Batman - Review

Lately, I've been itching to review a movie that isn't fresh on everyone's mind. Not to mention, it's been a while since I've done a franchise/series review. Seeing as how the third and final instalment of Christopher Nolan's seminal Batman trilogy is two weeks away (CAN'T WAIT!!!), I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the two movies that came before it. After making that decision, however, I came across Tim Burton's take on the Dark Knight from 1989. It had been years since I had seen that one, as well as the three films that followed. So then I thought... how about reviews of the previous live action Batman movies starting with 1989's Batman and ending with The Dark Knight Rises (with apologies to the animated movies, film serials, and Adam West movie... most of which are actually quite good, but I just don't have time to review them all). That said, does the 1989 version hold up or is it just an outdated summer blockbuster? Let's take a look! Without further ado... here's my review of Batman.

Let's start with a little intro for this one. This particular adaptation of the long-running DC comic is actually quite interesting, though more for it's history and impact on the pop culture and less for the movie itself. The character had gone through many revisions, interpretations, and changes since it's conception in 1939. The comic, plus it's various other media adaptations, had been everything from dark and gritty to campy and goofy. In fact, around the time of this movie's release, the most resonant version of Batman on the public's mind was still the campy Adam West series from the 60s, despite the comics receiving a far darker overhaul shortly after the series' cancellation. Even in pre-production, there was mass speculation on whether this movie would take a comedic or more serious direction. When the movie finally made it into production, with Burton (then a barely known up-and-comer) directing, it was decided that the darker re-imaginings of the character would make their way to the big screen. The hype was substantial, with Michael Keaton cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman who, oddly enough, was known for comedic roles (a highly controversial casting choice prior to the film's release), Jack Nicholson as the Dark Knight's arch-nemesis The Joker, and Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, Batman's love interest. Batman would go onto receive generally positive reviews from critics and audiences, making it one of the biggest blockbusters of the summer. So yeah... Batman was kind of a big deal.

The movie takes place in the dark and gritty metropolitan Gotham City. With sky-rocketing crime rates, Gotham's only protection is a mostly corrupt police force. Despite valiant efforts from the good-intentioned District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams), and well-meaning police commissioner, Jim Gordon, the city becomes increasingly unsafe. That is until a masked vigilante who dresses as a bat arrives to clean up the streets. Photographer Vicki Vale and Reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) enter the scene, determined to find this mysterious "Batman." While Vale romances Batman's alter-ego, billionaire Bruce Wayne, the criminal element rises as a new homicidal maniac takes to the streets. Jack Napier, once a violent mobster, falls into a vat of chemicals and turns into anarchy embodied, the clownish psychopath known as The Joker. Can Batman stop the Joker and eliminate the criminal element of Gotham or will the Joker's crazy murderous antics get the best of him?

A little disclaimer before I start actually reviewing the movie... as challenging as it may, I aim to give this movie a strictly neutral review as it's own film and to limit comparisons to the sequels, reboots, comic, or TV series connections. And now, on with the review.

I think the last time I actually watched this film from start to finish was something like four years ago (though I did grow up watching this one on VHS back in the day). With a new perspective, it's kind of interesting to see how much of it works and how much of it fails pretty miserably. I could say that it's strictly style over substance, but personally, I don't like that saying. On top of it being a total cliché, it also totally undermines the importance of style in a film (don't get me wrong, substance matters way more, but style can't be ignored either). A stylishly creative film lacking in any real sense of depth may not be a "good" movie, but it can at least be entertaining... which is more or less what Batman is. This is one of those films that meets the bare minimum standards for a passable plot... one that's thoroughly formulaic and has a few noticeable holes, but the characters are interesting enough and the basic setup has enough meat to keep you invested. A borderline psychopath who fights crime dressed as a bat takes on a homicidal clown with a permanent smile... yeah, I can get into that. 

Unfortunately, the story fails in many of the dos-and-don'ts of basic screenwriting. The first issue... for a movie called Batman, you might be surprised to know that he really isn't the focus of the story. Instead, the film spends waaaaay too much time focusing on the Joker, going so far to giving him more screen-time and a far more detailed backstory. 
While Nicholson is fun as the Joker (more on the performances later), this really becomes a problem. Aside from a brief flashback scene of the young Bruce Wayne witnessing his parents' murder, there's barely a hint of backstory given to Bruce Wayne himself. Some might say this makes Batman more mysterious and dangerous, but that's not really enough. We rarely get a true sense of the dread, rage, and raw emotional energy that drives him to become the Caped Crusader. He has some odd character beats that give him a bit of an edge as almost even a borderline psychopath himself, but they come off as more odd and out of place than anything. When he is asked why he took up the cape, his only reply is simply, "I don't even know why I do this." Another example is one of the most off-beat scenes, Bruce Wayne (not as Batman) confronts the Joker and has this out-of-nowhere flip out, despite little provocation or logical backing. Granted it leads to one of the few true moments of character development, but with so little character building before hand, it just leads you to think, "What the hell was that?" I know this is nitpicking, but there's just something fundamentally missing when a movie fails to provide any competent character development to it's main character.

As for the rest of the story... it's just kind of a mess. The plot has a few noticeable holes and inconsistencies that become pretty distracting. For instance... there is a scene where Batman is flying the Batwing, locks his weapons onto the Joker (who just stands there btw), fires approximately 15 shots, and doesn't even scratch the guy. Another question I always had was why did it take so long for Batman (a "Master Detective") to figure out that the Joker's hideout was at Axis Chemicals (the place where Batman knocked Jack into the chemicals in the first place)??? Even when your not nitpicking the plotholes, there's just not much to this story. The Joker's master plan of poisoning Gotham's cosmetic supplies is kind of boring. The fact that the Joker killed Wayne's parents... also kind of lame. I suppose that makes for a decent rivalry between Batman and Joker, but it's introduced very late into the film and again comes kind of out of nowhere. Plus, comic books are known for having large and sprawling worlds... the fact that Joker is the murderer of Wayne's parents just makes that said world seem smaller and way too coincidental. There's more I can nitpick here, but honestly... I think I've complained enough.

Okay... so I just spent the last few paragraphs pretty much ripping this story to shreds. Despite all that... I actually do enjoy the film. Flawed plot aside, the sheer sense of style actually does make this movie quite entertaining. The re-imagined Gotham City is essentially a combination of Gothic fantasy and 40s film noir. It looks great, and gives the setting a darker and somewhat more dangerous edge. Then you have the costumes, which for the most part are pretty awesome. While Batman's thick rubber costume severely limits Keaton's mobility (a problem that continues to this day with the Dark Knight's live action costumes), it has a neat look to it. The design for the Batmobile is arguably the best of the series and the Batwing is pure awesomeness (even if it's weapons can't target for shit). Throw in a couple of cool action scenes, some fun gadgets for Batman (or as the Joker says, "Those Wonderful Toys"), and some enjoyably over-the-top henchmen, you get your money's worth. Oh... one more thing. Danny Elfman's musical score is hands-down the best soundtrack Batman has ever received. The orchestral music compliments the film's artistic style almost perfectly. The main theme for the character quite frankly has yet to have been outdone (yes, even in the Nolan films). Though in case you were wondering what I thought of the Prince songs randomly added into the film... yeah, I could have done without those.

Finally, we come to the cast. As I mentioned, the decision to cast Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader was met with near-unanimous derision from fans prior to the film's release. An actor known primarily for comedies was definitely an odd choice. That said, the decision to cast against type worked to it's advantage. Despite all the script flaws with the character, Keaton is what makes the character. As Bruce Wayne, he is unassuming, bringing an arrogance and eccentricity to the character whenever he's around other people. He acts like a goof but not to a point where it's too over-the-top. When's he's not putting on a show, Keaton brings that darker edge to Wayne that makes you want to learn more about this guy (which I will again reiterate pissed me off when it doesn't happen). As Batman, he does the whole silent guardian of the night surprisingly well. I don't quite buy him as a master of hand-to-hand fighting, but he definitely has that same darker edge that makes it work. I don't think Keaton is the best Batman, but I did enjoy this interpretation.

As for Jack Nicholson as the Joker... it's Jack being Jack. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of Nicholson, and seeing him bounce around as the iconic villain is certainly fun. It was certainly a darker interpretation when compared to Caesar Romero's campy depiction of the 60s TV show, but there is an undeniable lack of real suspense with the character. Maybe it was Burton, maybe it was the unnecessary back-story, or maybe it was Nicholson, but aside from a few stand out scenes, I really think this version of the Joker is a tad bit overrated. That said, it's not a bad performance (I don't think Nicholson is capable of giving a bad performance), just nothing special. As for the rest, no real complaints there. Kim Basinger makes an enjoyable Vicki Vale, the romantic interest and occasional damsel in distress. Michael Gough is a suitable Alfred, as the butler/father figure to the orphaned Bruce Wayne. The rest are pretty insignificant, but they do they're job well.

So... that was a very long review. Thanks for reading it all! Summing up, this version of Batman has some very noticeable problems, but it works well enough to warrant a viewing (for the 5 people in the world who haven't seen it). You might be a bit disappointed if you were a fan back in the day to see that it doesn't hold up as well as you might expect, but overall it's pretty enjoyable. If nothing else, I'm glad the movie exists. If it hadn't, I doubt we would have seen the explosion of quality comic book movies that would come a decade later. Check it out!

My Score: 3 out of 5