial Batman story did and take Batman as a fait accompli. In other words, if you start with Batman and work backwards to Bruce Wayne, then you have a structure that allows you to see this character's impact on the rest of the people in the story. You don't have to waste half-an-hour getting him into the costume. People are paying to see the guy in the suit kick some bad guys. If you're paying to see Batman, then you want to see Batman." Sam Hamm explained that again in Back Issue #133 (2019) "Batman's the mystery. You don’t start with Batman’s origin. You start with the Joker’s origin. Batman is a mysterious vigilante: a shadow, a monster, a rumor. He may or may not exist, but he has the Gotham underworld in a panic. Which happens to be exactly the way he was introduced in Detective Comics #27." 13thdimension.com/sam-hamm-the-comic-books-that-inspired-batman-89/ www.1989batman.com/2013/12/vintage-magazine-article-comics-scene.html www.1989batman.com/2013/10/vintage-magazine-article-fantazone.html
No, I absolutely was caught up in it. I loved this movie when I first saw it, and I still hold a certain nostalgic affection for it. But my taste in movies has evolved somewhat since I was 9 years old.
Don't get me wrong on a story level, the film is pretty bad but overall I kind of think that in spite of its flaws the good outweighs the bad in this film. I can see why it was such a success. It looks great ,sounds great has some pretty interesting moments and I think too many for me to dismiss it as a bad movie. Its not a great film by any means, it's far from superman the movie or the dark Knight like a say its far from cohesive but still out of the original 4 batman films this is the only one which I say is any good.
This was and still is the best Batman movie. Without this movie you wouldn't have ever had all the other Batman movies and probably wouldn't have ever had all the Marvel and DC movies either. This movie revitalized superhero movies
I think Batman being less in this movie works. It gave him more of a mysteriousness that over exposure wouldn't have gave him.You're not sure when he's going to show up.
7:41 while I don't think it's a bad movie, I think it's ridiculous for any critic to call it the movie of the decade. It's not even the best movie of 89. Indiana Jones and the last crusade and back to the future 2 I think are both far better films.
the only problem with Jack's version of the joker is as good as it was, if you had already seen The Shinning and then saw something like The Departed,, you realize that its really Nicholson playing the persona of him that the public likes to see, where as there was NOTHING in Heath Ledger's body of work that would make you think he could had pulled off the performance he did with his interpetation of Joker in Dark Knight
I love this film, though I do see what you're saying. In actuality, Burton wanted to keep the action scenes, in particular with Batman, to a minimum because he wanted a feeling of mystery and genuine excitement when the scenes came up. A lot of people didn't catch on to that before and they still haven't. I thought it was a smart move, and one thing I love is that without spelling it out for us, the film summarized Batman's origin in 5 minutes with hardly any dialogue.
I remember seeing this in 1989 when it came out and thinking how weird it was that Batman basically disappeared into the background. Michael Keaton is so quiet and understated here it makes no sense for his character. Especially compared to his louder larger than life performance in Beetlejuice. I'm definitely not a fan of anything by Tim Burton.
Steve, you didn't think we needed scenes with the minor characters at the newspaper. I disagree. I think if we would have had more scenes of Batman, it would have been ruined. Too much of a good thing. The spectacular of Batman is twice itself when broken from a scene from characters we don't care about as much. But anyways I liked your review. The scene with The Joker and the char'd guy was great. I loved your impression. "I'm glad you're dead"
I agree. As with every other element of a film, the title sequence should be there if it needs to be there. If it's creative, if the film is better with it than it would be without it, then I'm all for it.
So I'm not a screenwriter but let me tell you what I, as a mediocre writer who really has more of an interest in TV and other episodic formats, think about why the movie was written the way it was. It's going to be a long comment because there's a lot to say. So first of all you have to remember that, like all studio pictures, the script is not the result of a singular voice. Sam Hamm based his screenplay off of Tom Mankiewicz' drafts that were written about five years prior. The Joker killing the Waynes was not in that script and nor was the scene where Alfred lets Vicki Vale into the cave. Burton added those. Burton wasn't really a Batman fan. He was just kind of hired on to do a job and viewed it as a formulaic film that he should make with the conventions of film at the time. But he was not experienced at the time and was still very wet behind the ears and so his ideas about how to construct a story within the confines of filmic screen writing, which are very limiting in a lot of ways for those who don't know, weren't fully formed yet so consequently he made a lot of rookie mistakes. Peter Guber, Jon Peters, and the other producers and studio reps had more faith in Burton than they should have so they kind of let him run amok. The Joker scene was a misguided attempt to collapse the world in on itself, as they say. Again, for the benefit of those who don't know, film often employs this technique as do adaptations of other things with dense source material. They do it with The Flash's series. They made Iris and her father integral parts of Flash's life and put Eddie Thawne in there to connect Dr Wells, who is really Eobard Thawne mark my words, to the rest of the world in a more intimate way. They do that because it amps up stakes. Good stories are about characters. Not events, not settings, not themes, characters. This is universally the case. There are no exceptions. Connecting the characters means one event will have more of an impact because it affects more characters and their relationships. If the villain shoots Iris' father it now affects Barry in a more profound way because Iris' father is his father figure too. That's the simplest way I can think of to put it. The Vicki Vale scene was done so that she could be a more traditional love interest and to give Batman an arc concerning her character to integrate her into the narrative better. As you said it was a series of interrelated events but I think they tried to fix that by putting a Band-Aid on it. So they thought if Vicki got past the secret identity she would be a more integral part of Batman's arc and the narrative on the whole. At that point they should have rewritten her part entirely and probably taken Knox out of the movie and made her both the main point of contention between Batman and The Joker and made her arc all about figuring out Bruce's secret and confronting him on her own. She's more of an appendage and kind of just one of several motivating factors in the conflict between the hero and villain as it stands. So then about Batman not being in too much of the film, Tim Burton grew up on monster movies, which at the time (not so much anymore) had the mentality that not showing the monster too much was better because it kept it mysterious and therefore intriguing because now the audience is working to make connections in their heads and that theoretically makes them more engaged. It's the wrong approach to a superhero movie but the superhero film genre was, at the time, pretty much one series of four movies plus a spinoff and a bunch of serials. So Batman was treated more like a movie monster who was mysterious and a little scary. We're meant to use that dread to get into the heads of the other characters who were probably more relatable as they saw it. It also was probably meant to establish Batman as a force of nature to make him more intimidating and grandiose. As for The Joker, part of that was Jack Nicholson's contract but most of it was the casting of Jack itself. He got top billing and wanted a lot of screen time to maximize his exposure to sell more merchandise because he got a piece of that in the contract. Then the fact that Jack Nicholson was one of the top ten biggest stars in the world made them increase his screen time in much the same way as they did for Jim Carrey in Forever. The Joker was scene as the main attraction to the movie and since Batman was supposed to be this mysterious weird figure of the night (more or less a direct quote, by the way) they chose instead to devote more screen time to Jack. These decisions were born from a very traditional mindset from a large studio and really, though they did make the film kind of a mess, were done with good intentions. That's my take on it, anyway.
A lowly independent one. It's nothing I'm able to do as a career at this point, I'm just working for a local film production company. Hopefully it'll grow into something in the next few years, but for now it's essentially a hobby we're all very serious about.
I was 22 when this movie came out, and had been a Batman fan since childhood and a movie buff since I was 15 or so. I left the theater very disappointed and angry with Tim Burton for wasting so much potential. This was a beautiful movie to look at, and the script wasn't great but it wasn't awful either (whoever did the novelization brought out some of the better points, but you shouldn't have to read the novel to understand the movie). But Burton botched it (this can be said for most Burton films, he's simply not very good). And Danny Elfman's score had four epic bars in it and the rest sounded like The Simpsons (and don't get me started on that Prince music). With a good score and even a half-competent director, this could have been a very good film. Most people younger than I am look back on this film through a nostalgia fog and tend to overlook its flaws, so I really enjoyed this review. Thanks.
I liked the title sequence to Batman Returns, following the bassinet through the sewer, and Batman's was all right, too, with the camera tracing the contours of the Batman emblem. But as a rule, I prefer films that skip long title sequences and jump straight in. It's not just a matter of patience, it's a stylistic preference. I enjoy a movie that doesn't fuck around and just gets started.
So wait STEVE, Superman Returns is a fantastic movie but 1989 Batman isnt??? You might be in the 0 percent on that one. Only kids who were not alive at the time would agree on that. i mean at 9 yrs old how were you not cought up in Batmania of that summer? the entire world loved it.
Almost ten years after you post this and I finally see it. I apologise in advance if I go on a bit, though. I agree with you on nearly everything you've said, though I must disagree on others. The plot was weak and filled with holes and questions without answers. The dialogue was so obviously geared to sound bites that it interfered with the storytelling. The slick, rain-soaked streets were moody but why were they always wet when it never seemed to rain? As a child seeing the 1966 Batman series when it was new, as an avid reader of the comics since that time and beyond this movie, I was at first excited. I couldn't have been more disappointed. Nicholson spent most of his screen time being himself, yet also playing Joker as if he had just watched Keaton playing Beetlejuice. Whatever he was, he wasn't The Joker. Keaton played Bruce Wayne as if he were the mild mannered Clark Kent. So much bumbling that it made no sense at all when he decides to get sneaky and plays angry with the serving tray under his jacket. As Batman, he was wooden and that ridiculous rubber suit gave him the neck movement of a gorilla. How do you fight when you can't even turn your head without your upper body having to lead the movement? As you say, the rest of the cast just ... were. Nondescript and uninteresting. No one had a real purpose. A few years later, I squirmed through this mess and came to one very obvious conclusion. Not one person involved in this movie had ever actually read a Batman comic. No one had any idea how these characters were supposed to behave. All they had to do was pick up some of the O'Neal/Adams issues or even the Englehart/Rogers run of only a decade prior. My date that I saw the movie with, knowing I was a big Batman fan, asked me what I thought afterwards. I could only answer that it was moderately okay, really kinda meh, but it wasn't Batman. Not even close. Bad writing, bad casting, bad acting. Overall, a horrible movie that only looks better today when compared with crapola like Batman vs Superman. But it's still a horrible movie. The only good thing that came out of 1989's Batman was the fantastic animated series of the 90s. Otherwise, this movie is unwatchable and best forgotten.
I just found a copy of the shooting script at Screenplays for You (sfy.ru/?script=batman_production), and if you Google it and look around, you can find copies of earlier drafts, including Sam Hamm's first draft which included the introduction of Robin. Some very interesting stuff.
I just rewatched this movie recently for the first time in probably a decade. I used to watch it all the time as a kid. The look, atmosphere and score are all still great. The narrative is a little slow at times and I’m not a huge fan of Keaton as Bruce Wayne looking back, but I enjoy him as Batman. Nicholson steals the show with his Joker performance, without a doubt. It wasn’t as good as I remembered overall, but still a fun film to watch with a lot to offer visually. It definitely paved the way for Batman films and comic films in general. I enjoyed hearing your take on this film! I actually just posted a review on my channel, too!
The idea behind seeing most of what happens in BATMAN through the eyes of the supporting characters is that the Batman is supposed to be dark and mysterious, something that's impossible to pull off if we're following him around every second of the film observing all the ways he does what he does. History has vindicated this approach; the Nolan Batmans, which did exactly what I just described, are terrible films. This, unfortunately, was the only Batman of this particular run that showed any real involvement with the source material--the others, particularly the borderline unwatchable Schumacher pictures, are huge-budget versions of the old Adam West show (elements of which even crept into the Nolan pictures).
The problem is those supporting characters really aren't that interesting. The advantage of of a film actually focusing on and exploring the character of Bruce Wayne is that it actually becomes a movie about Batman rather than The Joker guest starring Batman i.e this movie. "the Nolan Batmans, which did exactly what I just described, are terrible films." Really hurts your argument when the Nolan Movies work so much better as movies than this one (with superior acting, writing and direction). This one also hardly showed any involvement with its source material (Batman killing people, The Joker being the one who shot Bruces parents) SInce the Nolan movies are held in much higher regard than this one(especially The Dark Knight), I'd say "history has vindicated this approach" doesn't hold much weight either
I don't know- I love it- it's camp in a good way (not like the Schumacher movies) - not every great movie is great because of the writing- the visuals coupled with Keaton and Nicholson's performances are enough to make this a very good movie- I get what you mean about how it seems like a series of somewhat related things happening but I think that helps give it that comic book feel where we're less concerned with the overall story and more captivated by what's happening moment to moment.
The problem I had with this Batman film is that I think Tim Burton was smitten with the fact that he had Jack Nicholson as The Joker. So smitten, he let Nicholson take over the whole movie, and didn't give Michael Keaton much to do. Nolan's films start with Batman, and also give weight to the villains and supporting cast.
Theres a lot more to the Batman screenplay than people give it credit for. The concept of 'duality' between Batmans and the Joker is explored at every level, from the visuals to the dialogue. Vicky Vale provides a focal point for that throughout the movie and that's why she has a lot screen time. Her purpose is to humanise Batman and provide an entry point for the audience. The third act is a little weak because Warren Skaaren and Jon Peters got involved when Sam Hamm was in the writers strike.
i would agree with ebert: gotham city IS the centerpiece of this movie.one could almost argue it is one of the main characters beside batman and the joker.so gritty, especially since for me gotham city prior to this was adam west's pristine groovy city of the 60's.burton's movie sort of stunned me.i find keaton's bruce wayne so unassuming.he made sense.as for nicholson, he is an excellent actor, but he always eclipses his role.i am ever aware it is jack nicholson AS " so and so"
For me personally the DC animated The Dark Knight Returns movies are the best Batman movies period. The story is pretty much the same barring the narration, which I personally feel is a shame because I loved that "this would be a good death, but not good enough!" line that really sets the tone for the entire story. Besides the iconic story, it has great voice work, an awesome sound track and really hits that nostalgic sweet spot. I wish they made more mature animations like this but alas...
i am curious: is the screenplay for this movie accessible on line? interesting idea to read them.i had never really thought about doing that.i love a good behind the scenes format on movies we own (or better yet, a really informative directors commentary for movies i am very familiar with.)
I thought--and still think--that Michael Keaton totally rocked it...especially as Bruce Wayne. I remember all the fuss and naysayers bitching when Keaton was cast. But I had seen him in CLEAN AND SOBER, and I knew that he was a great choice.
OH DUDE, Prince most certainly did NOT score the Batman movie. How caould make such a trivial error ??? I have to say Steve I'm seriously dissapointed that you do not know who scored this movie.
I don't remember if it was on the Family Channel specifically, but yeah, I watched a lot of Batman reruns that summer. They played them all the time. And also in '92 when Batman Returns came out. That's when I noticed that the Penguin's mayoral candidacy in the movie seemed lifted from an episode of the show.
I can't see this movie objectively. I have too much emotional and nostalgic love for it. But regardless, Keaton's Bruce Wayne is still my favorite portrayal of this character in live action.
It was all Jack Nicholson. I remember how it was one of the first HUGE opening night sold out movies I went to by myself. my local theater actually broke fire-safety codes I think cuz they let people sit in the isles.
it's funny because the bonus features on the batman DVD show Elfman's content for having selected the prince tunes because people went on to think that Prince scored it.
I disagree with you on this. While I've never been a huge batman fan and don't remember ever reading any of the comics I really enjoyed this batman movie. I found Keaton's performance intriguing and Nicholson's Joker totally fascinating (approprietly insane). Yes, the other characters were ho-hum and too much time was spent on them but I can forgive that when the two main characters are so entertaining. The dark Burtonesque tone was very interesting as well. Keaton is maybe my favorite batman.
You sly dog, thought you'd get me on that, didn't you? I dug the title sequence to Supes Returns, too. I'll tell you what movies I really love that do have title sequences I wish they'd have left out, though: the Spider-Man movies. Enough with the CGI webs, man, just show me the damn movie.
Ah, yes I remember my film snob phase. I have a friend who is still pissed at me for the things I said about JURASSIC PARK 2. I love Michael Keaton (in general, not just in this movie): "Ya wanna get nuts?! C'MON... LET'S GET NUTS!" Summer of '89 was strange time for bat/comic fans... that logo was EVERYWHERE! Retail stores, convenience stores, toy stores, restaurants, t-shirts, shaved into the back of people's heads, etc.
Well advancing tastes go without reason. When i was a kid or teenage i couldnt stand to watch somthing like say Shindlers list or Shawshank, but not i can appreciate those films and find an emotional appeal. But deep down i will always be a nerdy kid who loves his sci fi & superhero. Thats not to say I will tolorate dumbed down kiddie fair like GREEN LANTERN- but i still think Batman 89 holds up on mulitple levels. Still the best of the 4 initial films.
Call me crazy but I still think Batman returns in the best Batman movie. Nolan's movies are good, but the style of the Burton movies was so much cooler.
I agree with you steve, I just think of a batman sized bomb that goes ffffitth! Like a big ol' wet firecracker, could've been a blast, ended up more like a letdown.
1.Batman-Good but too much Burton 2.Batman Returns-Ok with great characters but everything else is way too much Burton 3.Batman Forever-Almost horrendous 4.Batman and Robin-do i need to say 5.Batman Begins-Good style but shaky fight cam and wasted scarecrow 6.The Dark Knight-Great film but more a crime drama and takes itself to seriously 7.The Dark Knight Rises- Great film, doesn't take itself too seriously but has lots of plot holes and cut bane off too uqick and shoe horned talia in
Sorry to say it Steve but this is the first time I've disagreed with u on a review lol. I hadn't watched the film in years until the other day..... and I loved it from start to beginning it went by so quick. I will agree however that bucky Vale and Robert knox are in it too much they could cut a lot of their bits out. people ask me who is my favourite joker.... and I say well you can't really compare any of the jokers cus they are all different within their own right. for example jack Nicholson is a homophydal maniac compared to heath ledger who's joker was an anarchist and terrorist.... two totally different takes on the character. I do rank this film number 2 in the batman series of films.... the dark knight coming in second. and I do agree the screen play for this was woeful but if it wasn't for the lead cast members bringing out their characters with some superb acting then the film would of been a real washout. the look was right can't fault the effects even by totals standards... yes there are one or two bits that look dared but that's about it. and for me keaton is the best batman by far..... I have never like bale as batman and when he's Bruce wayne bes too much like his character in American phycho
I still prefer Michael Gough's Alfred to Michael Caine's Alfred. A cockney butler...really? Even though Nolan's films are superior in every other respect.
I dont know, when it comes all the Batman films minus Batman and Robin, I'm a neo-conservative, I go with my gut and my gut tells me I like them, despite the cheese :(
Batman is a movie of scenes. There are iconic scenes in the movie that are just classic Batman, ripped right from the comics. The opening scene with Batman on the rooftop, beating up the crooks who stole the woman's purse. More of that! The scene where the Joker returns to Grisom's office, and the shadows obscure his face, only to slowly reveal the haunting clown smile of the joker, and the "I'm glad you're dead scene." All work for me. Where the movie breaks down is when it gets silly and travels into 'camp'. the who scheme of the Joker is just plain stupid... when he hijacks the TV airwaves and airs his joker commercial... when he's driving down the street towards the end, giving out money... all of that is just god awful stupid.The gothic look, and the dark tone of the first half of the movie is just completely destroyed, and pulls you out of the realm of believably.
I feel the same, in 89 I had the T shirt and loved the movie, but when watching it now all the Keaton stuff as Wayne is good, but the movie doesnt cut it
I really disliked the film. I was a fan before the film opened and while there were some interesting bits and performances it seemed more like a showcase for burton's aesthetic than a story with compelling characters...like a lot of his films.
In Fantazone #1 (1989) Batman writer Sam Hamm explained "It struck me as a much better solution to treat his origin as a mystery and gradually work back to it." Would it make you feel any better and appreciate Batman (1989) as an adult comics fan if you knew that was a 1939 comic book based thing? It was based on how Batman was treated as a mystery in 1939 to the comic reading audience when Batman was first introduced in Detective Comics #27 (1939) "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" written by Bill Finger and art by Bob Kane and his origin wasn't even revealed until Detective Comics #33 (1939) in the little two page origin "Legend: The Batman And How He Came to Be" written by Bill Finger and art by Bob Kane and Sheldon Moldoff. In Comics Scene #3 (1988) Sam Hamm explained that "I felt it was just like that original Batman story in 1939 which starts out with this mysterious Batman who goes off on his exploits. And the shock at the end is it turns out to be Bruce Wayne. The twin agendas I thought were right to work with were: 1) Determine what is the kind of story structure that will make Batman sufficiently menacing. He's a frightening character. His whole gimmick, the only reason to wear the bat costume, is to frighten people. And 2) Do what that initial Batman story did and take Batman as a fait accompli. In other words, if you start with Batman and work backwards to Bruce Wayne, then you have a structure that allows you to see this character's impact on the rest of the people in the story. You don't have to waste half-an-hour getting him into the costume. People are paying to see the guy in the suit kick some bad guys. If you're paying to see Batman, then you want to see Batman." Sam Hamm explained that again in Back Issue #133 (2019) "Batman's the mystery. You don’t start with Batman’s origin. You start with the Joker’s origin. Batman is a mysterious vigilante: a shadow, a monster, a rumor. He may or may not exist, but he has the Gotham underworld in a panic. Which happens to be exactly the way he was introduced in Detective Comics #27."
13thdimension.com/sam-hamm-the-comic-books-that-inspired-batman-89/
www.1989batman.com/2013/12/vintage-magazine-article-comics-scene.html
www.1989batman.com/2013/10/vintage-magazine-article-fantazone.html
No, I absolutely was caught up in it. I loved this movie when I first saw it, and I still hold a certain nostalgic affection for it. But my taste in movies has evolved somewhat since I was 9 years old.
Don't get me wrong on a story level, the film is pretty bad but overall I kind of think that in spite of its flaws the good outweighs the bad in this film. I can see why it was such a success. It looks great ,sounds great has some pretty interesting moments and I think too many for me to dismiss it as a bad movie. Its not a great film by any means, it's far from superman the movie or the dark Knight like a say its far from cohesive but still out of the original 4 batman films this is the only one which I say is any good.
This was and still is the best Batman movie. Without this movie you wouldn't have ever had all the other Batman movies and probably wouldn't have ever had all the Marvel and DC movies either. This movie revitalized superhero movies
I think Batman being less in this movie works. It gave him more of a mysteriousness that over exposure wouldn't have gave him.You're not sure when he's going to show up.
7:41 while I don't think it's a bad movie, I think it's ridiculous for any critic to call it the movie of the decade. It's not even the best movie of 89. Indiana Jones and the last crusade and back to the future 2 I think are both far better films.
the only problem with Jack's version of the joker is as good as it was, if you had already seen The Shinning and then saw something like The Departed,, you realize that its really Nicholson playing the persona of him that the public likes to see, where as there was NOTHING in Heath Ledger's body of work that would make you think he could had pulled off the performance he did with his interpetation of Joker in Dark Knight
I love this film, though I do see what you're saying. In actuality, Burton wanted to keep the action scenes, in particular with Batman, to a minimum because he wanted a feeling of mystery and genuine excitement when the scenes came up. A lot of people didn't catch on to that before and they still haven't. I thought it was a smart move, and one thing I love is that without spelling it out for us, the film summarized Batman's origin in 5 minutes with hardly any dialogue.
You do Burton/Keaton a disservice by lumping the T.B. films in with the J.S. trash.
I remember seeing this in 1989 when it came out and thinking how weird it was that Batman basically disappeared into the background. Michael Keaton is so quiet and understated here it makes no sense for his character. Especially compared to his louder larger than life performance in Beetlejuice. I'm definitely not a fan of anything by Tim Burton.
Steve, you didn't think we needed scenes with the minor characters at the newspaper. I disagree. I think if we would have had more scenes of Batman, it would have been ruined. Too much of a good thing. The spectacular of Batman is twice itself when broken from a scene from characters we don't care about as much. But anyways I liked your review. The scene with The Joker and the char'd guy was great. I loved your impression. "I'm glad you're dead"
I enjoyed Burton's films, they're all about the fantasy edge. They're all about escapism. Nolan tried too hard to look real, that was the problem.
Nolan's films are actually about Batman though so that automatically gives him the edge over Burton for me
Spencer Malley yeah, but Nolan's batman came across as being boring and pretentious.
elcap22 Because they were built around a central theme rather than Tim Burtons fetishes?
He's pretty spot-on about the supporting cast.
I agree. As with every other element of a film, the title sequence should be there if it needs to be there. If it's creative, if the film is better with it than it would be without it, then I'm all for it.
So I'm not a screenwriter but let me tell you what I, as a mediocre writer who really has more of an interest in TV and other episodic formats, think about why the movie was written the way it was. It's going to be a long comment because there's a lot to say. So first of all you have to remember that, like all studio pictures, the script is not the result of a singular voice. Sam Hamm based his screenplay off of Tom Mankiewicz' drafts that were written about five years prior. The Joker killing the Waynes was not in that script and nor was the scene where Alfred lets Vicki Vale into the cave. Burton added those. Burton wasn't really a Batman fan. He was just kind of hired on to do a job and viewed it as a formulaic film that he should make with the conventions of film at the time. But he was not experienced at the time and was still very wet behind the ears and so his ideas about how to construct a story within the confines of filmic screen writing, which are very limiting in a lot of ways for those who don't know, weren't fully formed yet so consequently he made a lot of rookie mistakes. Peter Guber, Jon Peters, and the other producers and studio reps had more faith in Burton than they should have so they kind of let him run amok.
The Joker scene was a misguided attempt to collapse the world in on itself, as they say. Again, for the benefit of those who don't know, film often employs this technique as do adaptations of other things with dense source material. They do it with The Flash's series. They made Iris and her father integral parts of Flash's life and put Eddie Thawne in there to connect Dr Wells, who is really Eobard Thawne mark my words, to the rest of the world in a more intimate way. They do that because it amps up stakes. Good stories are about characters. Not events, not settings, not themes, characters. This is universally the case. There are no exceptions. Connecting the characters means one event will have more of an impact because it affects more characters and their relationships. If the villain shoots Iris' father it now affects Barry in a more profound way because Iris' father is his father figure too. That's the simplest way I can think of to put it.
The Vicki Vale scene was done so that she could be a more traditional love interest and to give Batman an arc concerning her character to integrate her into the narrative better. As you said it was a series of interrelated events but I think they tried to fix that by putting a Band-Aid on it. So they thought if Vicki got past the secret identity she would be a more integral part of Batman's arc and the narrative on the whole. At that point they should have rewritten her part entirely and probably taken Knox out of the movie and made her both the main point of contention between Batman and The Joker and made her arc all about figuring out Bruce's secret and confronting him on her own. She's more of an appendage and kind of just one of several motivating factors in the conflict between the hero and villain as it stands.
So then about Batman not being in too much of the film, Tim Burton grew up on monster movies, which at the time (not so much anymore) had the mentality that not showing the monster too much was better because it kept it mysterious and therefore intriguing because now the audience is working to make connections in their heads and that theoretically makes them more engaged. It's the wrong approach to a superhero movie but the superhero film genre was, at the time, pretty much one series of four movies plus a spinoff and a bunch of serials. So Batman was treated more like a movie monster who was mysterious and a little scary. We're meant to use that dread to get into the heads of the other characters who were probably more relatable as they saw it. It also was probably meant to establish Batman as a force of nature to make him more intimidating and grandiose.
As for The Joker, part of that was Jack Nicholson's contract but most of it was the casting of Jack itself. He got top billing and wanted a lot of screen time to maximize his exposure to sell more merchandise because he got a piece of that in the contract. Then the fact that Jack Nicholson was one of the top ten biggest stars in the world made them increase his screen time in much the same way as they did for Jim Carrey in Forever. The Joker was scene as the main attraction to the movie and since Batman was supposed to be this mysterious weird figure of the night (more or less a direct quote, by the way) they chose instead to devote more screen time to Jack. These decisions were born from a very traditional mindset from a large studio and really, though they did make the film kind of a mess, were done with good intentions.
That's my take on it, anyway.
A lowly independent one. It's nothing I'm able to do as a career at this point, I'm just working for a local film production company. Hopefully it'll grow into something in the next few years, but for now it's essentially a hobby we're all very serious about.
I was 22 when this movie came out, and had been a Batman fan since childhood and a movie buff since I was 15 or so. I left the theater very disappointed and angry with Tim Burton for wasting so much potential. This was a beautiful movie to look at, and the script wasn't great but it wasn't awful either (whoever did the novelization brought out some of the better points, but you shouldn't have to read the novel to understand the movie). But Burton botched it (this can be said for most Burton films, he's simply not very good). And Danny Elfman's score had four epic bars in it and the rest sounded like The Simpsons (and don't get me started on that Prince music). With a good score and even a half-competent director, this could have been a very good film. Most people younger than I am look back on this film through a nostalgia fog and tend to overlook its flaws, so I really enjoyed this review. Thanks.
I liked the title sequence to Batman Returns, following the bassinet through the sewer, and Batman's was all right, too, with the camera tracing the contours of the Batman emblem. But as a rule, I prefer films that skip long title sequences and jump straight in. It's not just a matter of patience, it's a stylistic preference. I enjoy a movie that doesn't fuck around and just gets started.
So wait STEVE, Superman Returns is a fantastic movie but 1989 Batman isnt??? You might be in the 0 percent on that one. Only kids who were not alive at the time would agree on that.
i mean at 9 yrs old how were you not cought up in Batmania of that summer? the entire world loved it.
I don't think so. They differ in tone and in their interpretations of the characters, but as far as quality and intelligence, they're about the same.
I love me some Prince, the Batdance was a freaking insane single!
You're right; Danny Elfman scored it. Prince wrote songs for the soundtrack.
Almost ten years after you post this and I finally see it. I apologise in advance if I go on a bit, though. I agree with you on nearly everything you've said, though I must disagree on others. The plot was weak and filled with holes and questions without answers. The dialogue was so obviously geared to sound bites that it interfered with the storytelling. The slick, rain-soaked streets were moody but why were they always wet when it never seemed to rain?
As a child seeing the 1966 Batman series when it was new, as an avid reader of the comics since that time and beyond this movie, I was at first excited. I couldn't have been more disappointed.
Nicholson spent most of his screen time being himself, yet also playing Joker as if he had just watched Keaton playing Beetlejuice. Whatever he was, he wasn't The Joker.
Keaton played Bruce Wayne as if he were the mild mannered Clark Kent. So much bumbling that it made no sense at all when he decides to get sneaky and plays angry with the serving tray under his jacket. As Batman, he was wooden and that ridiculous rubber suit gave him the neck movement of a gorilla. How do you fight when you can't even turn your head without your upper body having to lead the movement?
As you say, the rest of the cast just ... were. Nondescript and uninteresting. No one had a real purpose.
A few years later, I squirmed through this mess and came to one very obvious conclusion. Not one person involved in this movie had ever actually read a Batman comic. No one had any idea how these characters were supposed to behave. All they had to do was pick up some of the O'Neal/Adams issues or even the Englehart/Rogers run of only a decade prior.
My date that I saw the movie with, knowing I was a big Batman fan, asked me what I thought afterwards. I could only answer that it was moderately okay, really kinda meh, but it wasn't Batman. Not even close. Bad writing, bad casting, bad acting. Overall, a horrible movie that only looks better today when compared with crapola like Batman vs Superman. But it's still a horrible movie.
The only good thing that came out of 1989's Batman was the fantastic animated series of the 90s. Otherwise, this movie is unwatchable and best forgotten.
I just found a copy of the shooting script at Screenplays for You (sfy.ru/?script=batman_production), and if you Google it and look around, you can find copies of earlier drafts, including Sam Hamm's first draft which included the introduction of Robin. Some very interesting stuff.
I just rewatched this movie recently for the first time in probably a decade. I used to watch it all the time as a kid. The look, atmosphere and score are all still great. The narrative is a little slow at times and I’m not a huge fan of Keaton as Bruce Wayne looking back, but I enjoy him as Batman. Nicholson steals the show with his Joker performance, without a doubt. It wasn’t as good as I remembered overall, but still a fun film to watch with a lot to offer visually. It definitely paved the way for Batman films and comic films in general. I enjoyed hearing your take on this film! I actually just posted a review on my channel, too!
The idea behind seeing most of what happens in BATMAN through the eyes of the supporting characters is that the Batman is supposed to be dark and mysterious, something that's impossible to pull off if we're following him around every second of the film observing all the ways he does what he does. History has vindicated this approach; the Nolan Batmans, which did exactly what I just described, are terrible films. This, unfortunately, was the only Batman of this particular run that showed any real involvement with the source material--the others, particularly the borderline unwatchable Schumacher pictures, are huge-budget versions of the old Adam West show (elements of which even crept into the Nolan pictures).
The problem is those supporting characters really aren't that interesting. The advantage of of a film actually focusing on and exploring the character of Bruce Wayne is that it actually becomes a movie about Batman rather than The Joker guest starring Batman i.e this movie.
"the Nolan Batmans, which did exactly what I just described, are terrible films." Really hurts your argument when the Nolan Movies work so much better as movies than this one (with superior acting, writing and direction). This one also hardly showed any involvement with its source material (Batman killing people, The Joker being the one who shot Bruces parents)
SInce the Nolan movies are held in much higher regard than this one(especially The Dark Knight), I'd say "history has vindicated this approach" doesn't hold much weight either
I'm always willing to entertain requests. Whether I'll actually do them or not . . . who knows?
Thank you, thank you.
I don't know- I love it- it's camp in a good way (not like the Schumacher movies) - not every great movie is great because of the writing- the visuals coupled with Keaton and Nicholson's performances are enough to make this a very good movie- I get what you mean about how it seems like a series of somewhat related things happening but I think that helps give it that comic book feel where we're less concerned with the overall story and more captivated by what's happening moment to moment.
The problem I had with this Batman film is that I think Tim Burton was smitten with the fact that he had Jack Nicholson as The Joker. So smitten, he let Nicholson take over the whole movie, and didn't give Michael Keaton much to do. Nolan's films start with Batman, and also give weight to the villains and supporting cast.
I might do Back to the Future, sure. I love those.
Theres a lot more to the Batman screenplay than people give it credit for. The concept of 'duality' between Batmans and the Joker is explored at every level, from the visuals to the dialogue. Vicky Vale provides a focal point for that throughout the movie and that's why she has a lot screen time. Her purpose is to humanise Batman and provide an entry point for the audience. The third act is a little weak because Warren Skaaren and Jon Peters got involved when Sam Hamm was in the writers strike.
batman 1989 is the bomb what you talkin bout
i would agree with ebert: gotham city IS the centerpiece of this movie.one could almost argue it is one of the main characters beside batman and the joker.so gritty, especially since for me gotham city prior to this was adam west's pristine groovy city of the 60's.burton's movie sort of stunned me.i find keaton's bruce wayne so unassuming.he made sense.as for nicholson, he is an excellent actor, but he always eclipses his role.i am ever aware it is jack nicholson AS "
so and so"
For me personally the DC animated The Dark Knight Returns movies are the best Batman movies period.
The story is pretty much the same barring the narration, which I personally feel is a shame because I loved that "this would be a good death, but not good enough!" line that really sets the tone for the entire story.
Besides the iconic story, it has great voice work, an awesome sound track and really hits that nostalgic sweet spot. I wish they made more mature animations like this but alas...
i am curious: is the screenplay for this movie accessible on line? interesting idea to read them.i had never really thought about doing that.i love a good behind the scenes format on movies we own (or better yet, a really informative directors commentary for movies i am very familiar with.)
I thought--and still think--that Michael Keaton totally rocked it...especially as Bruce Wayne.
I remember all the fuss and naysayers bitching when Keaton was cast. But I had seen him in CLEAN AND SOBER, and I knew that he was a great choice.
OH DUDE, Prince most certainly did NOT score the Batman movie. How caould make such a trivial error ??? I have to say Steve I'm seriously dissapointed that you do not know who scored this movie.
I had the same Batman experience at age 9 when this movie came out. Did you watch the show reruns on the family channel that summer?
Holy shit, fuck no.
In all my years of Youtubing I've never encountered someone that I agree AND disagree with in such extraordinary degrees. I tip my hat to you, sir.
I don't remember if it was on the Family Channel specifically, but yeah, I watched a lot of Batman reruns that summer. They played them all the time. And also in '92 when Batman Returns came out. That's when I noticed that the Penguin's mayoral candidacy in the movie seemed lifted from an episode of the show.
I can't see this movie objectively. I have too much emotional and nostalgic love for it. But regardless, Keaton's Bruce Wayne is still my favorite portrayal of this character in live action.
It was all Jack Nicholson. I remember how it was one of the first HUGE opening night sold out movies I went to by myself. my local theater actually broke fire-safety codes I think cuz they let people sit in the isles.
i still love batman, batman returns and batman forever. the one i hated was batman and robin. i still enjoy them though.
it's funny because the bonus features on the batman DVD show Elfman's content for having selected the prince tunes because people went on to think that Prince scored it.
I disagree with you on this. While I've never been a huge batman fan and don't remember ever reading any of the comics I really enjoyed this batman movie. I found Keaton's performance intriguing and Nicholson's Joker totally fascinating (approprietly insane). Yes, the other characters were ho-hum and too much time was spent on them but I can forgive that when the two main characters are so entertaining. The dark Burtonesque tone was very interesting as well. Keaton is maybe my favorite batman.
You sly dog, thought you'd get me on that, didn't you? I dug the title sequence to Supes Returns, too. I'll tell you what movies I really love that do have title sequences I wish they'd have left out, though: the Spider-Man movies. Enough with the CGI webs, man, just show me the damn movie.
"Hungry For Batman" You can do it for almost anything, but I like that as a "Waiting For Godot" takeoff.
Ah, yes I remember my film snob phase. I have a friend who is still pissed at me for the things I said about JURASSIC PARK 2. I love Michael Keaton (in general, not just in this movie): "Ya wanna get nuts?! C'MON... LET'S GET NUTS!" Summer of '89 was strange time for bat/comic fans... that logo was EVERYWHERE! Retail stores, convenience stores, toy stores, restaurants, t-shirts, shaved into the back of people's heads, etc.
Damn, that was a good Jack Nicholson impression.
Well advancing tastes go without reason. When i was a kid or teenage i couldnt stand to watch somthing like say Shindlers list or Shawshank, but not i can appreciate those films and find an emotional appeal.
But deep down i will always be a nerdy kid who loves his sci fi & superhero. Thats not to say I will tolorate dumbed down kiddie fair like GREEN LANTERN- but i still think Batman 89 holds up on mulitple levels. Still the best of the 4 initial films.
YAY BATMOBILE! It feels like a Sadistic Choice .5 Don't know if that was on purpose, but I still likey!
This is the only of the four Batman movies from the era I've seen.
Call me crazy but I still think Batman returns in the best Batman movie. Nolan's movies are good, but the style of the Burton movies was so much cooler.
i liked the first tim burton's batman...but after seeing the second one, with the penguin, i lost interest and havent bothered with batman since
OMG! It's Baby Steve!
I agree with you steve, I just think of a batman sized bomb that goes ffffitth! Like a big ol' wet firecracker, could've been a blast, ended up more like a letdown.
1.Batman-Good but too much Burton
2.Batman Returns-Ok with great characters but everything else is way too much Burton
3.Batman Forever-Almost horrendous
4.Batman and Robin-do i need to say
5.Batman Begins-Good style but shaky fight cam and wasted scarecrow
6.The Dark Knight-Great film but more a crime drama and takes itself to seriously
7.The Dark Knight Rises- Great film, doesn't take itself too seriously but has lots of plot holes and cut bane off too uqick and shoe horned talia in
Talia wasn't shoehorned, there was buildup to her reveal, and Bane died when he needed to.
Sorry to say it Steve but this is the first time I've disagreed with u on a review lol.
I hadn't watched the film in years until the other day..... and I loved it from start to beginning it went by so quick. I will agree however that bucky Vale and Robert knox are in it too much they could cut a lot of their bits out.
people ask me who is my favourite joker.... and I say well you can't really compare any of the jokers cus they are all different within their own right. for example jack Nicholson is a homophydal maniac compared to heath ledger who's joker was an anarchist and terrorist.... two totally different takes on the character. I do rank this film number 2 in the batman series of films.... the dark knight coming in second. and I do agree the screen play for this was woeful but if it wasn't for the lead cast members bringing out their characters with some superb acting then the film would of been a real washout. the look was right can't fault the effects even by totals standards... yes there are one or two bits that look dared but that's about it. and for me keaton is the best batman by far..... I have never like bale as batman and when he's Bruce wayne bes too much like his character in American phycho
"shh, you want to get sued?"
I still prefer Michael Gough's Alfred to Michael Caine's Alfred. A cockney butler...really? Even though Nolan's films are superior in every other respect.
I dont know, when it comes all the Batman films minus Batman and Robin, I'm a neo-conservative, I go with my gut and my gut tells me I like them, despite the cheese :(
Hmm, don't like this yet enjoy that crappy dark knight? Then it appears we disagree.
You look the double of Ron Livingston, bet your sick of hearing that eh? haha
ur Expectations Level r Higher Than Himalya.........
thank you!
Batman is a movie of scenes. There are iconic scenes in the movie that are just classic Batman, ripped right from the comics. The opening scene with Batman on the rooftop, beating up the crooks who stole the woman's purse. More of that! The scene where the Joker returns to Grisom's office, and the shadows obscure his face, only to slowly reveal the haunting clown smile of the joker, and the "I'm glad you're dead scene." All work for me. Where the movie breaks down is when it gets silly and travels into 'camp'. the who scheme of the Joker is just plain stupid... when he hijacks the TV airwaves and airs his joker commercial... when he's driving down the street towards the end, giving out money... all of that is just god awful stupid.The gothic look, and the dark tone of the first half of the movie is just completely destroyed, and pulls you out of the realm of believably.
I feel the same, in 89 I had the T shirt and loved the movie, but when watching it now all the Keaton stuff as Wayne is good, but the movie doesnt cut it
Same
I really disliked the film. I was a fan before the film opened and while there were some interesting bits and performances it seemed more like a showcase for burton's aesthetic than a story with compelling characters...like a lot of his films.
URGH...must unsubscribe now! Keaton and Nicholson >>>>>>>>> Bale and Ledger.
He is much more british I think, that's the difference.
I love batman fans, so predictable, so uniformed, so one sided, so radical...
Wait, I hate batman fans.