I saw it in the theater, when it was released, and although I think Keaton had the best costume and I still see him as Batman, Roger was correct. Nicholson was just doing what Nicholson does. He was featured too often and Basinger was really good at being sexy, but she didn't seem terribly inquisitive or all that interested in the fact that Wayne was Batman. Keaton was a bit flat, but he was trying to be a brooding, mysterious character, he simply overdid it. Bale, as Wayne was mostly bland, over time he became a bit more interesting, however that goddamn voice, that goddamn voice. Will someone please give Bale's batman a Bat throat lozenge.
@@wetlazer2443 I saw them discuss this point though in another clip. Everyone was worried that Jack Nicholson would eat Keaton alive in their scenes. The veteran actor v a relative newcomer. But Keaton did a good job playing a low key, restrained performance where as it was Nicholson on too often being too over the top.
Actually someone who thought 1989 Batman was just ok. I thought it was cool back then because I was a kid now watching it again it was ok and dragged out at the end.
@@babymammoth34 makes me think of Ghost in the Shell, there they called the Japanese weird for objectifying women, like Western media doesn't do that. (In the comment you can find essay how the objectification in that movie also is because she's part literal object, being a cyborg.)
Ebert's review is a perfect example of a negative review of a movie. Sits down, calmly explains what he doesn't like about the movie. Doesn't act in a stuck up or arrogant way
Agreed, I think his review is wrong, but he has valid points. I think he put far too much emphasis on his points when really, all we want from a Batman film is a world to dive into and see some dark shit.
^ here come the attacks of Ad Hominem. A film critic's review of not even five minutes regarding a movie over two decades old must mean an awful lot to you. Sorry man. I had no idea.
Can you imagine doing a review now days? "Captain America 2 climaxes with the revelation the HYDRA have taken over SHIELD and of course once again Marvel had a great after credits scene where we saw Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch..."
Lol. I think a reasonable period of time for holding in spoilers is 2 weeks. But when Agents of Nothing are doing Hydra episodes I think its safe to say we had even less time with Winter Soldier... I wonder if they timed that on purpose to drive people into cinemas opening weekend before Agents of Shield aired the tuesday after?
Not from our perspectives with dozens of retelling's since. But when Batman 89 came out the only time the Jokers origin had been discussed was the killing joke and was at a time when 99% of people who went to the cinema didn't even care about a comic. So what they saw in that 2 hours was all they saw and everything they'd see is already covered here.
haha I watched the Batman Forever review first and I couldn't believe it. Their reviews honestly suck with today's standards. All I want is a rating and why I should go see it without any spoilers given. I guess this is for people who don't give a fuck about Batman until they hear something that hits their sweet spot for them to actually wanna see it.
Siskel wins this round. I think Ebert is overly-paranoid by suggesting the movie is "not for kids". Millions of children (myself included) watched this movie at a very young age, and loved it without ever feeling "disturbed".
Well, Ebert clearly wasn't into comics as an adult, because if he were, he'd realize that they were more violent and darker at that time than the actual movie was. Probably the last time he read a comic, if he ever read a comic, is when they were very kid friendly unlike what comics later developed into.
I watched it as a boy over and over and was obsessed by it, had all the toys, but it did scare me a bit, even Batman I found scary and he was the hero.
If you look closely at Batman’s face, his eyes squint when he sees Jacks face and the widen when it cuts back to his face and then he looses his grip. I’m guessing he slightly remembered his face and was shocked.
I always thought Batman just dropped him in the acid. He grabs Napier’s hand and it looks like he’s going to pull him up but drops him instead. I thought he did that for shooting Eckhart a few seconds before.
Ebert says it's not for kids... it is dated PG-13, so hello? It wasn't meant to be for kids. Ebert seems to bring baggage to his reviews, often with a corncob up there. Still, I miss these guys because they strongly stated their opinions and they seem honest. Way different than modern "critics" where every single one who was invited too screening seems to have an opinion that it's the best movie in the history of cinema. I used to watch these guys and learned you have to take their reviews with a grain of salt especially because they didn't like certain types of movies. I think their review of The Hitcher 1986 were hilariously off base. (Siskel remembered an event that was not depicted...) But as long as you know their predilections, it's no big deal. Other than the off base "not for kids" thing, I tend to agree with Ebert. I think most of the movie was passionless with it really being an fx showcase. Still, the film did do for Batman what Superman: The Movie did for Supes, treating these characters as real.
It took a lot of balls to go with the darkness at that time, especially with how big of a film it was. You can say all you want about Burton, but he made it possible for Nolan to succeed.
Ha, they're bitching about all the sequels that were coming out back then? Try now. With every single movie being a book adaptation, sequel, reboot, or some source of familiar material.
My dad took me to see "Batman" (1989) when I was 8 and it rocked my little world. I learned from that film what Good v.s. Evil really means. I remember watching wide eyed as the batwing (powered by vengeance and righteousness) took to the sky. I turned to see my father's reaction only to find him sleeping in his chair. That's my first memory of being utterly dumbfounded.
Yeah I was 8 when this came out. I don't remember if I saw it at the theater or not. For some reason after all these years I remembered part of the TRAILER where she says "You look fine" and then "I didn't ask". The first movie I can recall seeing at the theater was another Keaton classic-Beetle Juice. I may have seen Back to the Future at a drive-in close to the time it came out. Thats about as far back as my movie memory goes.
I watched it obsessively on VHS even though I was probably too young, used to have the Batmobile toy too. I used to find it amazing but also scary. Even Batman I was a bit scared of even though he's the hero. It's confusing for a kid to have a hero all dressed in black and a villain who's all bright and colourful lol. The soundtrack though I was just obsessed with.
Michael Keaton made a terrible Bruce Wayne and Batman as did Val Kilmer and George Clooney. Keaton's Bruce Wayne was an average looking recluse. Keaton's Batman killed people, was stiff both emotionally and physically where could barely move and fight, and constantly got trounced. What I did enjoy from him was the voice. Out of the three Kilmer came closest to matching the intelligence, hauntedness, respect for human life, and complicated nature of the character. He was still a far cry from the source material.
The degree to which a film is a little scary to medium scary to extremely disturbing scary is in the eye of the beholder, always. And that is why Ebert should bite his tounge to a degree here. His criticisms have been borderline fascist at times and should have never been applied to parenting what kids watch because I, as a kid, had a different sense of what I could tolerate and assimilate conceptually than perhaps someone else my same age at that time. Therefore, parents judging the material a child is interested in watching should be basing there decision on what their child can handle and not what Ebert thinks children as a population should be watching. I first saw the movie the when I was 4 years old and have literally watched BATMAN thousands of times. Thank GOD BATMAN got a pass from Ebert with my parents because he seemed to love ruining many movies I wanted to see growing up by influecning my parents decisions on what I could see, that lousey bastard.
Vicky Vale did have a reaction when she found out the secret identity of the Batman. She didn’t learn it in the cave though. At that point she already knew. The reaction comes after Aleksander Knox wonders what kind of trauma Bruce might have. That is where she puts pieces together.
Top 10 Movies Of The 1980's IMO 10. Return Of The Jedi 9. Back To The Future 8. Gandhi 7. E.T 6. Who Framed Roger Rabbit 5. Die Hard 4. Batman 3. The Shining 2. Raiders Of The Lost Ark 1. The Empire Strikes Back
Runaway Train, Brazil, Blow Out, Atlantic City, The King of Comedy, Dead Calm, To Live and Die in LA, Angel's Egg, Ran, The Thing. The best of the 1980's in my book.
@@EmergencyTop5 While I have a problem with the script, I admit that it was an interesting idea to have the first half of the film be about the villain, and the second half be about the hero. You notice this shift in story during the museum rescue scene. When Batman comes crashing through that skylight, he's taking over the narrative as well.
I agreed with Ebert when I saw the film. I can also appreciate what people like about the movie. It's very flawed with good to excellent elements that just does not hang together as a story. Keaton is good and I understand that his Bruce Wayne has repressed pain, but he isn't given enough to work with to make the character really engaging.
Though I prefer the Nolan films, I do think this movie is really great. It really isn't fair how much shit this movie has gotten since the Nolan movies started coming out.
I agree with you for the most part, this movie is great and it does get a lot of shit since Nolan came on the scene, i prefer this and Returns over the Nolan films but you get bonus points for you profile pic!
Derrick Dockrill I appreciate how Burton set the Batman franchise so well in this film it became the center of the past and the future. The benchmark of everything Batman.
One of many reasons why I thought Keaton was better than Bale is shown here. When Batman lowers and let’s go of Napier, Bale would have scowled throughout, whereas Keaton has a confident smirk. He’s telling Napier “it’s your lucky day”.
I just watched this movie again tonight. It still reigns the best of all the Batman movies in my opinion. Everything about this movie was so much fun to watch. Also, Hans Zimmer has nothing over Danny Elfman, the score was incredible.
@@_Boobear_ I dunno'... that's normal in any society that ever was. Having people stop warring over made-up imaginary god friends might just help in the long run.
@@TheDrmcvey I think Ebert's review was vindicated when Batman Begins came out and he gave it 4 stars. He was able to clearly say that he liked Batman Begins because of the things it did that no previous Batman movie had been successful at doing before.
You know you love and miss Siskel & Ebert when you catch yourself re-watching films 1975-1998 to look for the things they saw in them, and to remember a time when these guys were alive and on their game. Both very great men. I wish I could have known them.
I WENT TO SEE THIS MOVIE ON OPENING NIGHT IT WAS SOLD OUT, SO I HAD A WONDERFUL IDEA I BOUGHT A TICKET TO ANOTHER MOVIE THAT WAS AT THE SAME TIME WELL THE REST HIS HISTORY.
They said it was sold out, so I came up with this idea to buy a ticket to another movie & than went into see batman hahaha with my friend it worked perfect.
Eberts not usually wrong but when he is, it's usually massive. An example being his review of The Field. He didn't know anything about Irish history so just wrote the whole thing off as illogical and surmising that "that would never happen in real life", and gave it 2 stars. Such a bad decision.
I personally believe Batman (Bruce Wayne) deliberately dropped him in as an act of revenge, knowing that it was Jack Napier who had murdered his parents.
Indiana Jones 3 was well made it, doesn't really have any flaws it's just a different kind of film. Batman has a more interesting art direction I think people agree. The Indiana Jones all have the same basic formula, also they feel quite impersonal. Indie is the loveable hero who's going to beat the bad guys, kiss the girl and save the world horary. The character is not terribly complicated or 3 dimensional. The Nazis are more of just an obstacle he has to overcome to get the treasure instead of an evil force he should be fighting regardless. In none of the 4 films does Indie really have a real hatred for the villain and vice versa like you get in Batman 1989.
@@leew1598 In Raiders he does have a longstanding rivalry with Belloq. The other movies got away from the personalization of the villain which I think helped. Especially in light of superhero movies taking over the special effects genre. Most of those villains have a personal relationship with the hero. So Indiana Jones now seems like a refreshing change of pace when he's fighting villains who are more random and not his personal enemies.
I agree with Ebert more than I thought I would. During the pandemic, I've decided to take a look at the summer of '89 again and realized that I like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a whole lot more than Tim Burton's Batman. Burton's film has great style -- I love the gothic set design and Danny Elfman's exceptional score -- but it's style without substance. The screenplay is a total mess and there are lots of missed opportunities within it. It feels like it was rushed in the ways that really matter and learning that there was a writers' strike going on during its production makes too much sense. I think Nolan managed to improve upon what was here, but the one thing his films don't have is that trademark Burton sensibility.
I don't agree that the script is a mess; it's coherent and makes sense, but I do agree, however, that it isn't perfect, and there were missed opportunities. But scripts have always been Tim Burton's weakness. He's fantastic at the visuals and art direction and things like that, but his scripts, even some of the better ones, do have something missing to make the audience care. Sleepy Hollow is probably the best example for me. Everything about that movie is top notch, the look, the atmosphere, music, cast, special effects, etc....except the script. The script sucks balls, and it sinks all the hard work they put into the other elements of the movie, which is tragic.
The irony is that the dark approach that Siskel found so novel and refreshing has today become the default mode for ALL comic book films today. Many of them are excellent, but the last thing they physically look like is a classic comic book, with their bold primary colours. What they look like, of course is the 'graphic novels' that rose to prominence in the 80's and 90's.
I remember really liking this film from the onset. The intro is very cool what with hearing Danny Elfman's score as we witness the camera twisting and turning through tunnels of the Batman insignia. For its time it was great. There was a lot of controversy about Michael Keaton playing Batman, but his performance and look were spectacular. I still think this was the best-looking Batman costume ever, although I realize it was hell to wear. The costume may have been impractical but it beats everything that came thereafter. Jack Nicholson went way over the top, but in its time he seemed scary (in most scenes). I particularly liked the final battle at the top of some mile-high cathedral in Gotham. It's kind of funny to see Siskel approving the film while Ebert had reservations, as usually these positions were reversed. Normally, Ebert would be more "open minded" while Siskel was more approving of much more serious films. You never knew what to expect from these guys, which made their show highly entertaining.
Ebert stated that he didn't enjoy original Batman films at that time including two Batman versions of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher. But at the time, he adores The Dark Knight Trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan and he love two masterpieces of Batman Begins & The Dark Knight. He likes The Dark Knight Rises and he stated that he enjoys the new dark version that Nolan did in the trilogy instead of enjoying Burton or Schumacher side.
Not really. The Dark Knight has completely eclipsed this as the best Batman movie. Even at the time, as hugely popular as this Batman was, it was never that good of a movie and it hasn’t aged that well compared to The Dark Knight.
What really sets this film apart from the Nolan movies is that the time period is never truly specified, thus giving the 89 Batman a timeless quality to it, while the Nolan films have a modern take that while excellent in their own right, may become dated as the years go by. Both films are spectacular, but as far as a comic book movie goes, THIS is in my top 3
+Darth Cinema While I do agree that Nolan's batman does have a modern setting, I don't think that'll make it age poorly. Imagine being back in time and saying Casablanca will age poorly because its obviously set during WWII, or that Chaplin's Modern Times will age poorly because its so obviously set in the Great Depression. Decades after their release, though, time has proven that those movies have aged very well. What really matters is the characters and story, and the themes the movie portrays, etc. If a movie encompasses ideas, concepts and characters that always remain relatable in some way, even if the time period it takes place in has passed, its unlikely to age poorly. Really, we have yet to see exactly how TDK ages (I personally hope and think it will age well), but I don't think the modern backdrop of the film will necessarily have any impact on that.
The Batman 1989 films is an odd one looking back at it, it combines some fashion elements from 1930s cinema, lots of men wearing pinstripe suits and hats, women in fur coats etc, with technology from the 1980s though they use type writers instead of computers. I don't know enough about cars to say, they look quite 80s maybe? Yes the Nolan Batman films are more firmly set in the 21sts century, the fashion, the technology, the cars it all matches.
I love the art direction, the vision and the performances in the film. The one exception to the art direction praise is the way the goons wear sunglasses at night time, I think that's so dumb. Maybe that's more costume than art design but anyway.
I agree with Gene Siskel that Michael Keaton is a pretty good Bruce Wayne. I don't know why some people think he's terrible.. I thought he was a pretty good, but not as great as Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne (Except his Batman's voice still sucks). And Keaton will always be Batman.
Batman definitely wasn't perfect. The set designs and special effects were great, it was dark for its time, and Nicholson was a very good Joker. But Batman didn't have a real origin story (Batman's origin in Mask of the Phantasm wipes the floor with this movie's origin) or anywhere near enough screentime, Vicky Vale was a one dimensional damsel in distress, the decision to randomly make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents (shoehorning a major element into the final third of the film), and that out of place Prince soundtrack. But I'm glad this movie was made and incredibly successful for its time. Because if it wasn't successful, the superhero genre as we know it probably doesn't exist and a lot of great films don't get made.
Wait a minute, wait a minute......... Throws him into a vat of acid!!! Watch the movie again Siskel, He fell in! Batman was the one trying to save him by trying to pull him back up! Sheesh!!!! Get your facts straight!!!!! lol
Snot Nose No, I saw that and boy, was the family bored to death. Three long hours and tons of boredom on the screen, a giant glass of celluloid arrogance.
Snot Nose I wouldn't compare Nolan's Batman movies to the Godfather dude. I think youre taking your fandom to an EXTREME level here. Take it down a few notches princess.
Of all Batman movies this is my favorite one. Why? It has more of an adult theme, doesn't rely on CGi as much and isn't as shallow. This Batman doesn't pander to the teenage Transformers crowd. Siskel is 100% correct about how this film did not pander to young people and this movie has adult actors and actresses. This Batman isn't a Michael Bay type film. I can understand why young people under 30 years old wouldn't like this movie as much as The Dark Knight because younger people have grown up the last 12 years with lots of CGi with younger actors and actresses who have to look like Jessica Alba or Channing Tatum regardless if they can act or not. The last 15 years or so Hollywood has become more shallow and less believable.
@@micmorgan84 yeah and while the cast are very good looking Hollywood actors, I wouldn’t call them Greek gods and goddesses either. If you’ve seen American Psycho you’ll know Christian Bale is a gifted and diverse actor. Michael Keaton is still around and doing great work including but not limited to superhero movies. This strikes me as a rather shallow old man yells at cloud line. The Dark Knight isn’t a perfect movie and I’d hardly put it in my top 5 like some people but there’s plenty of philosophy there
Siskel loves Comics and Batman! It’s rare to see Siskel giddy and joyous. Ebert missed big time on this one! all the children (under 12) saw this movie 🍿 and loved it! 👀 in the drive in double feature with Lethal Weapon 2! So many good picks that year!
I agree. In fact I think Ebert was spot on in all his reviews of the Batman movies. He didn't care for the Burton or Schumacher Batmans but loved the Nolan ones. I'm with him completely.
"The film is dark and disturbing... so children shouldn't see it?" By today's standards, it IS a children's film. These guys would had a stroke if they could see the sadistic, violent, overtly sexual, occult oriented crap that is peddled to children today. Could you imagine them watching Nolan's joker shoving a pencil into a man's scull through his eye socket? Times have changed and not for the better.
Siskel died in 99, but Ebert passed away in 2013. He had a chance to see the Dark Knight (2008). It would have been something if the both of them could have seen Nolan's trilogy and review it. I am sure Roger thought differently of Batman 89 before he passed away.
It's funny how you can describe something like the Joker shoving a pencil through a guy's eye and somehow that mental image is far more disturbing than the way it's portrayed onscreen.
I love how today, people seem to think Hollywood only recently ran out of original ideas and look back to the 80s for "original" content; while critics in the 80s lamented how bereft of original ideas Hollywood was at that time.
That’s because the really good movies of the 1980’s were more the exception rather than the rule. Plus, there are hundreds of movies in the 1980’s that were released that are largely completely forgotten today. Every time period had mostly terrible movies and a few that managed to truly stand the test of time and elevate the artform.
i have to agre with ebert the first one was dull. and only nicolsons performance made it move otherwise it would be totally unwatchable. second was an improvement.
When I was a young one, I saw Ghostbusters 2, Indy 3 and Batman in theaters. I think that Indy 3 affected me the most....especially the intro with young Indy.
Ebert may have had a point about the character dynamics not being quite as good in Batman as it could have been, but it was still a landmark film in many ways and influential.
Comic book movies were very few and far between at the time. Superman was really the only major one. Technically, Howard The Duck was one, but that comic was too cultish for people to know that movie even was based on a comic.
From what I'm hearing, Christopher Nolan captured everything in his Batman movies that Ebert says Burton's lack. I still love them, but all of the older Batmans got one common response: We don't really care about the characters.Nolan's films accomplish this VERY effectively, almost at the expense of the story's action and steady progression.
I saw this when it came out and thought it was a total mess and, indeed, the script was being re-written as they were shooting it. With inferior Prince songs jammed into scenes just so they could sell the soundtrack, and Jack Nicholson playing himself (...again) in scenes that feel like improv that goes no where. It's like the studio didn't quite trust little bohemian Tim Burton with their money and the result was bloated and uneven and the actors don't really know what to do with it. "Batman Returns" is much more of a pure Burton film and much better for it. This was the first summer blockbuster I walked out of feeling like I still hadn't seen it yet.
Ha ha, blast from the past. Remember watching this episode on TV. I have to say I side with Gene. Gene to Roger is like..."c'mon man, you can't seriously be that upset...fanboy?" I could never tell who I was going to agree with because there opinions were all over the place. For instance Ebert gave 4 stars to Dick Tracy which in many ways is similar to Batman. Big comic book sets, over the top villains, pencil thin plot, and Danny Elfman music score.
Right on. People tend to forget this important fact. Bruce Timm and Paul Dini have said many times that if Burton had not taken the darker approach, the animated series wouldn't have come to be. I'm not fond of Returns or the Schumacher movies, but Batman '89 did SO much good for Batman. I love the Nolan films and all that jazz, but I love this one too. It's a classic.
I was in college when this movie came out. I saw it on opening night (and loved it), but the theater wasn't very crowded. I went back with some friends, and they all saw it in a packed theater while I watched "UHF" in the next theater. I always felt like I missed out on the experience a little by doing that.
I really enjoyed the 1989 Batman and I'm glad Gene liked it, but I'm going to go easy on Roger because I think that at the time, critics just didn't quite understand Tim Burton's style of film making yet because this was only his 3rd major motion picture. I think the public would most certainly begin to understand Burton's approach after Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns.
I think Tim Burton was never really that good of a director. He definitely had a lot of style, but he was never that great of a storyteller. His inspirations tended to be schlocky movies.
Batman movie didn't end up as good as it could be was because there was a writers strike and Sam Hamm left in the middle of the productions. Still the producers kept adding new elements to the story and script changes as the filming progress. Tim Burton only had a year to complete the movie. At the end a lot of things were rushed and pushed so that's why there's so many plot holes.
You cant really blame this movie when you see it in relation to our widen horizon after the Christopher Nolan's films, because they would never have been made without this film.
Yeah, because back then, Batman was still largely seen as for children to the mainstream. The Batman graphic novels that started in the 1980’s had a more cultish appeal at the time.
Movie: Batman. Release Date: June 19, 1989 (Westwood, California) and June 23, 1989. My Opinion: The best Batman movie ever! I agree with Gene Siskel, I disagree with Roger Ebert. Rating: 10/10.
This movie is entertainment at its finest. There are no boring scenes, the performances by Nicholson, Keaton, and Basinger are great, and the story and set are spot-on.
And THEN... the Joker somehow doesn't have his leg pop off when a GIANT STATUE IS TIED TO IT. Really, that one scene killed it for me, much as the Pacific Rim, "beat them with an indestructible oil tanker baseball bat" scene.
Great movie,but I personally think Sam Hamm's original draft for "Batman" was so much better than the actual finished film. A lot of things were different from the movie. Silly things such as Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave wasn't in the script,among other things. It's really quite fascinating. I'd recommend for anyone to go online and read it. It'll take you a while to read the whole movie,but it's definitely worth the time spent doing so.
I remember my dad taking me and my bro to see this when I was turning 6. It the first time that I can remember truly feeling excited about seeing a movie. I loved it then and even more so now. I even like it more than the Nolan films simply because it captured batman and more so Gotham city the way it truly should. Also, the score was amazing
Interesting that the "dark" approach was thought to be a risk back then. These days lighthearted films, especially within the superhero/comic book genre, aren't even an option.
So films like the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, and Ant-Man arn't light hearted? Seems to me that there is just more of a mix now, which is better for storytelling in my opinion.
That’s because the PG-13 rating hadn’t been around that long. The tone of Hollywood movies, if you really looked at them from then, were much more polarizing between what was rated PG and what was rated R.
I agree with Ebert. It has great art direction and the dark theme elements are stunning (the batmobile for instance is awesome) But the story and characters are really lacking.
Ebert is saying he didn't care much for the characters, and that he preferred Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. I didn't care much for a character like Elsa Schneider character. Vicki Vale's character served a bigger purpose, as a reminder to why Bruce can't have a normal life.
Gene Siskel was complaining about summer blockbuster sequels 20 years before it was cool.
They aren't cool know
gothatway09 Remember when people wrote to letters columns and zines to share their two cents on media, and remember party lines?
I wonder how he would feel about modern cinema.
Sequels had a much worse reputation in the 1970s and 1980s than they do now.
@@fede018 I think he'd be worn out by a lot of it but would appreciate the independent films especially with how we seem to be getting more of them.
Agree with Gene over Roger. The 1989 Batman was awesome. Keaton was the correct choice.
I saw it in the theater, when it was released, and although I think Keaton had the best costume and I still see him as Batman, Roger was correct. Nicholson was just doing what Nicholson does. He was featured too often and Basinger was really good at being sexy, but she didn't seem terribly inquisitive or all that interested in the fact that Wayne was Batman. Keaton was a bit flat, but he was trying to be a brooding, mysterious character, he simply overdid it. Bale, as Wayne was mostly bland, over time he became a bit more interesting, however that goddamn voice, that goddamn voice. Will someone please give Bale's batman a Bat throat lozenge.
@@wetlazer2443 Keatons performance in Returns was great though. He came into his own as Bruce Wayne. Wish he did a third.
I didn't think Michael Keaton was the right choice for Batman. He was uninteresting and flat.
@@wetlazer2443 I saw them discuss this point though in another clip. Everyone was worried that Jack Nicholson would eat Keaton alive in their scenes. The veteran actor v a relative newcomer. But Keaton did a good job playing a low key, restrained performance where as it was Nicholson on too often being too over the top.
Actually someone who thought 1989 Batman was just ok. I thought it was cool back then because I was a kid now watching it again it was ok and dragged out at the end.
There's something about two middle-aged intellectual-types having a serious debate about the goings-on in the Batcave that makes me smile.
But no talk of Kim basinger's fine legs in white and black hosiery....how do ya figure?
Baby Mammoth34 Because that crap doesn’t matter.
Exactly....it's not the real World 🌎
@@babymammoth34 makes me think of Ghost in the Shell, there they called the Japanese weird for objectifying women, like Western media doesn't do that. (In the comment you can find essay how the objectification in that movie also is because she's part literal object, being a cyborg.)
@@babymammoth34Basinger’s beauty goes without saying
Ebert's review is a perfect example of a negative review of a movie. Sits down, calmly explains what he doesn't like about the movie. Doesn't act in a stuck up or arrogant way
Agreed, I think his review is wrong, but he has valid points. I think he put far too much emphasis on his points when really, all we want from a Batman film is a world to dive into and see some dark shit.
hmm
I'm not making any sense by saying someone has good points in an argument I consider wrong? Wow.
^ here come the attacks of Ad Hominem. A film critic's review of not even five minutes regarding a movie over two decades old must mean an awful lot to you. Sorry man. I had no idea.
oh yeah?? then why wasnt the show "ebert and siskel"? cause ebert sucked thats why.
They really didnt care about spoilers in the 80's did they?
Can you imagine doing a review now days? "Captain America 2 climaxes with the revelation the HYDRA have taken over SHIELD and of course once again Marvel had a great after credits scene where we saw Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch..."
Lol. I think a reasonable period of time for holding in spoilers is 2 weeks. But when Agents of Nothing are doing Hydra episodes I think its safe to say we had even less time with Winter Soldier... I wonder if they timed that on purpose to drive people into cinemas opening weekend before Agents of Shield aired the tuesday after?
Not from our perspectives with dozens of retelling's since. But when Batman 89 came out the only time the Jokers origin had been discussed was the killing joke and was at a time when 99% of people who went to the cinema didn't even care about a comic. So what they saw in that 2 hours was all they saw and everything they'd see is already covered here.
It was acceptable in the 80s, it was acceptable at the time.
haha I watched the Batman Forever review first and I couldn't believe it. Their reviews honestly suck with today's standards. All I want is a rating and why I should go see it without any spoilers given. I guess this is for people who don't give a fuck about Batman until they hear something that hits their sweet spot for them to actually wanna see it.
Siskel wins this round. I think Ebert is overly-paranoid by suggesting the movie is "not for kids". Millions of children (myself included) watched this movie at a very young age, and loved it without ever feeling "disturbed".
Keep in mind, Adam West is what came before *this* movie.
Well, Ebert clearly wasn't into comics as an adult, because if he were, he'd realize that they were more violent and darker at that time than the actual movie was. Probably the last time he read a comic, if he ever read a comic, is when they were very kid friendly unlike what comics later developed into.
Started watching when I was two. I’m a good guy who wears black. Thank You Batman!
I watched it as a boy over and over and was obsessed by it, had all the toys, but it did scare me a bit, even Batman I found scary and he was the hero.
I dunno about that, I ran right out and robbed a chemical plant
Ok, Batman did NOT throw Jack Napier into the vat of chemicals. He actually tried to save him, but Jack's glove slipped off.
That's exactly what I said when watching the climactic fight scene when joker accused Batman of doing that.
If you look closely at Batman’s face, his eyes squint when he sees Jacks face and the widen when it cuts back to his face and then he looses his grip. I’m guessing he slightly remembered his face and was shocked.
I always thought Batman just dropped him in the acid. He grabs Napier’s hand and it looks like he’s going to pull him up but drops him instead. I thought he did that for shooting Eckhart a few seconds before.
Roger: It's NOT a film for children.
Nine year old me: Plays the Batman VHS for the 48th time.
I wonder what Ebert would have thought of Batman Returns, which was really dark and disturbing compared to this.
@@hv3115 th-cam.com/video/CJdyFo1V7dU/w-d-xo.html
5 years old me did the same. I would watch this movie and play with my batman action figures lol
@kurtdewittphoto - if you were watching Batman for the 48th time as a nine year old, one wonders where your parents were !!
Ebert says it's not for kids... it is dated PG-13, so hello? It wasn't meant to be for kids.
Ebert seems to bring baggage to his reviews, often with a corncob up there.
Still, I miss these guys because they strongly stated their opinions and they seem honest. Way different than modern "critics" where every single one who was invited too screening seems to have an opinion that it's the best movie in the history of cinema.
I used to watch these guys and learned you have to take their reviews with a grain of salt especially because they didn't like certain types of movies. I think their review of The Hitcher 1986 were hilariously off base. (Siskel remembered an event that was not depicted...)
But as long as you know their predilections, it's no big deal.
Other than the off base "not for kids" thing, I tend to agree with Ebert. I think most of the movie was passionless with it really being an fx showcase.
Still, the film did do for Batman what Superman: The Movie did for Supes, treating these characters as real.
man, siskel was bummed about sequels back in 1989! imagine what he would have thought of today's market...
What is funny is that the last film he picked as the best of the year was a sequel.
Man, I miss both these guys.
Me too
It took a lot of balls to go with the darkness at that time, especially with how big of a film it was. You can say all you want about Burton, but he made it possible for Nolan to succeed.
Ha, they're bitching about all the sequels that were coming out back then?
Try now. With every single movie being a book adaptation, sequel, reboot, or some source of familiar material.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Batman was an adaptation AND a reboot but Siskel wasn't lumping it in with the "sequels" he was complaining about because it wasn't a sequel.
They would hate this aspect of theatrical movies today.
My dad took me to see "Batman" (1989) when I was 8 and it rocked my little world. I learned from that film what Good v.s. Evil really means. I remember watching wide eyed as the batwing (powered by vengeance and righteousness) took to the sky. I turned to see my father's reaction only to find him sleeping in his chair. That's my first memory of being utterly dumbfounded.
Yeah I was 8 when this came out. I don't remember if I saw it at the theater or not. For some reason after all these years I remembered part of the TRAILER where she says "You look fine" and then "I didn't ask". The first movie I can recall seeing at the theater was another Keaton classic-Beetle Juice. I may have seen Back to the Future at a drive-in close to the time it came out. Thats about as far back as my movie memory goes.
LOL at your father being dead asleep. My dad did the same thing to me during The Lost World: Jurassic Park.
When you get to middle age a two hour nap is nothing to sniff at. Good for your dad, film was good for you too. 👍🏻
I watched it obsessively on VHS even though I was probably too young, used to have the Batmobile toy too. I used to find it amazing but also scary. Even Batman I was a bit scared of even though he's the hero. It's confusing for a kid to have a hero all dressed in black and a villain who's all bright and colourful lol. The soundtrack though I was just obsessed with.
One thing Siskel, Ebert, and everybody else should agree on is the excellence of Danny Elfman's epic, soaring score
Michael Keaton is and always will be Batman
He made a great Batman, but a poor Bruce Wayne. While Christian Bail made a good Bruce Wayne, but a poor Batman....Damn I''m a nerd...lol
***** Christian Bale made a poor everything. He should quit acting
Michael Keaton made a terrible Bruce Wayne and Batman as did Val Kilmer and George Clooney.
Keaton's Bruce Wayne was an average looking recluse. Keaton's Batman killed people, was stiff both emotionally and physically where could barely move and fight, and constantly got trounced.
What I did enjoy from him was the voice.
Out of the three Kilmer came closest to matching the intelligence, hauntedness, respect for human life, and complicated nature of the character. He was still a far cry from the source material.
DoctorWeeTodd
I agree. Keaton was a better Batman then Christian Bale, but he was a better Bruce Wayne.
***** Christian Bale was a shitty Bruce Wayne too. They should have dubbed Kevin Conroy over Bale's voice.
Not for kids? Every kid I knew was crazy for this film!
Ebert was sooo wrong with his comments for this movie.
It was too scary for me, at ten years old. But maybe not for other kids.
The degree to which a film is a little scary to medium scary to extremely disturbing scary is in the eye of the beholder, always. And that is why Ebert should bite his tounge to a degree here. His criticisms have been borderline fascist at times and should have never been applied to parenting what kids watch because I, as a kid, had a different sense of what I could tolerate and assimilate conceptually than perhaps someone else my same age at that time. Therefore, parents judging the material a child is interested in watching should be basing there decision on what their child can handle and not what Ebert thinks children as a population should be watching. I first saw the movie the when I was 4 years old and have literally watched BATMAN thousands of times. Thank GOD BATMAN got a pass from Ebert with my parents because he seemed to love ruining many movies I wanted to see growing up by influecning my parents decisions on what I could see, that lousey bastard.
RMG Productions
Roger Ebert, history's greatest monster!
valar HAha. If you said that to a 10 year old version of myself he definitely agree with you!
Kids watched RoboCop too, but it didn't make it a 'kids' film. Haha
Vicky Vale did have a reaction when she found out the secret identity of the Batman. She didn’t learn it in the cave though. At that point she already knew. The reaction comes after Aleksander Knox wonders what kind of trauma Bruce might have. That is where she puts pieces together.
This is one of my favorite Batman movie ever. Tim Burton did awesome job.
I truly miss these two guys. As a kid my Mom and I always watched them to chose what we were goin to see. ❤ you Mom and the times we spent together.
Top 10 Movies Of The 1980's IMO
10. Return Of The Jedi
9. Back To The Future
8. Gandhi
7. E.T
6. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
5. Die Hard
4. Batman
3. The Shining
2. Raiders Of The Lost Ark
1. The Empire Strikes Back
Richard Bain shawshank? Pulp fiction? Reservour dogs?
Enno Hankel 90's
I would have Batman at #9 and Back to the Future as #4.
..ALIENS 1986, gremlins, the abyss, terminator, commado, predator, the lost boys, rocky IV, flight of the naviagtor, the dark crystal,
Runaway Train, Brazil, Blow Out, Atlantic City, The King of Comedy, Dead Calm, To Live and Die in LA, Angel's Egg, Ran, The Thing. The best of the 1980's in my book.
Man, I know the guy has passed, but sometimes Ebert was WAY off base. Not a movie for kids!?! I was 11-years-old and loved it!
Gonna have to agree with Ebert on this one. I felt the movie focused too much on the joker. Not a bad film though.
Plus last crusade was the better film.
Because they did focus a lot on the joker in this movie, they should have called it Gotham City. It was like 50/50 screen time Batman/Joker.
In my opinion, the film is not about Joker or Batman. I see it as a satire of urban living.
@@EmergencyTop5 While I have a problem with the script, I admit that it was an interesting idea to have the first half of the film be about the villain, and the second half be about the hero. You notice this shift in story during the museum rescue scene. When Batman comes crashing through that skylight, he's taking over the narrative as well.
@@EmergencyTop5 plus Nicholson name was first on the credits
I agreed with Ebert when I saw the film. I can also appreciate what people like about the movie. It's very flawed with good to excellent elements that just does not hang together as a story. Keaton is good and I understand that his Bruce Wayne has repressed pain, but he isn't given enough to work with to make the character really engaging.
Numinous20111 Exactly and you know what, in Batman Returns, Keaton makes the character a little more engaging :)
i agree.
Though I prefer the Nolan films, I do think this movie is really great. It really isn't fair how much shit this movie has gotten since the Nolan movies started coming out.
I agree with you for the most part, this movie is great and it does get a lot of shit since Nolan came on the scene, i prefer this and Returns over the Nolan films but you get bonus points for you profile pic!
***** Thank you.
I was blown away by it. It totally aced everything that I wanted a Batman/superhero movie to be.
Derrick Dockrill I appreciate how Burton set the Batman franchise so well in this film it became the center of the past and the future. The benchmark of everything Batman.
I prefer the Burton films (by a bit) but well said.
One of many reasons why I thought Keaton was better than Bale is shown here. When Batman lowers and let’s go of Napier, Bale would have scowled throughout, whereas Keaton has a confident smirk. He’s telling Napier “it’s your lucky day”.
I prefer Keaton too. His Batman was a creature of the night, a gothic horror figure. Bale was just angry.
I just watched this movie again tonight. It still reigns the best of all the Batman movies in my opinion. Everything about this movie was so much fun to watch. Also, Hans Zimmer has nothing over Danny Elfman, the score was incredible.
I know Gene would've loved The Dark Knight, and Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker
I can only imagine what siskel would have thought about the dark knight
Ebert loved it. Likely Siskel would have as well.
Anyone else notice when they cut out Jack Nicholson shouting "Jesus!"?
Yeah, they did that because people still had respect for the name of God back then.
@@philipzamora4259 Thank God times change.
@@lordoftheflies7024 for the worst..
@@_Boobear_ I dunno'... that's normal in any society that ever was. Having people stop warring over made-up imaginary god friends might just help in the long run.
@@JinzoCrash god isnt imaginary
Wow, ebert was off his rocker on this one.
I think he was mad about some of the negative reaction the 3rd Indiana Jones movie received and decided to take it out on Batman.
@@TheDrmcvey I think Ebert's review was vindicated when Batman Begins came out and he gave it 4 stars. He was able to clearly say that he liked Batman Begins because of the things it did that no previous Batman movie had been successful at doing before.
I miss real reviewers like this.
NO!.
@@delete---7593 YES
You know you love and miss Siskel & Ebert when you catch yourself re-watching films 1975-1998 to look for the things they saw in them, and to remember a time when these guys were alive and on their game. Both very great men. I wish I could have known them.
It was nice that Ebert had a blog for a few years and did respond to some of the people who posted replies.
Wait, Bruce Wayne is Batman? Billionaire Playboy, Gambler, Womanizer, Art Collector Bruce Wayne? Shocking!
And Iron Man is Tony Stark? Wait, we all know that, he never bothered to hide his secret. :D
Garf shlarf marf!!!
kev3d
I know, hasn't anyone ever heard of a spoiler alert?
kev3d i'm pretty sure he's Jimmy Hoffa, too. also, Slim Pickens somehow.
Spoilers, man, spoilers!
I'm Team Siskel on this one. What is Ebert smokin'?
+Nico B I have to agree with Ebert on this one.
Nothing. He's just expressing his opinion dipshit.
You know what other movies where Gene was right? Die Hard, Back To The Future 3, and Mrs. Doubtfire.
I WENT TO SEE THIS MOVIE ON OPENING NIGHT IT WAS SOLD OUT, SO I HAD A WONDERFUL IDEA I BOUGHT A TICKET TO ANOTHER MOVIE THAT WAS AT THE SAME TIME WELL THE REST HIS HISTORY.
You bought a ticket for one movie just to sneak into this movie?
They said it was sold out, so I came up with this idea to buy a ticket to another movie & than went into see batman hahaha with my friend it worked perfect.
@@readynow12345 But you missed When Harry Met Sally.
Siskel: Correct. Ebert: Wrong.
That's a first! 😳😂
Zome68 There's been times where Siskel's been correct and Ebert has been wrong. Just not often.
+link biff but you are clearly never wrong.
Eberts not usually wrong but when he is, it's usually massive. An example being his review of The Field. He didn't know anything about Irish history so just wrote the whole thing off as illogical and surmising that "that would never happen in real life", and gave it 2 stars. Such a bad decision.
Yes, because OPINIONS are clearly a matter of right or wrong.
They can't even agree on how to pronounce Basinger.
1:25 "throws him into a vat of acid"????
I thought batman accidentally dropped him while trying to save him
I personally believe Batman (Bruce Wayne) deliberately dropped him in as an act of revenge, knowing that it was Jack Napier who had murdered his parents.
@@JohnPaul-el7qd Bruce was not yet aware Napier killed his parents at that point in the film. That came later.
I know what scene youre referring to but wasnt that when he realized the joker was jack napier? I think i have to go back and watch it again lol
I know everyone praise Ebert but Siskel was as good as him for me
walter soprano I feel he could be a little uptight, but I love them both.
walter soprano Yeah
i love this batman movie its awesome
I do too!
Ditto
he took indiana jones 3 over batman? ohhh boy
Last Crusade was better than any Batman film has ever managed to be.
A lot of us did. Indiana Jones 3 was the best experience I had at the movies in 1989.
Indiana Jones 3 was well made it, doesn't really have any flaws it's just a different kind of film. Batman has a more interesting art direction I think people agree. The Indiana Jones all have the same basic formula, also they feel quite impersonal. Indie is the loveable hero who's going to beat the bad guys, kiss the girl and save the world horary. The character is not terribly complicated or 3 dimensional. The Nazis are more of just an obstacle he has to overcome to get the treasure instead of an evil force he should be fighting regardless. In none of the 4 films does Indie really have a real hatred for the villain and vice versa like you get in Batman 1989.
@@leew1598 In Raiders he does have a longstanding rivalry with Belloq. The other movies got away from the personalization of the villain which I think helped. Especially in light of superhero movies taking over the special effects genre. Most of those villains have a personal relationship with the hero. So Indiana Jones now seems like a refreshing change of pace when he's fighting villains who are more random and not his personal enemies.
I agree with Ebert more than I thought I would. During the pandemic, I've decided to take a look at the summer of '89 again and realized that I like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a whole lot more than Tim Burton's Batman. Burton's film has great style -- I love the gothic set design and Danny Elfman's exceptional score -- but it's style without substance. The screenplay is a total mess and there are lots of missed opportunities within it. It feels like it was rushed in the ways that really matter and learning that there was a writers' strike going on during its production makes too much sense. I think Nolan managed to improve upon what was here, but the one thing his films don't have is that trademark Burton sensibility.
I don't agree that the script is a mess; it's coherent and makes sense, but I do agree, however, that it isn't perfect, and there were missed opportunities. But scripts have always been Tim Burton's weakness. He's fantastic at the visuals and art direction and things like that, but his scripts, even some of the better ones, do have something missing to make the audience care.
Sleepy Hollow is probably the best example for me. Everything about that movie is top notch, the look, the atmosphere, music, cast, special effects, etc....except the script. The script sucks balls, and it sinks all the hard work they put into the other elements of the movie, which is tragic.
The irony is that the dark approach that Siskel found so novel and refreshing has today become the default mode for ALL comic book films today. Many of them are excellent, but the last thing they physically look like is a classic comic book, with their bold primary colours. What they look like, of course is the 'graphic novels' that rose to prominence in the 80's and 90's.
'Let's kick some ICE!' - high point of these movies
I remember really liking this film from the onset. The intro is very cool what with hearing Danny Elfman's score as we witness the camera twisting and turning through tunnels of the Batman insignia. For its time it was great. There was a lot of controversy about Michael Keaton playing Batman, but his performance and look were spectacular. I still think this was the best-looking Batman costume ever, although I realize it was hell to wear. The costume may have been impractical but it beats everything that came thereafter. Jack Nicholson went way over the top, but in its time he seemed scary (in most scenes). I particularly liked the final battle at the top of some mile-high cathedral in Gotham. It's kind of funny to see Siskel approving the film while Ebert had reservations, as usually these positions were reversed. Normally, Ebert would be more "open minded" while Siskel was more approving of much more serious films. You never knew what to expect from these guys, which made their show highly entertaining.
Ebert stated that he didn't enjoy original Batman films at that time including two Batman versions of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher. But at the time, he adores The Dark Knight Trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan and he love two masterpieces of Batman Begins & The Dark Knight. He likes The Dark Knight Rises and he stated that he enjoys the new dark version that Nolan did in the trilogy instead of enjoying Burton or Schumacher side.
he also liked Batman - Mask of the phantasm.
Was Roger Ebert Drunk On Miller high Life this movie is a all time classic!
Not really. The Dark Knight has completely eclipsed this as the best Batman movie. Even at the time, as hugely popular as this Batman was, it was never that good of a movie and it hasn’t aged that well compared to The Dark Knight.
What really sets this film apart from the Nolan movies is that the time period is never truly specified, thus giving the 89 Batman a timeless quality to it, while the Nolan films have a modern take that while excellent in their own right, may become dated as the years go by. Both films are spectacular, but as far as a comic book movie goes, THIS is in my top 3
That is definitely true. While I do prefer The Dark Knight to Batman, I can't deny that the '89 film will always have that timeless allure.
+Darth Cinema Being "timeless" doesn't make it better.
+Darth Cinema While I do agree that Nolan's batman does have a modern setting, I don't think that'll make it age poorly. Imagine being back in time and saying Casablanca will age poorly because its obviously set during WWII, or that Chaplin's Modern Times will age poorly because its so obviously set in the Great Depression. Decades after their release, though, time has proven that those movies have aged very well. What really matters is the characters and story, and the themes the movie portrays, etc. If a movie encompasses ideas, concepts and characters that always remain relatable in some way, even if the time period it takes place in has passed, its unlikely to age poorly. Really, we have yet to see exactly how TDK ages (I personally hope and think it will age well), but I don't think the modern backdrop of the film will necessarily have any impact on that.
The Batman 1989 films is an odd one looking back at it, it combines some fashion elements from 1930s cinema, lots of men wearing pinstripe suits and hats, women in fur coats etc, with technology from the 1980s though they use type writers instead of computers. I don't know enough about cars to say, they look quite 80s maybe? Yes the Nolan Batman films are more firmly set in the 21sts century, the fashion, the technology, the cars it all matches.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Ebert.
I love the art direction, the vision and the performances in the film. The one exception to the art direction praise is the way the goons wear sunglasses at night time, I think that's so dumb. Maybe that's more costume than art design but anyway.
I agree with Gene Siskel that Michael Keaton is a pretty good Bruce Wayne. I don't know why some people think he's terrible.. I thought he was a pretty good, but not as great as Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne (Except his Batman's voice still sucks). And Keaton will always be Batman.
Keaton was the better batman Bale was the better Bruce Wayne.
I like keaton's voice it sounds more natural with bale it just sounds like he's just trying to be scary but with keaton he's not trying
i liked Keaton as Bruce Wayne but as Batman he didn’t fully deliver, Christian Bale was amazing in both roles ( well aside from the gruff voice ).
Adam west will always be batman
Wow, they really gave away the whole movie.
Not really.
Yeah!!
Good thing it came out 27 years ago at the time of your comment
This was linear television. The odds are people just hearing that verbally, they would just forget.
That movie is great! I always tend to agree with Siskel...and later on, I usually agreed with Richard Roeper more too.
Batman definitely wasn't perfect. The set designs and special effects were great, it was dark for its time, and Nicholson was a very good Joker. But Batman didn't have a real origin story (Batman's origin in Mask of the Phantasm wipes the floor with this movie's origin) or anywhere near enough screentime, Vicky Vale was a one dimensional damsel in distress, the decision to randomly make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents (shoehorning a major element into the final third of the film), and that out of place Prince soundtrack. But I'm glad this movie was made and incredibly successful for its time. Because if it wasn't successful, the superhero genre as we know it probably doesn't exist and a lot of great films don't get made.
agreed.
Wait a minute, wait a minute......... Throws him into a vat of acid!!! Watch the movie again Siskel, He fell in! Batman was the one trying to save him by trying to pull him back up! Sheesh!!!! Get your facts straight!!!!! lol
This was back one people didn't care about spoilers
Apparently, if you disagree with a film critic's opinion, the film critic is "wrong," because as we all know, opinions are in no way subjective.
The GREATEST AND BEST Batman movie out of ALL movies EVER made!!!!
Snot Nose No, I saw that and boy, was the family bored to death. Three long hours and tons of boredom on the screen, a giant glass of celluloid arrogance.
Snot Nose I wouldn't compare Nolan's Batman movies to the Godfather dude. I think youre taking your fandom to an EXTREME level here. Take it down a few notches princess.
+mrfrogbutt1 This is the best Batman movie? Only if Christopher Nolan never made a Batman movie would that be true.
LoN3wOlF5tudi0s
Nolan ruined Batman and this films got acclaim not because they were Batman films, because they were good crime thrillers
+mrfrogbutt1 Eh, I still have to give it to Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.
Better than Batman Returns
+Dale Chawkins Much better!
..no lol snow rules
Wrong. Very wrong.
@@jameswilliams-of3mv you are correct, sir
Of all Batman movies this is my favorite one. Why? It has more of an adult theme, doesn't rely on CGi as much and isn't as shallow. This Batman doesn't pander to the teenage Transformers crowd. Siskel is 100% correct about how this film did not pander to young people and this movie has adult actors and actresses. This Batman isn't a Michael Bay type film.
I can understand why young people under 30 years old wouldn't like this movie as much as The Dark Knight because younger people have grown up the last 12 years with lots of CGi with younger actors and actresses who have to look like Jessica Alba or Channing Tatum regardless if they can act or not. The last 15 years or so Hollywood has become more shallow and less believable.
Most of the effects in the dark knight are practical
@@micmorgan84 yeah and while the cast are very good looking Hollywood actors, I wouldn’t call them Greek gods and goddesses either. If you’ve seen American Psycho you’ll know Christian Bale is a gifted and diverse actor. Michael Keaton is still around and doing great work including but not limited to superhero movies. This strikes me as a rather shallow old man yells at cloud line. The Dark Knight isn’t a perfect movie and I’d hardly put it in my top 5 like some people but there’s plenty of philosophy there
Roger Ebert's comments about this movie sound like how I feel for the Star Wars prequels (and I know I'm not alone)...
Jack should have won the OSCAR. HIS performance was beautiful.
Be serious 😂😂😂
Siskel loves Comics and Batman! It’s rare to see Siskel giddy and joyous. Ebert missed big time on this one! all the children (under 12) saw this movie 🍿 and loved it! 👀 in the drive in double feature with Lethal Weapon 2! So many good picks that year!
Why the hell does Vicki Vale check to see if Joker's alright at 2:32?
There are a lot of things in this movie that don't make sense.
@@philipzamora4259 .🤔😑.
Because she felt bad. Having a heart is a bad idea.
Ebert's right, you need strong characters and a strong story for it to work. This movie was more about visuals than story value.
I agree with Ebert. I like the dark look of the film, but the film just didn't work.
I agree. In fact I think Ebert was spot on in all his reviews of the Batman movies. He didn't care for the Burton or Schumacher Batmans but loved the Nolan ones. I'm with him completely.
"The film is dark and disturbing... so children shouldn't see it?" By today's standards, it IS a children's film. These guys would had a stroke if they could see the sadistic, violent, overtly sexual, occult oriented crap that is peddled to children today. Could you imagine them watching Nolan's joker shoving a pencil into a man's scull through his eye socket? Times have changed and not for the better.
Siskel died in 99, but Ebert passed away in 2013. He had a chance to see the Dark Knight (2008). It would have been something if the both of them could have seen Nolan's trilogy and review it. I am sure Roger thought differently of Batman 89 before he passed away.
Ebert did see all the new batmans. Or the first two for sure.
Ebert watched all of Nolan's batfilms. He loved them all and called "Batman Begins" the first live action movie to get Batman right.
That was the worst one, I thought.
It's funny how you can describe something like the Joker shoving a pencil through a guy's eye and somehow that mental image is far more disturbing than the way it's portrayed onscreen.
Two classic reviewers who not only had opinions but really knew and loved the art of movies.
I love how today, people seem to think Hollywood only recently ran out of original ideas and look back to the 80s for "original" content; while critics in the 80s lamented how bereft of original ideas Hollywood was at that time.
That’s because the really good movies of the 1980’s were more the exception rather than the rule. Plus, there are hundreds of movies in the 1980’s that were released that are largely completely forgotten today. Every time period had mostly terrible movies and a few that managed to truly stand the test of time and elevate the artform.
i have to agre with ebert the first one was dull. and only nicolsons performance made it move otherwise it would be totally unwatchable. second was an improvement.
When I was a young one, I saw Ghostbusters 2, Indy 3 and Batman in theaters. I think that Indy 3 affected me the most....especially the intro with young Indy.
Agreed. That's the only one of the three I've gone back to watch many times over.
Ebert may have had a point about the character dynamics not being quite as good in Batman as it could have been, but it was still a landmark film in many ways and influential.
Imagine a time when a comic book movie was praised for being an "original" blockbuster and "not a sequel"
Because there hadn't been a Batman movie in a loooooong time
Comic book movies were very few and far between at the time. Superman was really the only major one. Technically, Howard The Duck was one, but that comic was too cultish for people to know that movie even was based on a comic.
it was on my top ten list of best films of 1989
morgan8757 that much I can agree on. it's a good movie
+morgan8757 It's #1 on my Top 10 films of 1989
I miss these two yelling at each other on Sunday nights.
From what I'm hearing, Christopher Nolan captured everything in his Batman movies that Ebert says Burton's lack. I still love them, but all of the older Batmans got one common response: We don't really care about the characters.Nolan's films accomplish this VERY effectively, almost at the expense of the story's action and steady progression.
Love how they both continually refer to it as 'the picture', just a term you don't hear very often to describe movies anymore.
I saw this when it came out and thought it was a total mess and, indeed, the script was being re-written as they were shooting it. With inferior Prince songs jammed into scenes just so they could sell the soundtrack, and Jack Nicholson playing himself (...again) in scenes that feel like improv that goes no where. It's like the studio didn't quite trust little bohemian Tim Burton with their money and the result was bloated and uneven and the actors don't really know what to do with it. "Batman Returns" is much more of a pure Burton film and much better for it. This was the first summer blockbuster I walked out of feeling like I still hadn't seen it yet.
I saw it when it came out and really loved it! I was nineteen at the time in '89.
Ha ha, blast from the past. Remember watching this episode on TV. I have to say I side with Gene. Gene to Roger is like..."c'mon man, you can't seriously be that upset...fanboy?" I could never tell who I was going to agree with because there opinions were all over the place. For instance Ebert gave 4 stars to Dick Tracy which in many ways is similar to Batman. Big comic book sets, over the top villains, pencil thin plot, and Danny Elfman music score.
I think Dick Tracy was an inferior film to Batman. At least Batman had more of a story and character development to it by comparison.
That's tough choice:
Batman or Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade
Two of my all-time favorites, both in the same summer
Indy 3 is better constructed but I think Batman is a far more fascinating film if you look at as a satire of urban living.
Right on. People tend to forget this important fact. Bruce Timm and Paul Dini have said many times that if Burton had not taken the darker approach, the animated series wouldn't have come to be.
I'm not fond of Returns or the Schumacher movies, but Batman '89 did SO much good for Batman. I love the Nolan films and all that jazz, but I love this one too. It's a classic.
I was in college when this movie came out. I saw it on opening night (and loved it), but the theater wasn't very crowded. I went back with some friends, and they all saw it in a packed theater while I watched "UHF" in the next theater. I always felt like I missed out on the experience a little by doing that.
You at least still saw another good film. Cult hit, yes, and obviously if I had to pick between the two, Batman obviously, but UHF is still great.
I really enjoyed the 1989 Batman and I'm glad Gene liked it, but I'm going to go easy on Roger because I think that at the time, critics just didn't quite understand Tim Burton's style of film making yet because this was only his 3rd major motion picture. I think the public would most certainly begin to understand Burton's approach after Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns.
I think Tim Burton was never really that good of a director. He definitely had a lot of style, but he was never that great of a storyteller. His inspirations tended to be schlocky movies.
Batman movie didn't end up as good as it could be was because there was a writers strike and Sam Hamm left in the middle of the productions. Still the producers kept adding new elements to the story and script changes as the filming progress. Tim Burton only had a year to complete the movie. At the end a lot of things were rushed and pushed so that's why there's so many plot holes.
Agree
When I wanted to see a movie my Dad waited for this show to be on with me. Then he said you seen it and saved 6 bucks.
"I'm melting!" Ha ha ha ha ha!
Angel Deville Wizard of Oz Reference lol
I like the 1989 Batman film but I do agree with Ebert that Joker was in the film too much. I agree with Siskel on everything else.
Brandon Martin dumb
You cant really blame this movie when you see it in relation to our widen horizon after the Christopher Nolan's films, because they would never have been made without this film.
Yeah, because back then, Batman was still largely seen as for children to the mainstream. The Batman graphic novels that started in the 1980’s had a more cultish appeal at the time.
Movie: Batman.
Release Date: June 19, 1989 (Westwood, California) and June 23, 1989.
My Opinion: The best Batman movie ever! I agree with Gene Siskel, I disagree with Roger Ebert.
Rating: 10/10.
This movie is entertainment at its finest. There are no boring scenes, the performances by Nicholson, Keaton, and Basinger are great, and the story and set are spot-on.
And THEN... the Joker somehow doesn't have his leg pop off when a GIANT STATUE IS TIED TO IT. Really, that one scene killed it for me, much as the Pacific Rim, "beat them with an indestructible oil tanker baseball bat" scene.
I agree with Siskel here.
Happy 30th Anniversary Batman.
Great movie,but I personally think Sam Hamm's original draft for "Batman" was so much better than the actual finished film. A lot of things were different from the movie. Silly things such as Alfred letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave wasn't in the script,among other things. It's really quite fascinating. I'd recommend for anyone to go online and read it. It'll take you a while to read the whole movie,but it's definitely worth the time spent doing so.
Thx, i will check it out.
@@hv3115 No problem 🙂
this is hands down my favorite Batman movie ever !!!
I remember my dad taking me and my bro to see this when I was turning 6. It the first time that I can remember truly feeling excited about seeing a movie. I loved it then and even more so now. I even like it more than the Nolan films simply because it captured batman and more so Gotham city the way it truly should. Also, the score was amazing
Noland Batman films aren't really fun that's why.
💯
Roger Ebert didn't like Batman 1989, this should show how good of a reviewer he really was
"One of the painful truths of comedy: You always take shots from folks who just don't get the joke!"---Puddin'
Interesting that the "dark" approach was thought to be a risk back then. These days lighthearted films, especially within the superhero/comic book genre, aren't even an option.
***** Yes, totally!
So films like the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, and Ant-Man arn't light hearted? Seems to me that there is just more of a mix now, which is better for storytelling in my opinion.
That’s because the PG-13 rating hadn’t been around that long. The tone of Hollywood movies, if you really looked at them from then, were much more polarizing between what was rated PG and what was rated R.
I agree with Ebert. It has great art direction and the dark theme elements are stunning (the batmobile for instance is awesome) But the story and characters are really lacking.
Ebert is saying he didn't care much for the characters, and that he preferred Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. I didn't care much for a character like Elsa Schneider character. Vicki Vale's character served a bigger purpose, as a reminder to why Bruce can't have a normal life.
Uhhh no. In the modern continuity Batman doesn't kill people, and it's been that way for a long time. It has nothing to do with Nolan being a coward.