Its as campy as they come and cheesy and dated.But for some reason people who grew up in 80's cant let go as if they are doing a disservice to their childhood if they accept this movie is just average and cheesy.You work around technical limitations of the time and not work with them.
shareWrong. Tim Burton created a fantastic world that took everyone by surprise. The film has a coolness that Nolan wasn't able to deliver. Nolan's films seems robotic compared to this film, which has much more emotion. Putting a comedian in the main role in such a dramatic film is still cool to watch in 2018. The Keaton casting was risky, but paid off. Then you have Nicholson - who plays the role over the top, but it brings humor to an otherwise very stylish film -- and he is really good in the intense scenes. Lastly, but not least.. the score by Danny Elfman, which is a masterpiece. Tim Burton created a very fine and entertaining film back in 89, and it's not the nostalgia keeping it alive. It was a good film.
shareIts not coolness, its the weirdness of a nerd aka tim burton who looks like a guy who couldnt get date till he made it in hollywood and even then its due to his fame and money and not his personality.
Casting balding michael keaton is I think a way for tim burton to see himself as batman and even then his bruce wayne is more of a weirdo than a tortured billionaire.
Rest of the movie is very dated and cheesy, you have a movie like french connection made way before this movie and still holdsup and this thing is as cheesy as they come.
But French Connection is a very different type of movie - it's (more or less) realistic drama. Not much realism is needed in case of Batman though.
BTW, I grew up in the 80s and hate this movie. But on the other hand, I hate all of Burton's movies, consider Jack Nicholson a one-trick pony, Kim Basinger makes me cringe and Michael Keaton looks so gay in this role you might consider Fredric Wertham being right.
couldn't they have made batman realistic in 1989 with the tech they had at the time ? I cant speak about jack nicholson
shareWell, cops fighting narcotrafficking are realistic by definition, masked billionaire vigilantes are not. 70s clothes and guns might look weird today, but once they were fashionable and real. Batmobil on the other hand never existed...
share"consider Jack Nicholson a one-trick pony"
You consider one of the greatest actors of all time.. to be a one-trick pony? I congratulate you on eclipsing the OP on the absurdity scale.
I had to laugh at that comment too. In my eyes, the whole point trying to be made is lost after that comment.
Jack Nicholson was one of the best ever, easily!
He hasn't seen Chinatown.
shareSomething tells me you haven't seen more than 1 or 2 Jack films if you consider him a one trick Pony. That man has played all sorts of characters very well throughout his legendary career.
I've seen 16 of his movies. My favorites are Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider, Wolf and Terror. So your something is wrong. Don't listen to it next time.
shareUh huh, well it doesn't change the fact that your claim of him being a one trick point is false. Don't like the guy? that's your right but when it comes down to in analyzing his overall talent as an actor you don't know squat.
share'Don't like the guy?' Why would I watch 16 of his movies then? Several times some of them. Liking or not liking has nothing to do with considering an actor to be one-dimensional.
shareYou're incorrect regardless of how you spin it.
shareBeing incorrect is saying 2+2=5. Otherwise, it's just my personal opinion. Have a nice day.
shareSaying he's a one trick pony means you're saying he isn't a good actor. Then you go and say you like him. You're a hypocrite.
shareYeah, I also like junk food although it's not healthy.
shareJack Nicholson a one trick pony?
Yeah, he is.
I mean I like a lot of his movies, but I feel I'm watching the character from One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest or The Shining in them. He does manic, crazy and angry really well though.
Agreed, he is. Jack is hired to play Jack. Robin Williams is another one in this category, hired to play his only character.
Some people are actors who have to perform and become someone else, but some people are stars who only have to show up.
Sorry but Burton created a world that Batman and the Joker fit within. While not entirely faithful to the comic, it did feel like a comic come to life and the character did feel like Batman. For its time it was a very well made film and it was a good decision give it the appearance of being set many years ago like the earliest days of the Batman comic. Nolan's Batman lacks that creativity, its central character could be any vigilante but in this case he read the Batman comic and decided to mimic it. There is nothing special about the world, with the exception of the Joker (which the death of Ledger enhanced its draw) the side characters/villians were mostly uninteresting and Gotham, pretty much any city USA.
If you like the Nolan Trilogy that is fine, nothing wrong with that. But Burton's world was far more creative and immersive IMO and its a film that to me can be watched and enjoyed repeatedly where as Nolan's trilogy is one time viewing experience with little value in watching it again.
I refer you to my response to an earlier comment
shareI agree.
shareWell i think people are acting the same way about the Christopher Nolan trilogy.
shareI knew that there was an insane fan group that had vastly overrated the Nolan films, I hadn't realized the same was true of the 80s Burton films.
None of the films in question are really very good, although Keaton and Nicholson at least bring some fun to the Burton film. Of course there isn't a single instant of fun in the Nolan films, but that's what the fans love about them. I really don't understand that, how can a person be against fun and humor?
Agreed. Burtons Batman looks and feels lika a comic. Nolans Batman looks and feels like a hyper realistic crime thriller. But becomes so incredibly absurd when you put Batman and his rogue gallery in the mix. There's not much that's "realistic" or "adult" with comicbook characters. Strike that. With superheros. Superhero films are childish as fudge and as long as they are just that, I can enjoy them.
shareI've gotta agree with the OP.
I remember first seeing this movie. I wanted to like it so bad that I ignored its problems. The last memory of Batman that was fresh in everyone's mind was the campy 60s TV show. I wanted to believe that this took Batman seriously and was dark and true to the character. With nearly 30 years between then and now, I can see it's just as campy as the 60s TV show. Just a different flavor of camp.
At the time, I heard an acquaintance refer to it as the movie without a plot. I didn't want to admit it, but it was true. He was right. There really was no plot to the movie. It was barely tied together with the thin storyline of The Joker poisoning products. In many of the scenes the characters' only motivation was because the script told them to be there at that time and do what it told them to do.
Some on here say that the Nolan Batman movies strain believability because it's supposed to take place in the real world and so it causes you to think about the physics of how it would all work in the world we live in. I think the 89 version strains believability just as much. Everything is so obviously a cheesy set. It's supposed to be this huge city but everything happens within a two block area.
The thing I always loved about Batman is that he was one of the few superheros that could actually exist. I loved the Nolan films because they were based in reality.
The 89 film was fine for its time. It was definitely a product of that time. But ultimately it was Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson, a one dimensional hero, goofy campiness, cheesy sets, and some special effects that were bad (even for 1989).
Just as campy as the Adam West TV Show!? I don't recall a guy getting a bloodied up face from acid getting spilled on it. Much less a guy getting his face burned off by a hand buzzer. Or a guy getting thrown down a bell tower. Or Batman blowing up a chemical plant.
shareRead my post again. I said a different flavor of camp. I never said it was a shot-for-shot remake of the Adam West Batman.
shareStupid of me to respond after so many months but I think you need to watch the 60s show again cause there ain't no way that this movie is anything like it. For crying out loud, there was an episode of the 60s show where Joker and Batman have a surfing contest with each other! You can't get more cheesy or stupid than that! And the villains in that show were way more goofy than Nicholson's Joker.
shareYou can't get more cheesy or stupid than that!
That all sounds so nitpicky and it's also dumb that you say you haven't actually seen the movie in years thus making you ignorant. It maybe a little cheesy but it is very dark compared to the Adam West show.
shareGreenGoblin says it's not campy like the '60s version was and is then shown exactly how it's campy like the '60s version and responds with, "That's nitpicky."
shareSo you are upset Jokers goon's wear purple and we don't get to explore all of their background and story traits? Wow sounds like you and the Nolan Cuck Army don't understand Batman at all. Go back to your French Arthouse Movie Festival Bullshit about Batman and Bane eating pudding. Us cool kids will be right here watching and discussing the only good Superhero Film there is, the only good Superhero Film there was, and the only good Superhero Film there ever will be
shareNever said I was upset by it. GreenGoblin said they didn't see how it was campy so I gave examples.
shareWow Bosdog, you truly can't read. No wonder you've been behaving the way you have. Thankfully I found this old post randomly where you demonstrate how terrible you are at things like observation and comprehension.
No wonder you're pro-Trump.
Yea, the only thing I have to say about your posts is thank god you didn't write this movie because it would have bombed.
shareYou might be right. I still like it, but we may have propped it up a little too much over the years.
shareClad in a Batman t-shirt, I saw it at theater in '89 with all the ridiculous hype, fully expecting a great movie, and was thoroughly let down. When the credits rolled I couldn't help busting out laughing at how ridiculously overrated it was, along with my friend and his wife. We couldn't stop laughing. It was a great example of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
This isn't to say that it doesn't have SOME positive points; I can view it and enjoy it to some degree for what it is -- a cartoonish take on Batman. But in '89 I was expecting something more along the lines of "Batman Begins" in tone, but got stuck with Burton's goofy world.
I'll never understand superhero comic readers who have an aversion to cartoonishness and goofiness. Even when comics are written as straight-faced and grim as a Martin Scorcese movie, they're still pretty absurd if you're not desensitized to all the costumed villains and their schemes.
shareEven when comics are written as straight-faced and grim as a Martin Scorcese movie, they're still pretty absurd if you're not desensitized to all the costumed villains and their schemes.
Well good for you on getting the kind of Batman movie you wanted all along years later. I'm glad that there are different versions out there like that for different groups of people.
shareI favor the tone of "Batman Begins," but found the story & characters uninteresting. I liked "The Dark Knight Rises" though. "Batman & Robin" is my favorite from the 1989-1997 tetralogy because it had the best Wayne/Batman (Clooney), the warmest depiction of the Batman family, a winsome Batgirl, an understandable villain (Mr. Freeze), an alluringly evil Poison Ivy and a great message of redemption and comeuppance.
shareI thought I was the only one. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I didn't like the movie when I saw it. It was kind of depressing, awkward, and boring. I had been excited to watch it because of it's popularity and good ratings, but I was disappointed. I thought I was the only one that thinks the movie is over rated. Not a fan of Tim Burton's style anyways. I thought to myself, "why is this so popular?" My dad told me it's probably so popular due to people's nostalgia. They don't want to let go, it brings back memories, so they give it good ratings.
shareWell to each their own. To me the Burton films captured the feel of the 90s animated series better than any other version of the series which is my favorite of the entire history of Batman.
There's really no reason to call it overrated just because you didn't like it./as much as others.
those films are imagination of a nerd with no experience with girls aka tim burton..have you looked at him ? so he made a movie where the protagonist is like him a little more good looking version but still a weirdo aka keaton.
shareWell comic books are usually geared towards nerds anyway so it makes sense for him to aim his movie at that audience. You sound like a damn fool insulting the guy like that for no reason but whatever dude.
Like I said to each their own.
What does Burton being a nerd or his ability to get girls have anything to do with the quality of his filmmaking? It sounds to me like you're more into petty insults than any real criticism of the movie itself.
share[deleted]
Yeah just wow dude. All these silly shots at Burton makes you come off like someone that witnessed him take your girlfriend from you or something. The man made a successful movie that many remember and love to this day why are you so angry like this? If you don't like the movie that's your right but at the same time its your opinion that nobody has to agree with.
Nobody has to let anything go just to please you or anyone else in this world.
One thing to remember about the first Batman movie is that there was one particular element that made the project very exciting going in:
Jack Nicholson being willing to play the Joker.
Nicholson saying "yes" elevated the entire project. This was intentional. Marlon Brando saying "Yes" to Superman back in 1978 made THAT movie a prestige picture.
Nicholson was to one generation what Brando was to another: if not the greatest living actor, one of them. And the one most connected to a youthful audience.
And Brando only did a 20 minute cameo in Superman. Nicholson committed to the biggest role in Batman, and gave us about a half hour of "the regular Jack Nicholson face" before being dipped in acid and allowing a superstar to look like a clown.
When it started to become known in the press that Nicholson was "considering" playing the Joker, suddenly Batman looked like a very big movie indeed. Keep in mind that Nicholson had been turning down big commercial pictures and summer/Xmas blockbusters for years. He turned down The Sting, Close Encounters, Superman(Lex Luthor) and many other "pop movies" to sustain a "prestige career" When Mad Jack started to say yes to the Joker...it was big news indeed.
And then he wavered. And then another name popped up: Robin Williams. And suddenly the idea of Batman as a potential classic died on the vine.
And then Jack signed up. And history was made. (CONT)
I know that later generations felt Jack Nicholson circa 1989 was wrong for the Joker. Too heavy in face, especially too heavy in body. But it didn't matter. He had been in ground-breaking classics: Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Carnal Knowledge, The Last Detail, Chinatown, Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining(his "Joker audition"); Terms of Endearment. He was one of the superstars of his era, and of those superstars, he was the quality one other than Pacino(who might have made an interesting Joker, too, yes?) and DeNiro.
Nicholson wasn't quite the top box office man when he made Batman, but the movie paid him off handsomely for cashing in on his prestige: a rumored $60 million in percentages for the movies and the tie-in toys. Jack was re-invented for the 90's --- making waves in A Few Good Men("You Can't Handle the Truth!") winning another Oscar for As Good As it Gets -- surviving as a Lion in Winter.
And Batman made those final two decades(to date) of stardom possible.
In the "versus" category, well, yes Heath Ledger won the Oscar for HIS Joker(posthumously) and HIS Joker is an incredible turn with a lot more psychotic madness to the playing(plus a little Church Lady). But nobody was much ANTICIPATING Heath Ledger as they had Nicholson. Jack's Joker was from the face and a voice we'd known forever(like all great stars); Heath was a total surprise(and then gone forever -- and what kind of career could he have sustained trying to live up to the Joker?)
My point here is that one reason Tim Burton's Batman was such an event when it first came out and remains apart from the others is that in landing Jack Nicholson to do it, the movie instantly became a film in the canon of an actor who made great movies. (Not all of them were great -- see "Goin' South -- but Jack's record was better than most.) (CONT)
A couple of other short-term superstars signed up to play Batman baddies -- Jim Carrey and Schwarzenegger -- but they lacked Nicholson's gravitas. Came the 2000's, I think it was the Spider-Man producers who realized you didn't have to give half the profits to a superstar to get a superhero movie made --- Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina would be just fine for Spidey; Liam Neeson and Heath Ledger were fine for Bats.
All of which made Jack Nicholson's willingness to be the Joker all the more meaningful all these decades later.