Film Discussion of the Week: Batman Returns

Nothing gets one in the holiday spirit like watching Danny DeVito bite someone's nose off.

Nothing gets me in the holiday spirit quite like watching Danny DeVito eat a raw fish.

I'm in the minority here, I guess, but I hate this movie. I loved its predecessor much more than this one. Nothing compared to Jack Nicholson's performance until the Nolan movies! It felt like this was dark just for the sake of being dark. The Penguin's backstory is stupid (I like Arkham's version much better.), and I really thought the Catwoman story line was messed up from the beginning. That fall should have killed her,and I suppose I couldn't get over it from there.


At least we got the insanely difficult Atari Lynx game out of this. (Make sure you duck behind the mail box and wait!)

If Jack Tramiel wasn't such a cheap bastard, a save state would have been nice.  I beat it once in high school, and I haven't touched it since then.  It was so aggravating! 

As I see it, Batman is supposed to be more nightmarish than realistic. There are references to H. P. Lovecraft (Arkham), the villains are all psychos (hence an Asylum being such a prominent place in the series), the Joker is inspired by a horror character in a expressionist film and Batman himself preys on the fear of his enemies, using the darkness in his favor. It was supposed to be an inversion of the bright and optmistic Superman, and that's why I think the nightmare atmosphere that Burton was going for fits the character so well. Taking the expressionist art style as an inspiration was just genious, as it was already referenced in the series since the creation of the Joker (and Burton referenced it again with another character, Max Shreck).

Of course, it all depends on what one expects from a film adaptation. Some people prefer adaptations that make the source material look realistic (so the Nolan movies would be much better in that regard), others think the adaptation must be almost equal to the original (which is a problem, since Batman had various different representations in comics and tv until then); I do prefer highly stylized adaptations that take some liberty while keeping the original spirit - Burton changed the characters and their origin stories, but I do think he got the atmosphere of what Batman's world is supposed to be.

That said, The Dark Knight is such a good movie that even if it's not really my favourite depiction of Batman as far as atmosphere/art style goes, it's still my favourite Batman movie.

I love the design, the atmosphere, the sets. It's all very unique and original, especially for a superhero movie, especially in a time before superhero movies were as common as they are today. An expressionist Batman is a cool thing to see. Danny Elfman's music is iconic. The Batmobile looks great.

And yet... The story and writing in general are really sub par. The same can be said of the 1989 film. Batman is hardly a character at all. He doesn't grow or evolve, he's just there. Contrast this with the villains, whose motivations are clear and defined, who get a lot more attention and screen time. Or contrast it with the Nolan films, where Batman and his struggle to be the hero are the focus.

Pfeiffer does well as Catwoman, but there are many times when two villains seems like too many. A separate movie with her as the villain would've been better, imo.

In all, I gave it a 4/5. It's got major shortcomings, but is still entertaining.

Batman is always one bad day away from becoming the Punisher.