Batman (1989) User Reviews

The Dark Knight's First Great Outing

[FilmFreak94 · 8/10 · 19 November 2011]

Nowadays there's a new superhero movie out every summer. But back in the 80's superheroes were still considered to be entertainment mostly for children. Then the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and The Killing Joke by Alan Moore came out and were a huge success. A movie was right around the corner.

The plot takes place in the familiar setting of Batman's home town, Gotham City. The city is all but controlled by mob boss Carl Grissom with police Commissioner Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent all but powerless to stop him. Enter the caped crusader who starts making a name for himself as Gotham's protector. He becomes the interest of journalist Vicki Vale who is determined to find out who is under the cowl.

On the opposite side of the spectrum a local thug working for Grissom, Jack Napier, encounters the Batman during a heist at a chemical plant falls into the acid. He emerges with a permanent smile and christens himself as The Joker. Joker starts to take out the other mob bosses and terrorizes the city with various deadly chemicals mixed with random every day appliances. He also gains an infatuation with Vicki Vale and constantly stalks her. Batman has to stop The Joker and save Gotham from the scum that turned him into the hero he is.

This movie captures the spirit of Batman almost perfectly. Gotham City is a huge Gothic metropolis that's unique style is something only Tim Burton could create. The casting is brilliant as well. Michael Keaton plays a perfect Batman as well as Bruce Wayne and is still one of my favorite Batmans today. Jack Nicholson was also a great choice as the Joker and manages to pull off a great blend of funny and creepy.

All though I thought a few things could've been improved, like the action scenes and the lack of character development for Gordon and Dent, this movie was a great way of bringing Batman back to the silver screen.

The "serious" comic book movie

[hall895 · 7/10 · 23 May 2006]

No radioactive spider bites or guys turning green or supermodels painted blue here. Campy television series aside, Batman has always seemed the most serious, the most grounded, the most real of all the comic book sagas. Our hero has no magical, mystical superpowers...he's just a guy in a suit. But where does he get those wonderful toys? In this film Tim Burton does a very good job of bringing the Dark Knight to life while also seemingly giving the dark, foreboding city of Gotham a life of its own. Gotham is dark, gloomy, and dreary...almost oppressively so. The city is almost a character unto itself in the film...dark, mysterious and somehow quite real. The brilliantly conceived, stunning visuals are the perfect backdrop for the story which will unfold.

The story follows our Caped Crusader in his quest to clean up Gotham which is in the midst of a frightening crime wave. There was much unnecessary angst when comic actor Michael Keaton landed the title role with fans feeling that was a sure sign the film would lean towards the campy style evident in the famous television series. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Batman would be a serious film (well, as serious as a comic book movie can be) and Keaton was perfect in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. Keaton's Wayne comes across as an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things. Keaton brings all the required seriousness to the role but also can add a little comic touch when necessary. Inspired casting pays off big time.

Good as he is Keaton is actually overshadowed in the film. Who else but Jack Nicholson could cause the actor playing Batman to get second billing in a movie titled Batman? Nicholson's performance as the Joker is simply terrific. Maybe a little over the top at times but, hey, it's the Joker...he's supposed to be over the top. Nicholson livens up every scene he's in, he simply owns the screen. With two terrific actors doing outstanding work bringing our hero and villain to life the film can hardly go wrong. It's certainly entertaining enough but the film as a whole doesn't quite match the brilliance of the two lead performances. The supporting cast, led by Kim Basinger as the requisite love interest, doesn't add much. Instead of leaving well enough alone with a fantastic Danny Elfman score the whole movie comes to a screeching halt a couple of times while we're forced to listen to some inane Prince songs. And the story just seems to lack a certain zest. We want to see the conflict between Batman and the Joker, these two great characters played by two great actors. And for too much of the film that conflict simply isn't there. But all in all, Batman is certainly a worthy effort. Some top-notch acting, stunning visuals and a story that does just enough to draw you in and hold your attention throughout. To call this film great might be a stretch but one could say it is very, very good. Certainly good enough to be worth your while.

A little song, a little dance, Batman's head on a lance

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 8/10 · 21 November 2000]

If you were around in summer 1989 then you'll remember that Batmania was EV-ER-Y-WHERE! You couldn't look anywhere without seeing the Bat Logo in some incarnation. The film was a mega-hit. People were queueing up around the block for hours (the literal meaning of a blockbuster). I remember being in a car, driving up Lothian Road in Edinburgh and seeing a long line of people queuing at the box office of the Cannon Cinema (as it was then) and being jealous that I wasn't old enough to see it. My lot of movies that summer was restricted to Ghostbusters II and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, both of which I saw in Florida. Batman had a 12-rating in the UK, and was upped to 15 for video. This "grown up" rating gave it an alluring mystique as was always the case with such movies to my hungry, impressionable mind.

The marketing team at Warner succeeded in immersing the public consciousness with the big-screen coming of the Dark Knight. Up until this point the Batman series from the 1960s is how the vast majority of the audience regarded the Batman character and universe. Tim Burton corrected all of that by giving us a dark, sinister and Gothic world with rich production design and a great score by Danny Elfman (who has made a career out of recycling the same old generic cues in nearly every movie he has scored). The original material is respected (to a degree), and the characters are deep instead of just campy. Burton also retained a lot of the noir elements that have been present in the old Batman serials and many of the comic books.

Michael Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne in my opinion. He's a rich, socio-phobic megalomaniac who has more money than sense and is often bumbling and clumsy, very different from Adam West's turtleneck playboy. As Batman he's silent and imposing, the polar opposite of Christian Bale's overplayed attempt, which I don't think anyone was really impressed by. Batman needs a counterbalance and I believe that Heath Ledger helped up Bale by accident

Jack Nicholson is a "good" Joker too, not quite as iconic as Ledger's take on the character, but still a role that has defined his career. I like that they acknowledge his intelligence and gave him a new edge by making him artistically gifted, but not much is done with it when it should have been a heavier driving force behind his insanity.

Anton Furst's Oscar-winning design of Gotham City is, to me, THE aesthetic that all other attempts failed to match. The smoke-blackened, cramped, and claustrophobic buildings look and create a very oppressive atmosphere, like a New York City that has not had planning permission for 200 years. The matte paintings are gorgeous and create pure escapism in a way that green screen digital mattes just cannot replicate.

It may not be as mature as Nolan's work but it has an edge that no other recent comic-book movie has. It's just a shame that the late-80s writer strike happened just a few days after Sam Hamm submitted his script to Warner. He was unable to make further drafts and rewrite scenes so Burton had some British writers make changes to the script (it was shot at Pinewood) which involved making Jack Napier/Joker the killer of Thomas and Martha Wayne. Sam Hamm was against this, as well as every single Batman fan on planet Earth. If there is one major, and valid, fault that audiences rightfully complain about then this major change to the established lore is it.

Rightfully a classic, and, aside from some weak writing, it's better than ALL of today's comic-book movies (please just make them stop!). If Batman had failed, then the sub-genre would be written-off forever. It's just a shame that Warner squandered this lightning in a bottle after two movies.

Science Fiction/Action Classic and the best Original Batman film from the 80's.

[ivo-cobra8 · 10/10 · 10 October 2015]

The 1989 Batman is the original Dark Knight and Tim Burton's Classic Dark Knight film. This is my number 1 personal favorite Batman of all Batman movies this is my movie and I love this film to death! Jack Nicholson was well-cast as The Joker he was a wonderful in his lead role performance. Michael Keaton was just great as Bruce Wayne/Batman, he acted like the role of Batman was written on his skin. Kim Bassinger did a wonderful performance as her role Vicki Vale. I think Vicky Vale is very underrated character from all other female lead characters in all Batman films. Michael Gough did a wonderful job as the butler Alfred Pennyworth Batman's helper. Seriously Alfred for me will be always Michael Gough not only that he acted much better than Michael Caine did he even showed more heart and caring in the whole Batman franchise than Michael Caine did. The acting in this film is awesome, the character developments and the story plot are TERRIFIC!

Michael Keaton caused an uproar when he was casted as Batman as fans boycotted the idea yet in Christmas 1988 when the trailer hit theaters the silence was shut as it was a nice teaser. This movie was the most hyped movie of 1989 as months audiences including fans had waited even with a second trailer that showed up in the spring of 1989 and merchandise was everywhere as it was the year of the Batman, hell even TV stations had reruns of the 60's Batman show to cash-in on the phenomenon. This movie opened on June 21st 1989 and became one of the highest grossing movies of all time and the biggest movie of the year earning acclaim and making Batman cool again just like Frank Miller and Alan Moore did. The Action and fights sequences were great and awesome. At least so much better than they were in Batman Begins (2005). It was my first Batman film I ever saw and this movie just absolutely Kick Ass. The Batwing that appears by the end of this movie is awesome by using to combat the Joker. When the Joker launches a deadly Smilex gas attack through balloons, Batman came in the Batwing and destroyed the balloons, angering Joker. Awesome! Batman then fired off several missiles and two mini guns, killing many henchmen but missing Joker, who in turn shot it down with one bullet from his long barreled revolver. The Joker Thugs are amazing. The main theme score by Danny Elfman was just amazing and really beautiful. I absolutely love this movie. I would never compare all other Nolan batman films with this masterpiece. Except The Dark Knight that it is the best Batman film. I will say it again this movie is AWESOME! The Batsuit designed by Costume designer Bob Ringwood who turned down the chance to work on Licence to Kill in favor of Batman was AWESOME! Ringwood found it difficult designing the Batsuit because "the image of Batman in the comics is this huge, big six-foot-four hunk with a dimpled chin.

Gotham City, a big city where crime has been occurring lately and a mysterious caped crusader named Batman (Michael Keaton) is wiping streets clean of criminals, it leaves the police especially commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) baffled. A gangster named Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) was dropped into a vat of chemicals which leaves him disfigures with paint-like white bleached skin and ruby-red lips plus green hair which makes him clown-like as he now calls himself Joker, he begins to terrorize the city of Gotham and stalk a sexy photographer named Vickie Vale (Kim Bassinger). Bruce Wayne who is Gotham's richest man falls in love with Vickie yet she doesn't know his true secret that he's Batman, but can Bruce deal with romance and battling with Joker at the same time?

Batman is a 1989 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton and produced by Jon Peters, based on the DC Comics character of the same name. It is the first installment of Warner Bros.' initial Batman film series. The film stars Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton in the title role, Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough, and Jack Palance.

The Dark Knight of Gotham City begins his war on crime with his first major enemy being the clownishly homicidal Joker.

This is definitely my favorite classic Action film from the 80's it was always my favorite childhood movie and it will always be. The action scenes are just fantastic and how Batman saves Gotham City from the Joker balloons of a deadly Smilex gas attack was amazing. Burton's Batman is my number 1 favorite film of all times and it will always be and I love it to death! 10/10

Michael Keaton will be the only Batman for me!:P.

A stunning crime fantasy

[adamscastlevania2 · 10/10 · 30 August 2014]

(94%) My favourite Batman movie, and indeed my favourite superhero movie ever made. The studios took a big chance and allowed a young Tim Burton to take on their biggest asset and he made a movie like no other directer could. Along with Christopher Reeve as Superman, Michael Keaton will always be my top choice for the role as he plays the haunted and lost Bruce Wayne so fantastically well that I doubt it will ever be bettered. Jack Nicholson was born to play the joker, the score is epic, the set design is wonderful. And although not everything runs smoothly, as far as I'm concerned this will always be the superhero movie to beat.

Classic

[iCrazyDavey · 7/10 · 23 June 2005]

In 1989, Tim Burton created the very first Batman movie with great stars like Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. The Joker is definitely one of Hollywood's best villains on screen. Jack Nicholson was born for the role, with his psychotic and sick look. Michael Keaton is also great as Batman and is pretty good as Bruce Wayne. Kim Basinger is kind of annoying at times, but she's not the worst damsel in distress ever seen on screen.

Tim Burton has a unique way of doing Batman, and I think most people can agree that it fits the characters and the story. To bad Warner Bros. got rid of him after the 2nd film.

I don't even need to say that this is the best Batman of the series. It's obvious enough.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 10/10 · 26 August 2001]

What is all this yap about Michael Keaton as Batman? Yes, he was Batman, and he was a GREAT Batman. He pulled off every aspect of the role perfectly – he was better than Val Kilmer, better than George Clooney, better than everyone. He portrayed the mysterious charm of the winged crusader just as well as he captured the cool and collected character of Bruce Wayne. Michael Keaton is a huge part of the reason that this film was such a huge success, the other main portion having come from the tremendous contribution from Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Gotham City is created in incredibly detailed comic-book style, which adds to the overall quality of the movie.

Director Tim Burton does an amazing job bringing this unreal world to reality, and Kim Basinger is excellent as Vicky Vale, the film's main female presence. The script is particularly brilliant. The role of the Joker seems to have been written specifically for Jack Nicholson, which would not be surprising because of how well he pulled off the role with lines like `Why didn't anyone tell me he had one of those…things?!' and `Remember me? When you dropped me into that vat of chemicals? That wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try.' And, of course, my favorite, `…we'll be like Beauty and the Beast. Of course, if anyone else ever calls you beast, I'll rip their lungs out.'

Everything, from the setting in Gotham City to the characters costumes to the actual dialogue, gives the unreal feeling of a comic book, but the characters are developed enough so that we understand their problems and we care about what happens. The movie is a thrill ride from the beginning to the end, and is enjoyable for all ages. If anyone is going to complain about who was chosen to play Batman, there is much more room for complaint among the film's several sequels. Keaton did a spectacular job that no one has ever even come close to.

Good attempt to translate the comics to the big screen

[bob the moo · 28 January 2002]

In a Gotham City overrun by crime a new menace exists. In the shadows and rooftops a giant bat is terrorising the criminals who live in the night. Elsewhere crime boss Grissom's right hand man Jack Napier is trapped in a chemical factory by police. With Batman's intervention Napier is accidentally dropped into a vat of chemical. Considered dead he later turns up, scarred and twisted with a new sense of humour. Calling himself the Joker he takes over the city's gangs and begins to terrorise the city. Millionaire Bruce Wayne begins relationship with reporter Vicky Vale and finds himself personally drawn into conflict with the Joker as both himself and his alter-ego.

This was very much a huge blockbuster and had a great deal riding on it in terms of merchandising and a possible franchise. As such Burton always seemed like a risk - although his dark toned work and complex characters probably made him a great choice. The film starts promisingly, many questions are asked - is Wayne totally balanced? What drives him to become the bat? etc - and the tone of the movie is darker than a friendly blockbuster. This is continued by the investigation by reporters Vale and Knox, but starts to wane (pardon the pun) with the development of Vale as a love interest and the hamming of The Joker. At some point the film loses the character complexities and decides to become a straight up good v's evil with plenty of effects and gadgets. That said it's still very dark and the set pieces are well handled. In fact it's the best of the Batman franchise so far.

The problem is that it lacks a bite for Batman fans. I've always felt that Batman was always a few steps away from the criminals he's chasing, surely he can't be totally balanced and right in the head? Here these questions are half touched but never developed.

Keaton is an unlikely Batman, but is the best so far. He deals well with Wayne's past when it is brought up, but is an unlikely action hero. Nicholson is pure ham, but is good for it. He hogs all the best lines and is clearly enjoying himself - the only downside being that he regularly eclipses Keaton's Batman. Basinger's Vale is built up far too much and should have been cut out of the story rather than become a key part of it. The rest of the cast are good and I always like to see Tracey Walters in a big screen film!

Overall this is a good stab at the Batman legend. It's dark tone gives it the feel of the comics without the characterisation, but at the end of the day it comes down to good guy v's bad guy.

Not as good as I remembered

[Foopy-2 · 6/10 · 15 August 2000]

Ever since I saw this for the first time when I was a kid in the early 90's, I always revered it as one of the best comic book movies of all time, up there (in my opinion) with "X-Men", "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm", "The Crow", and a handful of others.

Well, I don't know why I did that. I just saw it for the first time in several years, and it was pretty boring. The visuals are beautiful to behold, the costumes and set design are nothing short of perfection, but that's about it... Much of the dialogue is rather corny, and character development is severely lacking. I particularly hated Vicky Vale, who is nothing but a blonde cardboard cutout with absolutely no background or personality and does a lot more screaming than talking; since much of the story revolves around Vale, it makes the movie a lot more boring, and I was constantly wondering why Batman was in love with such a robot. Even the Joker's character is a bit confusing, because I couldn't really fathom how such a serious, suave, gritty psychotic gangster could suddenly be transformed into this laughter-crazed lunatic with a twisted sense of humor. I thought the personality of the young Joker-to-be chronicled in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" was much more believable as a precursor to the Joker than Nicholson's rendition of Jack Napier.

The Elfman score is good and fits in well, particularly the main Batman theme. However, the Prince music really dates the movie: if this film didn't have that music, it would have a very timeless atmosphere, which is the kind of thing that Gotham really needs, as evoked in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" and the rest of the animated series. As it is, the Prince music is the film's only cultural artifact that makes me feel like I'm looking at Gotham in the 1980's.

Even the action sequences are rather silly and contrived, saturated with things that just "look cool" but utterly destroy suspension of disbelief due to their unfathomable lack of logic... Masters of action like John Woo and James Cameron can make the utterly unbelievable seem quite believable, but either Tim Burton can't do this or the person who designed these action sequences just plain sucks. Or maybe my expectations for this movie were just way too high and I was criticizing it far too much.

In any case, I saw "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed it much more than this: it had better character development, better dialogue, better action sequences, and the visuals were superb (though it's still not quite as gorgeous as this movie).

Burton`s masterpiece

[msegvic · 8/10 · 21 July 2003]

This is truly a Fantasy/Comic movie-masterpiece. First of all- the excellent cast- Jack Nicholson shines in the role of the manic and crazy Jocker. Nicholsons character is truly amazing- like a mixture of his former roles/characters in "Chinatown" (Jake Gittes), "One Flew Over the Cuchoo`s Nest" (Randle McMurphy), "Prizzie` s honor" (C.Partanna), "the Witches of Eastwick" (Daryl Van Horn) and of course "The Shining" (Jack Torrance)- but (the character) still keeps his own style. Michael Keaton also proves to be the ideal type for Burtons`s Batman. He reminds on the dark Batman from the "Dark Knight" Batman comics, and is the exact opposite of Batman introduced by Adam West in the 70`s. Second, Tim Burton created a unique athmosphere, exactly matching to the characters. Some people say that this movie is to dark, but I wouldn`t agree. I must not forget to mention the exciting Batman Theme composed by Danny Elfmann. Burton`s Batman, differnt from all the other Comic-hero movies, like Spiderman, Superman, Flash or Hulk, provides a refreshing character dimension.

One of the best movies in the 80`s.

Dated film worth watching for Jack Nicholson

[wildlife-ptech · 6/10 · 10 October 2019]

Rating

6/10

Time hasn't been too kind to this Batman entry despite it being a huge box office success. Nolan's films put it in the shade. Yet there are pleasures to be found if one isn't too picky. Jack is obviously enjoying himself and it shows! Keaton does a good job although the film doesn't give him enough importance as the focus is wholly on the villain. The fights and special effects are dated.

Watchable.

A Tim Burton Classic!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 10/10 · 19 September 2002]

Tim Burton takes a darker twist to a cheesy over the top silly TV show that was loved by everyone. Batman is now played by Michael Keaton. Michael as Batman was perfect, he had the look, humor, and mystery that is Batman. Playing Batman for him, he became the role and I will always stand by that. For me, he is the best Batman, no one besides the original Adam West can touch his performance.

Jack Nicholson is now the Joker. Who could ask for a better Joker? He has the look and dirty scary side to him that makes you fear but want to enjoy his presence on screen. He has such charisma and appeal, his lines were perfectly delivered and every scene, he stole. He and Michael were terrific together. They played off each other so well, it makes you go crazy almost. The Dark Knight vs. The Joker, the perfect super hero and villain. Jack stole my heart with his killer, no pun intended, performance.

Kim Bassigner was also fantastic. She plays Vicki Vale, the love interest of Bruce Wayne/Batman. She is a photo journalist who is looking for the true identity of Batman, which leads to the question of if Batman can trust another being with his darkest secret? She was absolutely beautiful and charming. No other woman could've done a better job.

Like I said, Tim Burton, he takes a different turn on this "Batman", but it's very appealing. Everyone loves this movie, and I can't blame them. Batman is the best super hero of all comic book hero's in my opinion. You see Spider-man can fly with webs, Super Man has super strength and can fly, but Batman just needs himself. He kicks butt by himself. :) The only thing you miss in the movie is Robin, his faithful sidekick, but I don't blame Tim for not adding him for this Batman. It wasn't needed. With a cool soundtrack by Prince and and awesome setting, please watch "Batman", it's a true classic.

10/10

A Typical Superhero Movie

[alexkolokotronis · 7/10 · 17 July 2008]

Many people are enchanted by comics and superheroes, I'm not one of those people, at least most of the time. This is not one of those exceptions. To me this movie is just nothing really special.

The acting was good but to a certain point. There is really no depth in the acting here like most superhero/comic movies. Jack Nicholson is above average in here with his uncanny charm but not really anything were you would say wow. His performance does not really freak anybody out or give any chills to anyone. It is really more of a laughable performance than a villainous performance that will stay with you. Michael Keaton is a very good Batman, definitely better than Kimer and Clooney, but something just feels of with him in the movie. To me he is not the problem though, it is the people that surrounded him in the making of this. Kim Bassinger is Kim Bassinger she is not good actress by any stretch of the imagination, at least in here. To me this cast was more of a way to fill seats more than anything else.

The directing was above average. It is made in a very appealing way for comic book fans but not really for anybody else. The way this movie is directed is done in a very limited way. There is just no depth or purpose of any kind. It is just pure entertainment which to me is not very entertaining at all. I give credit to Burton for staying true to the comics but he still did not provide enough of a balance for me to be in awe.

The writing was the way you would expect out of this movie. It was average with an average plot. It is just pure good vs. evil which I like to see once in a while myself but not something I would go after. The one good thing I can say about the script is that it does not take itself very seriously which is the most appealing thing about this movie. Yet it fails at showing the complexities of Batman which has really disappointed in most of the Batman movies(except Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). The movie also had a comic book style cinematography, with OK music.

Overall it was an above average movie and is good enough visually to give it a good rating. It is not a horrible movie but don't expect too much if you are thinking this movie is like the recent Batman movies. To me this movie is more of a small child's fantasy than anything else which is OK for that child. Maybe we sometimes need to escape into a small child's fantasy though.

Great looking movie with nothing inside.

[connmoore · 4/10 · 18 February 2005]

Batman is the ultimate example of a movie I desperately wanted to like, but could not do so. The set's and designs are amazing, and they have proved to be very influential on countless films since this was made. That is the only really redeeming feature of this movie.

The script is flat out awful. Some of the worst dialog in a major motion picture you will ever see. The Vicky Vale/ Bruce Wayne scenes at his manor are downright wretched. The entire "Dancing by the pale moonlight" stuff is pathetic, and the frankly weird need to try to tie Batman and the Joker together by making him be the one to kill Bruce Waynes parents, thereby "Creating" Batman is not needed, and severely strains the credibility of the movie.

The casting, which some have praised, is even worse than the script. From the top on down, every single role is wrong. Keaton doesn't have either the menace or physical presence to play Batman, or the light devil may care attitude that is the face he is supposed to put on as Bruce Wayne. Nicholson was already too old to be playing the spry and limber Joker (Again not physically right for the role.) Jack had already played the same character at the end of The Shining, except with less makeup. Kim Bassinger is wasted as the slight love interest. Most annoying of all, this is right in the middle of the film career of Robert Wuhl, one of the most annoying, untalented actors to ever grace the silver screen. In this film he portrays himself, a fast talking smart ass who always seems out of place in every scene he is in.

I guess its the best of the four Batman movies, but that is faint praise indeed. When compared to Superman, Spiderman or even the X-Men movies, Batman comes up far short of what a comic book movie can be. Hopefully the upcoming batman movie with Christian Bale will begin a move towards a Batman that fans of the comic books and the movies can all appreciate together.

Do I Look Like I'm Joking?

[zurnd · 9/10 · 7 April 2013]

Batman is my favorite DC character and when it comes to movies based on the caped crusader, you guaranteed to get a slew of options. From the flashy, campy nature of the 60s movie, to the cornball, over the top manner of the Joel Schumacher films, to the dark, brilliantly animated atmosphere of the "Timmverse" films, Batman has had his share of makeovers throughout the years, but none can come close to the thrilling, Gothic quality of Tim Burton's 1989 masterpiece. In my opinion (light your torches), I think it is superior to Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, and to this day, it still remains my absolute favorite Batman representation. Why else would I have a poster of the old Batman logo hanging on my bedroom wall?

The look of this film perfectly showcases Tim Burton's macabre imagination. The design of the city parallels that of the 1927 science fiction landmark Metropolis or the 1920 German expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It's one of my favorite looks for a city and it's a pity they didn't use the stylized, dark look of the city for Schumacher's films. I also admire the film's overall tone and feeling. Even though it's a Batman film (the first in a series), it still feels like a Tim Burton film, and Burton does a good job of re-imagining Batman as if he was his own creation rather than Bob Kane's. He treats Batsy with love and affection and of course comic book nuts will get all over the film for not following the source material closely, but this one still has it where it counts. In this film, the characters come first, and this film has some of the best you will ever see grace the screen.

Michael Keaton very well might be my favorite Batman. Sure, the animated series Batman (voiced by Kevin Conroy) was excellent and Christian Bale is okay with his dark, raspy voice, but Keaton proves that you can be a calm, collective Batman yet still be threatening and terrifying at the same time. He goes around in the cape and cowl smirking and giving off menacing grins to thugs and you can really tell that he enjoys playing the role. It's shocking that people thought he wasn't a good choice to play the dark hero. I thought he was spot on, really fit for the role. He did play Beetlejuice after all!

All the other players are fantastic as well. Jack Nicholson's Joker is scary and funny as heck and with a permanent grin on his face, he really gives you the shivers. Like Keaton, you can really tell he enjoys playing the villainous clown prince of crime. He's always what I imagined the Joker being like in movie form, equipped with dangerous laughing gas and chattering teeth! I also like Billy Dee Williams, Kim Basinger, Pat Hingle and Michael Gough in their respective roles, and who could forget Danny Elfman's top notch score mixed in with those catchy, late 80s Prince songs.

Batman is a great movie, and the impetus that led to other superhero films being made. I like to think that one day, Tim Burton will make another Batman flick, but I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully, somewhere down the road, a Batman reboot will come along that not only mixes in the contemporary nature of the comics and the Nolan films, but the dark, demented and overpowering nature of the Burton films. It would make for quite a Batman we have never seen before.

Two hours of comic book fun

[Climinator · 10/10 · 2 February 2013]

Firstly may I just state that 'Batman' is one of those films where Batman isn't really the star. The star character is in fact the Joker played to brilliance by Jack Nicholson. However seeing as Batman himself didn't have that much of a back-story back then, its no wonder. All the character had for a well enough established origin was 'parents were murdered in a back alley' (the graphic novel 'Year One' only hit shelves like one year before the films release). So its no wonder why the Joker almost steals the entire film. Having said that Michael Keaton does make an excellent Bruce Wayne/Batman depicting a man constantly in turmoil between identities. The plot line initially seems rather basic good vs evil. However after watching it time and time again it actually gets more intriguing. Particularly with how Joker rises to the top of Gotham's criminal empire to further his plot. If you want a Batman story thats still dark but more grittier then watch Nolan's interpretations. They're every bit as enjoyable as this and vice versa. But if you want to watch a Batman that's grim in a graphic novel way this is it.

Dark and moody; but with a sense of humour, and real cinematic imagination

[ThreeSadTigers · 30 July 2008]

Although today it can be seen as something of a flawed work - compromised somewhat by continual studio interference - Burton's first Batman film (1989) remains a surprisingly vivid comic-book style action adventure film, peppered throughout by the director's continual quirks and characteristics, which for me, makes the experience all the more unique. I know it's almost the accepted opinion these days to reject Burton's vision, post Batman Begins (2004); with many critics dismissing this as closer in tone to the retro 60's TV series, which is bull, as we all know. At the time, this was considered the darkest knight of all, and the continual shift into more violent and lurid psychological territory presented by its sequel, Batman Returns (1992), saw Burton dismissed from the series indefinitely. Although Nolan's subsequent Batman films have attempted to take the franchise into more credible areas - and with great success - they for me lack that certain spark of imagination and subversive sense of humour that made the Burton films so radical and so much fun.

Here, the world of Batman - as presented by Burton - gives the film much of its power. Whereas previous adaptations of the character had placed him within the context of a recognisable present-day environment, this Batman creates a dark, Gothic underworld that is part Metropolis (1927), part Gilliam's Brazil (1985). You could also argue that there's a touch of Blade Runner (1982) presented here as well, with the retro-futurist look of distressed exteriors and Art Nouveau creating an odd juxtaposition; suggesting an almost timeless setting that is falling rapidly into despair. With these references in place, Burton goes wild with strokes of German Expressionism and references to film-noir, as he plays not only with an excellent use of shadow and composition, but also with a sly and irreverent use of colour. For example, with this presentation of the Joker (still a contentious factor for some viewers), Burton gives us a screaming, pop-art inspired lunatic - again, part Warhol, part Edward G. Robinson - with the typical charm and caddish likability that only Nicholson could truly convey.

I have no problem with this presentation of the joker. Ledger's variation exists in a different world with a completely different tone, so such comparisons are ultimately faulty! The only similarity is that in both films the Joker dominates the proceedings, more so than Batman himself. In Nicholson's hands, the Joker is dangerous *and* amusing; his charm combined with his insanity making him even more fascinating. He is, as he proclaims, an "artist"; someone willing to disfigure their own fiancé for the purposes of creative expression. "I create art until someone dies", he says, and we believe him. The introduction to the Joker - post-transformation - is still a completely iconic scene, as he aggressively demands a mirror from his plastic surgeons and then smashes it in a fit of mad giggles and inevitable hysterics. This scene - like the following one in which he reaps revenge on a former partner that betrayed him - is straight out of the best of post-war Noir. Admittedly, Batman, by comparison, seems less interesting; with the limitations of a character who essentially hinges around the absurd idea of dressing up in a rubber costume and fighting crime, always requiring a great leap of faith on the part of the audience, as he is forced to become even more brooding and serious in order to remain somewhat plausible.

Regardless of what more obsessive comic-book fans might suggest, I thought the style of this film - with its use of framing and composition - was pure comic-strip. It's not a graphic novel adaptation, but a proper comic book style adventure; with the skewed angles and tight editing creating that feel of reading from one panel to the next. It benefits from the team that Burton surrounds himself with, from the cinematographer Roger Pratt, who shot the aforementioned Brazil and turned the seedy side of London into a screaming inferno for Neil Jordan's great film Mona Lisa (1986), as well as composer Danny Elfman and the late production designer Anton Furst. The only thing that really lets us down are a couple of somewhat dated optical effect shots, such as the introduction of Batman looking down on the city from a high-rise tower block, to some obvious miniature work that probably ties in with Burton's fondness for the work of Ray Harryhausen or director Mario Bava. Nonetheless, these are minor flaws that we face in numerous films and ones that are easily overlooked.

Ultimately, the argument of realism offered by many detractors of Burton's Batman films makes very little sense; again, we're talking about a film in which a billionaire playboy dons a head-to-toe rubber costume and fights crime at night - how much more plausible can this get? Burton's approach to Batman, drawing on some of the more revisionist comic book works of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, conveyed a darker, more personal slant to the character, but still retained that sense of colour, fun and imagination that the more recent Batman films seem to have lost. They're still great films, but for me, the two Batman projects from Burton capture the spirit and tone of the character perfectly, as well as conveying a naturally intuitive approach to film-making that resulted in some genuinely interesting cinematic work. The follow up, Batman Returns would be even better, and remains probably my favourite Batman film, if not my favourite Tim Burton film of all time.

A triumph of style over substance

[Mr-Awesome · 6/10 · 30 December 2008]

The original modern day Batman movie succeeds in pulling it's audience in with it's amazing visuals but fails to have any real substance. That is not to say there isn't nothing to like about this movie other than on a superficial level. Jack Nicholson as the Joker steals the show portraying the clown prince of crime as a homicidal maniac with a demented sense of humor just as he should be. Michael Keaton effectively plays a Bruce Wayne trying to deal with duel identities as well as the dark avenger Batman. Unfortunately the characters in this movie go nowhere as far as development is concern and it's hard to care about anyone in this movie. But it is the visuals in this movie that work setting Gotham in a timeless almost 1940's retro style that had in influence on the superior animated series. The music by Danny Elfman is incredible being perhaps the best score in any super hero film to date and in my personal top 5 movie scores of all time. It may seem that I don't think much of this movie, but I do. I considerate it to be best Batman of the original franchise.

Stylish and Thrilling

[ReelCheese · 9/10 · 7 June 2006]

Dark, foreboding and vastly entertaining, BATMAN changed superhero movies forever. Gone are the days of happy-go-lucky heroes arriving just in time to save the day. Director Tim Burton's Caped Crusader is a vengeful creature of the night preying on criminals who would turn his city into their personal playground.

BATMAN is one stylish, thrilling and one helluva ride. While he's not generally associated with action, Burton proves it to be his forte as the Dark Knight Detective swoops out of the shadows, crashes through windows and employs a host of what his nemesis calls "wonderful toys," such as grappling hook guns and the amazingly versatile Batmobile. And man on man, this Batman kicks some ass, at one point daring an armed henchman with a "come here" finger gesture.

BATMAN wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it does without the right casting ingredients. The hiring of Michael Keaton in the lead role drew plenty of snickers, but the underrated actor showed up his detractors with a suitably mysterious performance. We know his heart is in the right place, but we're never quite sure what we should make of him. Jack Nicholson's famous performance as the villainous Joker is every bit as good as they say. Nicholson is equal parts amusing and sadistic beneath the white face paint and green hair. Sexy Kim Basinger, as reporter Vicki Vale, also makes the most out of her screen time.

BATMAN is one of those films whose obvious flaws are so easily overlooked. The worst sin a movie can commit is to be dull, and that's something BATMAN never does.

Keaton's version of Ol' Batsy is NOT outclassed by Nolan's take

[MBunge · 7/10 · 7 September 2010]

While The Dark Knight set box office records and drew more critical acclaim and discussion than perhaps any other super-hero movie ever, it shouldn't obscure the fact that the second Batman movie was pretty darn good in its own right. And yes, it's the second Batman movie. The Adam West one counts.

Blooming out of the mind of oddball director Tim Burton, this Batman movie was one of the first films to introduce the general public to the darker and more psychologically complex world of comic book super-heroes that had replaced the wholesome, square-jawed, morally correct characters of the 1940s and 50s. That a DC character like Batman is the one who exposed America to the changes actually brought to the super-hero genre by Stan Lee and company at Marvel is one of those quirks of history. This Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) is an odd fellow, disconnected from other people and real life, with genuine pain lingering just under his skin.

Keaton's Wayne and Batman are probably the most interesting version of the character to ever appear in a movie, which makes it especially strange and regrettable that this film really isn't about him. First and foremost, it's about the Joker (Jack Nicholson). His transformation from slightly disturbed mob enforcer to larger than life, mass murdering super-villain is at the heart of the story. Everyone else is really part of an ensemble supporting Nicholson, with Bruce Wayne not being that much bigger a part than Knox (Robert Wuhl), the muckraking reporter out to break the story of Batman, or Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger), the photojournalist who comes to Gotham because she read Knox's stories and likes bats. In fact, Knox and Vale are really more important characters to the story than Wayne or Batman for the first half of the film. It's not until the second half of the movie that the title character plays a major role in what's going on.

It's to Burton's credit and the actors' that the story doesn't really suffer because of its contrary focus. As you rewatch it, it makes less and less sense that Batman is largely about everyone except Batman. It's hard to understand why they thought the Knox character was necessary, for example. But Nicholson carries the movie on his back, Basinger brings more than you'd expect to the girlfriend/damsel in distress role and Keaton's performance is so quietly suggestive and intriguing that you don't realize how little he's actually in the film.

Visually, the movie is as interesting as Burton's other films. Gotham City is a crowded, dirty, urban hell, like a 17th century city that grew and metastasized without any planning or zoning considerations. The Batmobile in this film supplanted the look of the 1960s version, becoming the standard template for how the vehicle would look for over 20 years. The Batsuit in this movie is probably the best looking version of the costume ever on film, certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the battlesuit Batman of the two most recent movies, though it did give us the thick, rubber Bat-helmet look that has burdened the character ever since. Burton doesn't really know how to shoot a great action sequence, but at least he keeps the camera steady so you can see what's going on. And there are a few times when Burton seems to miss the point of a scene and shoot it in a confusing manner.

In the wake of all the praise given to Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight, you might think that Nicholson's Joker would pale in comparison…but it doesn't. Ledger's Joker is a much deeper character who is less a real person and more a living embodiment of anarchy. Nicholson's Joker is much more grounded. He's an evil person, but he's very much a person. He has understandable goals and motivations. He's just someone who's inhibitions and impulse control have been stripped away. Some might say Ledger's Joker is more realistic but it's Nicholson who creates a more fully formed character.

It is the question of realism that most divides this film from the more recent movie incarnations of Batman (and this film's immediate sequels as well). This movie is very much a work of fantasy where the filmmakers and actors don't expect it to conform to the rules and needs of the real world and don't expect the audience to want that either. It has an internal logic and sense of its own reality, but there's virtually no effort made to explain or justify how this stuff could happen in the real world. I would bet that future generations will look back and wonder at why people would feel the need to portray a character as outlandish as Batman in a realistic way and wonder at how much effort was made in The Dark Knight and Batman Begins to pretend that "Yeah, this could really happen" when it really couldn't.

Batman is certainly more spectacle than substance. But when you're telling a story about a guy who puts on a cape and pointy-eared mask to beat the crap out of a murderer who looks like a clown…how much substance should you really want out of it?

Best of Batman

[VetteRanger · 10/10 · 18 June 2009]

Despite the sequels and the fanfare of the reboot, this remains my favorite Batman movie.

I admittedly had initial concerns over Michael Keaton in the role, but I quickly warmed up to the actor as Bruce Wayne, and once the suit went on, his performance was spot on. Nicholson as the Joker was solid casting, and he gave a brilliant performance.

This movie was just fun, and a completely different feel from "The Dark Knight". Whereas Dark Knight was endlessly gritty and tense, "Batman" was both dramatic and fun. There were plenty of light moments to break the tension of the Joker's murder and mayhem. In Dark Knight, there were no tension breakers at all. I'm a tremendous Batman fan (the comic character) and during Dark Knight I felt like I was sitting through an endurance contest rather than something I'd assumed would be entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Dark Knight ... it was a tremendous achievement. But the mood was very different than the original "Batman", and I just find that I preferred the mood of the original.

There is flaws But ignoring as it's where The Vengeance began

[ksha-21560 · 7/10 · 18 July 2022]

Spoiler Review The movie of its time was great but Little bit un comic type Compare to the 1966 one .. Probably because its inspired By Another Batman Comic Probably? OK So first the story..Honestly it's good I mean I don't have anything thing To say IMO But there is some Villains Background We Didn't Get that much of Backstory That's disappointing.... The acting must look Goofy and silly but Remember this Movie was Made in 1980s Time so Can't Say anything about That time of culture..The Villains are good but joker is More Ugly on here..in the 1966 he looks Very much Like the comic one but this one isn't Look anything like it also How can a chemical Can change his Body To white Fully XD..Makes no sense...The Dialogues are Awesome no question my Favourite one is when joker Shoot Batman and Batman Who Wasn't killed(cause he was having Bulletproof in his clothes)..Joker said "did you ever dance with the devil in a pale moonlight"..Damn and that Twist that he was the killer was something Great..It must not be comic accurate but it is a great gritty movie ..7/10 in my opinion.

The First Two Batman Are The Last.

[darktowerofnuri · 10/10 · 28 March 2005]

When I saw this movie in the theater back in '89, I was just a kid - a kid paralyzed by the looks and the charisma of the super-hero ever! I didn't know much about directors those times, so I gave all the credit to Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. Years later I understood that Tim Burton -leading as my favorite director- was all behind this, making Gotham City darker and wicked, taking Batman to a fearsome -unlike that horrible TV show!- and heroic level as he should have been. As Michael Keaton was born to fulfill his destiny as Batman, I don't think anyone else could handle the Joker except Jack Nicholson. I have never seen any character more suitable than these pair of super actors as super heroes. I don't know whether I should be happy or sad for the first two movie was shot by Tim Burton, for the following ones was not as good as the ones shot by him. The third one was not as bad as the fourth. But the "Batman and Robin" was the final humiliation ever made to me (I really don't know what Joel Schumacher was thinking). I bet everyone involved in the first two was crying their eyes out at the end of the movie. Anyway, Tim, Michael, Jack and Kim was the best crew for a movie, and they made it worth watching it over and over again. "Batman" is amongst the best movies I've ever seen.

Surprised me with disappointment this time around

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 6 May 2005]

What a surprise this was! I've watched Batman a number of times over the years--enough to be able to remember quite a few lines of dialogue, which is unusual for me--and I can't remember watching it before and thinking that it was anything less than a 9 or 10. Last night, however, I was very disappointed with the film. I don't know if I just wasn't in the mood for it, or if my critical eye has changed, but I feel even generous giving the film a 7 this time around. It's loaded with problems.

Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren's story/screenplay cleverly takes us back to the days when Batman was just getting started in Gotham City--he was best known to criminals, but primarily as a myth. Those who believed the myth, at least a bit, were unsure what to think--it was unclear whether the "Bat Man" was out to hurt or help people. A reporter for the big Gotham daily newspaper, Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl), believes the myths and continues to print stories about alleged sightings, to the ridicule of his fellow reporters. At the same time, we delve into a story about Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson), a questionably insane head henchman for Gotham's complicated underworld network, which involves not only big baddies, like Grissom (Jack Palance), but the police as well. We also get to know Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), whom visiting photojournalist Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger) is quickly falling in love with. Eventually all these threads and the Batman "myth", plus the birth of stock Batman villain, The Joker, collide. Director Tim Burton takes his time putting them together--getting to the superhero identities are "big turning points" as mini-climaxes, despite the fact that by now, even those who have not seen the film know who the superheroes are in their more mundane guises, as well which actors play them here.

Since my critical surprise this time around is going to result in me mostly complaining about the film, let me mention the things I like about it first. As I implied above, I think that starting Batman at this early stage of his Gotham City crime-fighting career was a good idea. I'm not quite sure that taking so long to get into the identities of Batman and the Joker was a good idea, since Batman was already such a pop culture phenomenon by the time this film rolled, and the publicity machine is so high when you have stars of this caliber involved that there was little mystery about who the Joker was going to be. Burton spends way too much time fudging around before he gets to the meat of the film--the "big reveals" feel more like drawn-out ritual. But wait, I'm supposed to be talking about what I like.

Gotham City is a sometimes-amusing satire of the common perception of New York City, and big cities in general. Well, it's mostly amusing at the start of the film, when our token victim family tries to make it back to a "safe" part of the city, or the part they know, and they have to work their way through a sea of hookers and hoods to get there. Of course, they do not make it before they're brutally mugged. Big cities aren't really like that, but people who are afraid of big cities believe that they are. After this good opener, Burton mostly forgets about this particular satire mode.

I also like the production design a lot. Gotham City is part New York City, part Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927), and part giant factory, or the inside of a giant machine. The costumes, gadgets, makeup and so on are all fantastic. I think that Jack Palance's performance is great, although he's not in the film nearly enough. There are also a couple times when Burton's Gothic sensibilities worked for the film.

There are also a few mixed blessings. The first is that Burton references a number of other films in an unusual way. There are scenes taken from sources as diverse as Star Wars (1977) and Vertigo (1958). While I also like Star Wars, Vertigo and many of the other source films, I don't quite get what they're doing here as such blatant lifts. Maybe Burton intended the film as a spoof, but that reading doesn't quite work. This is much more serious than the real Batman spoof, the 1966 – 68 Adam West television series, and the lifted scenes do not play like spoofs.

I'm a big Jack Nicholson fan, and I occasionally like Michael Keaton. But Nicholson this over-the-top might not be a good idea. As an actor, Nicholson tends to be over the top in other films even when he's trying not to be. That's part of what I love about him. And Keaton is appropriately moody, but oddly pouty at the same time. I kept waiting for a scene of him blow-drying his hair before heading off to a disco.

The biggest flaw, though, is that Burton's pacing/timing seems oddly off. Scenes drag on far too long, as do sections of the film. Lines are delivered at bizarre times in relation to other character's lines and actions (listen to Basinger's scream when the "fake gun" goes off at the end, for example), but Burton seems to not notice. There are also a lot of non-sequiturs in the script, both in individual lines of dialogue and overall, in the "logic" of many scenes and sequences. Fight scenes are neither blocked nor filmed well. Worse, two key performances--Wuhl and Basinger--are horrible (and Basinger must have troubles with high heels, by the way; they kept working excuses for her to take off her shoes into the script). Given the combination of the wonky pacing/timing, the non-sequiturs, and the bad performances, much of the film is lackluster at best, and annoying at worst. A 7, or a "C", is generous, indeed.

Terribly dated; should have been called "Joker"...

[crazyrabbits · 4/10 · 10 June 2006]

After watching this movie again recently, I have realized what a terrible joke this film is compared to the newest Batman film, "Batman Begins". The way people talk about this film on here, you would think that Tim Burton is some kind of legend, but that's hardly the case. If you honestly thought that this film is true in spirit to the comic book series, you are most decidedly wrong, but there are other problems at work here.

First of all, watching this film will make you realize just how little focus is actually spent on the title character. Bruce Wayne's back-story is almost completely glossed over, and as a result, it doesn't feel like Bruce is trying to save the city he grew up in. Rather, the film makes him look like a complete psycho (especially evident in the "You wanna get nuts?" scene) who picks on petty thieves. Batman is supposed to be a detective, but it sure doesn't feel like he does much detective work here. Instead, he just waits until someone alerts him to a problem, then he shows up and saves the day.

As I said in the title of this review, the film should have been titled "Joker", if only for the reason that, for most of the film, we follow Jack Nicholson around as he exploits to kill all the residents of Gotham. Not that Jack Nicholson is a bad actor, mind you, because he does what he to jazz up the role. However, I already understood his purpose within the first few minutes of seeing him, and I didn't really require seeing him sitting in his hideout cutting out pictures of Vicki Vale.

Batman does not kill. EVER. He has a sense of morals, and a sense of justice. He doesn't just run around beating up and killing guys, especially to the point of blowing up an entire chemical factory with criminals inside. It may look cool on the big screen, but it's not who he is.

I also found it surprising how stupid some of the characters are. For example, it seems that Bruce has no problem driving a woman to the Batcave, bringing her in, showing her around the place, THEN SEDUCING HER. Better yet, I also wondered how foolish the people in Gotham were when they were blindly grabbing money from the Joker's henchmen, in light of the recent event where he poisoned a woman on television who was using one of his products.

I found Michael Keaton's performance...underwhelming, I guess would be the right word. He plays Bruce Wayne like a jittering, nervous wreck, the type of guy who probably spent his high school years cramming for exams in the basement. Even when he's in the Batsuit, he looks small and unassuming. As for the rest of the cast, they do commendable jobs, especially with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough as Alfred.

If anyone hasn't this yet, and is wondering if the film is faithful to the comic books, prepare to be disappointed: this is nothing like the comics. There are several differences between the film and the comics, some of which work, and some of which don't. I guess having the Joker being the one who killed Bruce's parents may have worked on screen, but it sounds absolutely ridiculous once you realize that Bruce actually remembered who killed his parents all his life, and waits until the END of the film to tell Joker about this fact.

What this film doesn't do is show how the general population reacts to Batman's exploits. Like one poster stated, the people living in Metropolis in "Superman: The Movie" and the people living in Gotham City in "Batman Begins" both react to what is happening around them. People actually care what is happening to the person that is saving them. Here in this film, we have no clue if anyone knows what's going on, or for that matter, if anyone even cares about what Batman does, aside from the city paper (and even they believe he's not real) and Commissioner Gordon.

The action scenes in this film are also short and unsatisfying. It feels like Batman can just single-handedly beat up anyone, which is hard to believe, especially given the fact that we know from dialogue spoken in the film that Bruce hasn't been out doing his Batman thing for very long. Even the climactic battle with the Batwing is rushed and pointless. We never get to see the full capabilities of what Batman can do here.

Bottom Line: I am giving this film a 4 out of 10, largely because of the strength of the supporting cast. This film really hasn't aged well. I would recommend that you watch either Batman Returns or Batman Begins.