Batman (Tim Burton, 1989)

[hearthesilence]

It's just tiresome, not unlike this moment which is the kind of thing I've run into way too many times growing up.

[hearthesilence]

I actually caught one of the 70mm screenings at Lincoln Center - again it was advertised as an archival print that hadn't been projected since the film's original run (and as beamish said, if it's true, there must be other prints since there have been 70mm screenings elsewhere in the interim). Print looked beautiful. For the most part, it was in excellent shape with only a few moments that had anything like noticeable scratches. When this movie first came out, supposedly there were complaints that it was too dark, but assuming the grading on this print hasn't deteriorated significantly (and again I had no reason to believe it did), I would not agree with this sentiment - the balance was perfect, so much better than anything I saw as a kid. Obviously they lean heavily on black and dark lighting and this was the first time I've seen it presented so well. The walls of the Batcave resembled coal and the Joker's introductory reveal couldn't have been better - that often looked terrible on home video where Nicholson's make-up was too obvious in the shadows or everything in general was too dark depending on how you adjusted the picture, but this screening completely nailed it. So long story short, this really showed the advantage of a well-preserved print that was originally done completely in analog. Didn't matter that it was a blow-up from a picture shot in 35mm, the texture looked beautiful.

The soundtrack even had a glitch from damage that apparently did not extend to the actual picture frame - sounding like a loud thump and scratch, it was a nice indicator that this was definitely a pre-digital experience. That extended to the film itself, which was made at the height of pre-digital effects with noticeable animation done for visual effects. IIRC computers were already being used for rudimentary tasks, mostly for cost-cutting measures, but rarely as a replacement for actual craftwork.

This was one of the most expensive productions Warner Bros. had ever financed, but you could still see something resembling the limitations on cost. For example, the city looks enormous from a distance (again, as a noticeable painting) but 90% of the action - which involves City Hall, presumably the city's biggest museum, biggest church/cathedral and the movie theater that plays an important role in Bruce Wayne's history - takes place around the same city block. It's like they had the money to go all out on the biggest soundstage they could find, but then had to shoot most of the film on that same soundstage in order to justify the cost.

As mentioned before, I was always stunned how this film was literally being rewritten at the last minute, especially given the cost of the film. As Burton was waiting for the script for the newly written climax to come in, he was stalling for time by having Nicholson continue up those enormous stairs, not wanting Nicholson to realize that he had no idea what was going to happen next. So not surprisingly, so much of the movie feels as thin and slapdash as ever. The physical production is still the most impressive aspect of the movie, but it also feels a little less inspired now with too many elements feeling like obvious lifts (or at best intentional homages) to great films from the past.

Nevertheless, I still prefer this over Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, which too often appear oblivious to how inherently ridiculous Batman really is while patting themselves on the back for their dubious and insipid philosophizing. It's still kind of a tricky balance because it's possible to go too far in the other direction, and Burton clearly had no interest in doing something as self-consciously campy as the '60s TV show. The most memorable parts hit a pretty nice balance, like Nicholson hamming it up (just short of too much), the famously phallic car which Batman then uses to needlessly tempt death (standing in front of a speeding car that surely will stop inches away from you, or driving that same car through a dark cave to the very edge of a catastrophic drop, etc.)

[The Curious Sofa]

I always though of Batman as a bad film that got lucky. It is very noticeably compromised by studio interference, consisting of several parts that never gel. Nicholson would have made a great Joker a decade earlier, but he is too old here, and the prosthetic make-up limits his performance. Kim Basinger's Vicky Vale is one of the dullest love interests ever. The Prince songs are great on their own but have clearly been shoehorned in, stopping the action dead every time. A portly Nicholson jigging around to '1999' in a Museum is one of the most embarrassing movie moments ever. The main set is indeed flatteringly shot, making Gotham look like it consists of one street that they go round over and over again.

Why even watch this when Burton solved many of these problems in the superior Batman Returns?

[Zot!]

The main set is indeed unfalteringly shot, making Gotham look like it consists of one street that they go round over and over again.

I remember that as well from the theatrical premiere. Even by the pre-CGI standards the set looked incredibly rinky-dink, like a theme park location or something. Specifically the Batmobile jet engine feeling ridiculously overpowered navigating around the block. In comparison most sci-fi and fantasy productions of that era were far more expansive feeling. I think some of this might have also been Burtons intended claustrophobic staging, but it felt cheap and wrong.

Otherwise I cant defend it too much but it was a formative blockbuster and was the first legitimate attempt to present such character on the big screen and without being slavishly authentic. Burton did a fine job. Donners Superman is the only superhero movie I will ever need and I genuinely enjoy, but this is probably coming in second. Now I want to revisit the second, but I remember it being dreary and missing Nicholson, though I know the popular consensus says otherwise.

[FrauBlucher]

I saw this when it first came out. It was a serious blockbuster. Huge. The first of its kind (Superman felt different, wholesome in a word). Burtons flamboyant execution made it so. Which became the way for the Superhero genre. I really liked it back then. Now not so much now. This is closer to the campy Adam West Batman, which Burton probably grew up on. For me the Nolan Batmans are my preference, which is more in line with the dark comics

[The Curious Sofa]

Maybe it's because I was already an adult when Batman came out and I had no investment in superheroes (I wasn't allowed the comics as a kid), that I couldn't look beyond the many flaws of this film. Yes, it was a huge hit, but that didn't make it a good film.

[pizza time!]

I continue to like it, though its probably impossible for me to divorce it from my childhood. The claustophobic sets, the dull lighting, the exaggerated matte paintings... the silent era and German expressionism is all over it. I've always interpreted it as simply a fucked up children's book, where the world is obvioulsy too surreal and uncanny to be real, and the story resolves too cleanly; for all we know it's Bruce Wayne or someone's hallucination.

Returns takes itself a little too seriously for my tastes.

[Mr Sausage]

I continue to like it, though its probably impossible for me to divorce it from my childhood.

That’d be me. I can’t think of any way to defend it against all the criticisms here, but I’ve loved it since I first saw it on VHS while at the babysitter’s house and love it still, for all the reasons you mention. The smallness of the street set makes the film into a kind of purgatory, Batman seemingly never able to get far from the Monach Theatre where his parents died. It’s such a weird, grotesque movie, full of bizarre details, and yet has moments of grandeur (the whole climb up the church steps is magnificent, and it’s just people walking!). And there’s Elfmann’s score, which is magisterial. Great fun.

I was never able to get into Batman Returns, even as a kid. It’s goofy and arch and makes me cringe. The thing just feels so…inert. I know film fans prefer it because it’s full on Burton fantasia without the restraints, but I guess I prefer the darker and more mean-spirited edge of the original, with Burton’s weirdness coming out at the seams.

[domino harvey]

I’d go…. 2 > 3 > 1 > 4

Only the museum scene is successful in the first film, and anything it tries to do well is done better twenty times over in the sequel. I get anyone who doesn’t like Returns’ dark and dank vibe, but man it’s quite daring and willing to be divisive and I think risk is rewarded. The third is good for being a goofier, lighter take while still functioning within a narrative that can propel the action forward, and the fourth shows how hard that can be to do by failing miserably

The second and third Nolan films are much more interesting to me as far as this kind of thing goes

[therewillbeblus]

Domino has my order. I grew up watching 3 the most on VHS, so that has a special place in my heart, but 2 is such a wonderful deconstruction of urban loneliness in addition to being so much fun that it takes the cake on both levels of theme and aesthetic bliss

[The Narrator Returns]

That seems right for my order too. Returns is all-around a great yucky vibe but Pfeiffer especially is so obvious as one of the very best performances ever in this godforsaken genre, Jack Joker’s nothing in comparison.

[Brian C]

I was 11 when the first one came out and it really blew me away. I didn’t even really want to see it, for some reason I didn’t like the previews. But a friend wanted to go, and his mom dropped us off at the theater on opening day, and I loved it as much as any movie I’d seen up to that point. I think I saw it twice more in theaters and then watched the VHS countless times.

But … it’s not a movie that really grew up with me. I don’t think I ever even bought it on DVD. And now I’d guess it’s been at least 25 years or so since I’ve watched it all the way through.

I remember it as a great, maybe even formative experience from my childhood, but as someone who’s generally not terribly nostalgic, it just feels kinda clumsy to me when I catch a few minutes of it on cable or whatever.

[beamish14]

I’ve got Sam Hamm’s DC Comics continuations of the story he established here, Batman ‘89, in my “to read” pile

This film isn’t as meaningful to me as the absolutely incredible Returns, but there are some spectacular moments, particularly the Batmobile’s fairy tale-like journey through a forest to the Batcave and the entire parade sequence (“Why didn’t anybody tell me he had one of those…things?!”). The newscasters without makeup didn’t do anything for me when I was a kid, but it’s hysterical now

I highly recommend reading this piece about the deservedly iconic opening credits