|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 25, 2017 20:10:09 GMT
10/10 My all time favorite film.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Mar 25, 2017 21:58:42 GMT
7/10 - The best aspect of the movie was Jack Nicholson's Joker.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 25, 2017 21:59:48 GMT
8/10. Not necessarily about Batman but still entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 25, 2017 22:41:42 GMT
I liked it. I liked how Bruce was personable and an otherwise likable character. And Batman wasn't feared by the good citizens -- nowadays everyone is afraid of him and I don't think that is what a superhero should be about. The sequal was okay but I must admit, out of all his girlfriends I ABSOLUTELY LOVED MICHELLE PFEIFFER THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2017 6:25:45 GMT
10/10; a classic.
|
|
|
Post by Utpe on Mar 26, 2017 19:37:51 GMT
Oh easily a 10/10. 1989 was one heck of a year to be a kid.
Michael Keaton was always the best Batman in my book alongside Val Kilmer, Michael Gough was the perfect Alfred (sorry Michael Caine), and the way Jack Nicholson portrays The Joker is pretty good for 1980s standards.
I'm not entirely certain about the Vicki Vale character. She disappeared in Batman Returns (1992) anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 26, 2017 20:29:32 GMT
9/10 Excellent comic book movie
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 26, 2017 21:30:38 GMT
Oh easily a 10/10. 1989 was one heck of a year to be a kid. Michael Keaton was always the best Batman in my book alongside Val Kilmer, Michael Gough was the perfect Alfred (sorry Michael Caine), and the way Jack Nicholson portrays The Joker is pretty good for 1980s standards. I'm not entirely certain about the Vicki Vale character. She disappeared in Batman Returns (1992) anyhow. I disliked Vicki but Chase was beyond pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Mar 27, 2017 15:12:21 GMT
6/10
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 27, 2017 22:14:38 GMT
It's one of my favorite movies, ably capturing the comic book world and being dark enough for loyalty to the character--but not too dark that the whole thing becomes a gloomy, existential metaphor for the meaning of life (you know what I mean--the Nolan movies)--which is all well and fine, but, my God, do you have to do it in a comic-book movie!
As Roger Ebert wrote, ironically about Batman Returns, "No matter how hard you try, superheroes and film noir don't go together; the very essence of noir is that there are no more heroes." Exactly; the irony is, of course, that Ebert loved The Dark Knight, which is the very exemplar of trying to amalgamate noir and superheroing against each genre's will. No disrespect to the late, great Mr. Ebert, but this is a rant that I feel I must get off my chest, for the people who love the Nolan pictures without even bothering to look at, or at least remember, Burton's efforts.
There always was an innate darkness to the Batman character that was not brought out in, say, the very fun, goofy, "campy" Adam West series. But there never was a Batman--a comic-book superhero!--before the modern era, who spent the majority of the running time musing over destruction, death, and decay. Respectfully, I argue that that should be left to the philosophers, or at least to philosophical movies that don't include a man who dresses as a giant bat and swings from rooftop to rooftop. To wit, I remember when comic-book movies used to be fun.
Burton's two Batman films successfully hold the middle between darkness and fun, and they're more the successful for it. They're not gloomy, and they have a wit and a joy to them despite their superficial veneer of purpose. I must say that I miss those kinds of superhero movies. Now we are in an era when even Superman, the Big Blue Boy Scout, has to be a dark, conflicted, morally ambiguous character. That is not realism, that is sheer folly.
To end this rant on a positive note, however, three recent efforts--the first Iron Man, the first Captain America, and the remarkably good and underrated Superman Returns do keep up this tradition. Unsurprisingly, I find them the best three 2000s comic-book movies thus far. (To be honest, though, Nolan's original Batman film, Batman Begins, is also quite strong--less gloomy or nasty than The Dark Knight--and it would come right under these three.)
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Mar 28, 2017 11:36:49 GMT
10/10 I grew up with Tim Burton's Batman films, and since I was too young to go and see them in the movie theatre, I guess that I have worn out several VHS tapes of watching Batman (1989) over and over again, during the mid 90s. The music, atmosphere, characters, everything about it was done to absolute perfection, as you really felt like entering another world, and not like in the newer films that just look like every other big city around the world. No this was how Gotham should really look like. Gothic, industrial, frightening and very hostile, but still a long shot away from the ridiculous, over-the-top disco/camp neon nightmare that was Schumacher's Batman films.
Jack Nicholson was great as usual but over the years I was surprised to learn that Brad Dourif was Tim's originally choice as the Joker/Jack Napier, which could have been epic, as he looked so much like the Joker (Mark Hammil) in the brilliant, Batman: The Animated Series 1992-95) but I guess the big money men in Hollywood didn't think he was a big enough box-office draw, and played it "safe".
The only "problem" I have with the film is that I always wanted to see more scenes with Jack Napier, specially the younger one, who I thought looked far more menacing, compared to the older one played by Nicholson. The sadistic grim on his face and his dark and evil voice: "Have you ever danced with the devil by the pale moonlight?" That is a really great and chilling scene. One of the finest in any of the Batman films.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 19:42:02 GMT
8 for me. Yes it is fun, and still the best batman movie made so far, but a bit too camp and cartoonish perhaps. Jack Nicholson was a bit too over the top imo.
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Apr 6, 2017 17:29:02 GMT
5/10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 19:40:21 GMT
8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 19:47:50 GMT
6/10 Good action movie and Keaton gives a good interpretation of the character. But the film ultimately isn't really about anything. Tim Burton himself admitted the film is ultimately more important as a cultural icon than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Apr 17, 2017 3:45:58 GMT
Didn't care for the poor sets. 7/10
|
|
detour
Sophomore
@detour
Posts: 374
Likes: 236
|
Post by detour on May 11, 2017 14:38:26 GMT
8/10 for me. A great comic book film and a great Batman film. Nicholson's Joker tended to veer into Cesar Romero territory at times, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if Adam West was playing Batman, but felt a little out of place in this film.
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on May 11, 2017 15:58:34 GMT
Loved it when it was released, and I still think Keaton is the best big screen Batman to date. Nicholson is still the definitive Joker as well, sorry Ledger fans. Having recently re-watched it though, as a whole the movie hasn't particularly aged well, so I give it a 7/10...still a good solid movie, but not as great as I thought initially.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Jun 6, 2017 13:04:59 GMT
8/10.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 14, 2017 6:11:09 GMT
5/10 (Thumbs Down)
for the record... i used to think it was solid years ago but it no longer held up based on a re-watch on May 31st 2013.
p.s. the 1992 movie is a bit better. 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up). my most recent re-watch of this is June 1st 2013.
|
|