Gotham Knight's RE review of BATMAN

[Gotham Knight]

Indeed, your eyes are working perfectly. Recently, in light of an awareness that my perspective or rather my perception has grown at least to some degree, I find myself not only inspired by the hostility of others who wield a pen?uh...keyboard and bash the films I love without a shred of respect but also by those same mistakes I?ve inflicted on the Joel Schumacher?s films and have decided to re-review the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films. Besides, my first reviews of all the films are dustier than I let on and are in need of retiring, and a new look from this Batman fan and Burtonite (at least I can admit it.) Schumacher?s films will still be criticized, but with no outright bashing and a kinder touch?for all the Batman Films are legit in their own right?love or loathe them.

In conclusion, the coming reviews of BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, BATMAN FOREVER, BATMAN BEGINS, and yes?even BATMAN AND ROBIN (I said no bashing but I won?t go further than that!) will be re reviewed.

Yes, there will be a ?Burtonite? slant, but at least I make no claims of impartiality.



The Cast

Michael Keaton

His casting is one of the most common complaints I hear from B89 haters. The casting of Keaton is still a hot topic among both camps and as strange as it might seem, it?s easier to defend his portrayal now with so many comic book films that have been released since then.

Lets start with the ?physique? or lack thereof. First, I want you to keep something in mind when you think of Keaton as Batman. Look at all the actors who play the superheroes in today?s films. Hugh Jackman, Toby Maguire, etc. They all look buff and athletic and carry the ?Hollywood? look?an ?untouchable? quality. You?ll also notice that about 99.9 percent of them are playing super beings. They all have superpowers. Keeping that in mind, the casting of Batman with a regular looking guy immediately humanizes him. It?s distinguishable and quite frankly easier to identify with. When it boils down to it I should be able to say, ?Yea, I COULD be Batman,? because he is just a man. I realize the lifestyle calls for peak conditioning, but I don?t see anything particularly ?flabby? about Keaton?s Batman. Besides, if your going to nit pick about Batman not being built like a body builder instead of focusing on the performance, you?re not exactly concerned with the right criteria.

Michael Keaton proved his serious credits with the film CLEAN AND SOBER. Also, Keaton caries a presence that was best described by Billy Dee Williams as a ?suppressed quality? that lingers behind even some of his most comedic roles, and this makes for a perfect uneasiness when suppression becomes a key element to a character like Bruce Wayne. The audience is kept off balance and is looking for clues to the degree of his damaged psyche.

[Gotham Knight]

As Batman, an actor who can play serious, but as a naturally comedic performer who doesn?t take himself too seriously, Michael Keaton finds a certain eerie subtlety. For example, it plays out nicely with Jack Nicholson when they meet for the first time in the film at Axis chemicals, where Jack?s wise cracks are met with a stoic silence and a grin?that might not even be there. Sometimes, when I watch the scene, I find myself not sure if Batman is smiling. There is a certain unaccountability that I find intriguing. I don?t know what he?s thinking in that moment whereas most heroes masked or not, are easy to read. It hard to read him at any point in the film. As Bruce Wayne, even when he taking with Vale, he?s distant, almost outside himself, and as Batman, he carries an ambiguity in his movements, actions, and expressions. It?s like he knows there is an audience. I like it. He?s a step ahead of me.

Jack Nicholson

Probably one of the most hated comic book performances among fan boys now, with the biggest complaint usually being ?he?s fat and old.? To think such a wonderfully wicked performance has been underrated because of physical appearance makes me shutter. What movie goer could scoff at Jack so easily? I mean for God?s sake, ITS JACK. If anything the man was too perfect.

Some whine about him not being intimidating to the audience enough. While I agree that he isn?t typically a terrifying figure, he finds moments, particularly when he?s wearing that flesh colored make up. Besides, there?s already an overwhelmingly intimidating figure in the film?Batman.

The Joker is played with a mixture of hamming it up, antics, and intelligent mania. Even when he is completely out of control, he?s hiding a certain level of coherency, which is scarier to me than someone just blowing things up for no reason, screaming and going on. I don?t understand people who want Joker to be physical match for Batman either. In a mind, there is a threat. To quote a wonderful film of the genre, UNBREAKABLE;

?There?s the Solder Villain, who fights the hero with his hands. Then there?s the Arch Villain, the real threat?.fights the hero with his mind.?

This is made literally so in BATMAN where thugs battle against the Dark Knight while the Joker schemes against him and ultimately in this version of events, causes the greatest damage to our hero without ever touching him? the murder of the Waynes.

Yes, there is ham. But compared to some of today?s comic book films where not only are the actors hamming things up, but are more and more they?re dressing like grungy eighties rejects?cough cough? I think it was a notable performance for the true nastiness of a character to come from inside the performer and not be smeared all over his clothes instead.


Kim Basinger

I have mixed feelings about this take on the Vale character. On the one hand I despise her ?scream queen? attitude every time trouble arises. I realize she?s a damsel in distress, but it is very annoying. As I write this I?m reminded of Kristen Dunst?s shrill screams through three SPIDER-MAN films. This version of Vicki Vale was a construction of what the ?love interest? females were portrayed as in comics from the very beginning of the comic strip up until that point. Later on, they would become gutsier, but even today they still flop about and scream unendingly when they get kidnapped for umpteenth time.  In a way, Vicki Vale is part of the flawed commercialism of this film that attempts to please fans rather than try to develop a character. Believe me, I understand why Vale was conveniently written out of BATMAN RETURNS.

On the other hand, as with other aspects of this film, I see bits and pieces of an endearing character peaking through the summer blockbuster. It his through her perception that we start to break into the domain of the reclusive Bruce Wayne and the Batman that lies underneath. She is a complete opposite, yet has a strangeness about her, or as they show it literally in the film, ?likes bats.? She is part of the norm, yet has a perversion for the lack of a better term, expressed and unexpressed, that makes her attractive and attracted to Batman who is defined by society as a perversion of nature. As his opposite, she shows him a life he could have had, ultimately grounding him, as Sam Hamm put it, makes him ?go sane.?

We know that the relationship cannot last. Any enlightened viewer watching her in the batcave, having discovered that Bruce is truly the Dark Knight, knew she couldn?t handle it. She?d pretend for a while, but finally flea, not understanding a terror of the man she loved. What was important was that he took something from the relationship that would stick with him?a sense that Bruce Wayne may yet be discovered alive.

The Supporting Cast (Pat Hingle, Robert Wuhl, Billy Dee Williams, William Hootkins, Tracey Walter, Jack Palance, Michael Gough) A Brief Overview

Yes, Gordon being little more than scenery is a flaw, but last time I checked, for a great deal of his comic book history, that?s all really Gordon was. He was supportive, but not really a big member of the stories and you know what, I?m fine with that, because I want to see Batman, not Gordon, and besides I?m not a huge fan of them having full-blown conversations with one another. I like thinking that Batman is alone in his fight. Let Gordon raise the signal, that?s all I need him for. I don?t need him to drive the Bat Mobile.

Again, Harvey Dent, like Gordon is pretty much background, but he does get enough screen time to make his confusion with the Joker?s schemes and attacks a part of the focus of the plot. You feel the pressure on Dent. Billy Dee was a great choice. He can do a lot with a little screen time and that?s critical when casting for such a pivotal character in a smaller role. Plus, the idea of having the character as part of the story before he ever gets turned into Two Face is very smart. It is a shame he never saw his Two-Face, but his part in an early RETURNS draft was completely out of character and at best, had it been added just as the DA again, on top of Shreck?s inclusion, he wouldn?t have much to do. In fact, he wouldn?t likely have more than a line or two.

Lt. Eckhart is one of my favorite supporting characters in a comic book film. So many of his quotes to this day I still find slipping out in relevant situations. What I find equally hilarious, is when I say things like ?got no future, Jack!? to people I don?t even know that well, they know exactly what I?m quoting. It?s a good feeling. He?s an original character, which gives a filmmaker some leeway in a film full of characters that have history and high expectations. What I love most about this guy, is he is the focal point of police corruption in Gotham City, and to me, letting one actor represent something like that is always better than spreading it among a dozen different extras. The audience knows there are more like him out there, but we don?t need to see them when you could let one character work into the ?Grissom betrayal arch? and grow in his part.

Again, with Carl Grissom, you get an original character, who in this case is based off of one or more comic book characters (Falcone). You can have some leeway with him to make certain story elements work and at the same time be expendable enough without having outraged fan boys boycott his death. Casting such a fine actor as Jack Palance in a smaller role that could have been taken for granted only strengthens the integrity of the film?it also makes for a funny behind the scenes moment (Check out Tim Burton?s Audio commentary on the Special Edition DVD.)

Bob the Goon, to put quite simply in my opinion, is like an unintentional (unless anyone?s said otherwise. I don?t know) nod to Gene Hackman and Warren Beatty as Lex Luthor and Otis. It isn?t quite as cheesy, but finds many nice moments that to this day are memorable among fans, like Nicholson?s Palance impression. Like with Beatty and Hackman, they cast Walter, a friend of Nicholson, who had good chemistry with him and made a small part bigger.

Alfred is pretty much taken for granted in the Burton and Schumacher films. Gough rides it out and makes the character loveable, and both directors give him at least one scene in which he shines. BEGINS did do him justice, although now that I?ve watched my copy of the film again, I can?t help but find Caine as a tad overrated. Better represented, but overrated.

Last but not least, I LOVE KNOX. I am aghast at how many people hate him. To me, he is that all important character we find absent too much who stands on the outside of everything happening with the audience, who gets the honor of looking at everything with impartiality, partially aware of the absurdity.

Production Design

Furst?s Gotham city distinguishes Gotham as the outward manifestation of Batman?s personality. The decision to not cement the time period and add elements from both the 30?s/40?s and the current time period established its own principles of reality and immersed you in it, making absurd things like a man dressed as a bat common place and acceptable. Also, Batman needs the aura of the depression area around him, the area that spawned him, the destruction/recreation of a fantasy for so many.

Costume/Prop Design

What pleases me most about the Batman costume is the ?leathery skin? texture it has. It clearly makes the wearer look more like a man bat any suit that has come after. The cape itself has its own weight and wingspan, which is distinguishable whereas most other heroes like Superman, Nolan?s Batman, simply have fabric. The props were practical, yet fun to look at. They wasn?t an onslaught of them either. He had a few gadgets that aided him, rather than one for each specific task. The 60?s show and Schumacher?s films were very bad about having additional gadgets for every situation.

Music

Words are hard to come by when I talk about my love for music of all kinds. I?m not learned in what it takes to make a great film score piece. I just know I love them. All I can say is Danny?s music redefined the sound of the genre. It redefined the ?theme? of a film score. Most importantly it acts as the glue that makes it all come together as a single work of art. When it does happen that kind of thing is extraordinary.

Gotham Knight?s RE-review of BATMAN.

Some of the greatest moments in comic book film cinematic history include Spider-Man clumsily swinging through the air for the final time after accepting the alienation that comes with responsibility, Wolverine fending off an assault at the Xavier mansion, Superman soaring to save Lois Lane from falling and snatching a helicopter in mind air, and two thugs speaking worriedly about ?the Bat? who has begun picking off their kind without mercy, before they meet him first hand.

From this dark and brooding city, I feel that I have found that the comic book films of today still silently reference this picture for its seriousness. For in this moment, comic book films were ?no longer a laughing matter.?

The moment I, a small child, saw two men, one frightened, one unmoved, talk about the death of an acquaintance tied to Batman, I realized, even at that age, this movie wasn?t going to be about dropping the criminals off at the police station like I had seen in reruns of Adam West?s TV show. I was indifferent to the true motivations of this dark hero at the time, I only knew he was the hero vanquishing the evildoers. As I grew older, and other films and cartoons that carried the title BATMAN appeared, I became even more aware of the uniqueness that this film and its successor, BATMAN RETURNS, possessed. I saw Schumacher?s films and as a kid, I was entertained, but found something disappointing. There was a spark that had been lost.

After seeing BATMAN BEGINS, now well into my teens, I finally began to understand what had happened. Batman was becoming less and less about a filmmaker?s perspective of a popular character, the human condition, and the tragedy that is the Dark Knight and more about over dramatizing the stature of a vigilante hero and pleasing fan boys who would not accept anything but the idea that Batman is only damaged or flawed where it is convenient.


As the film begins, we find Gotham City a dangerous place. Mugging and killings are frequent and the mob is in bed with elements of the police department. Not a bright situation. We also learn a ?giant bat? is loose, targeting the corrupt. At the same time a new district attorney has been elected, promising to bring down the biggest criminal organizer in the city, Mob Boss Carl Grissom. You quickly learn that critical forces are moving to a climax. You have ruthless criminals, a daring rookie DA, and a man bat with little regard for human (criminal) life that will only serve to complicate things.

Batman is certainly not tying people up.

What, in my mind, makes BATMAN and its successor, BATMAN RETURNS, the best representation of the Dark Knight on the screen is that they look at the person strictly as a hurt man, and the persona of Batman as a creation, a manifestation, and not just a hero. It correctly shows him from a psychological perspective. Batman is a product of a corrupt society or system and though driven to protect the innocent he reflects the morality of that society. Gotham is a morally devoid place. A criminal of Gotham, no more than a appendage of the city?s twisted soul, killed his parents and in that act itself instilled a desire to punish the wicked, but Bruce could not escape Gotham?s darker ways. He is the hero, but he is a hero of a darker place and time, thus he follows suit. Batman is the antithesis of Superman. Think about it.

I also feel that the criminals? fear of him does not only stem from the suit. It comes from the fact that they know he is a lot like them, but he doesn?t have eyes for hurting innocent people.

This is where we find Bruce Wayne at the beginning of BATMAN. ?Bruce Wayne? in name only. There is truly only the dark knight. Little does he expect what he will discover in Vicki Vale, who he immediately finds himself attracted to.

Like so many of his masked compatriots, he has to balance this growing relationship with his nightly work. He lies to her and pushes her away because he is beginning to doubt his own choices, which he cannot afford, especially now. While trying to gain a measure of trust from Commissioner Gordon, the capture of notorious gangster, Jack Napier, goes awry in the midst of a set up by Mr. Grissom, tired of his hired gun poking around his wife. Napier plunges into the acid, becoming the Joker. The moment is important not just because of the characters transformation but also because Batman has taken a step toward making a difference in attempting a capture rather than just pummeling. However, the failure shows his inexperience.

What was interesting was that the film gave the Joker a history. What was definitely a smart choice is that it ignore Alan Moore?s masterpiece THE KILLING JOKE. Instead of the character having a sympathetic past, which would be extremely difficult to move an audience with considering the ferocity of the Joker and his crimes, they decided to make him just a old o? fashioned bad man that goes worse with a little help from a preexistent anger problem (his flip outs on Eckhart comments about ?the future?) and toxic chemicals.

Joker takes control of the mob and wages his insane and equally frivolously war against the city. He flaunts his intellect with the poisonous products that leave people smiling in death. Batman raises the stakes by cracking this code (a necessary expertise in science that has never been seen again in Batman on screen), and a showdown becomes eminent. However, the Joker becomes sidetracked with an infatuation on...you guessed it?

The scene at the museum is awesome. For the record, seeing Batman come smashing through that skylight is my favorite BATMAN moment.

After his saving Vicki from the Joker?s clutches he takes her to the bat cave and we get what I think is the Batman moment on film. It?s the only time any film besides RETURNS, which centers around it, outwardly expresses that the world we and they live in does always not produce normal people, or for that matter normal heroes. It drives home that your angel may not be and shouldn?t have to be so angelic because why would anyone ask this man after all he has been through to be Jesus Christ? It?s foolish to even expect it from him.

We?ve all seen the dramatic flight of the batwing, the films cathedral climax, and conclusion on the unveiling of the bat signal. The complaints of a weakness of script in these scenes have me scratching my head. The only ?weakness? I can see is an absence of police involvement until the cathedral fight. Let?s be honest folks, every film with high stakes action takes liberties with the police?s ability to react and do their job. They?re always late in a superhero movie. If they could do they?re job right and on time, we wouldn?t need the hero, would we? Then there wouldn?t be a film at all.

In the Bruce/Vicki relationship, the obvious result of its influence on Batman is that he has been pulled from the brink of complete no functionality. The underlying theme that gets swept under the blockbuster carpet is that he has realized that Bruce is still alive under the mask, and fighting to get out by having a life. We don?t know where it will lead yet, but that is definitely the case.

I understand the complaints about the Joker being the Waynes? murderer, however I don?t agree with it. The film needed to be all-inclusive and it didn?t do anything that BEGINS didn?t do too. Ra?s trained Batman? Since when? Both films altered the legend to give the villain a more personal connection to the hero in a story arch that fit into the context of their film and I had no problem with either. In BATMAN it served as a vicious circle of violence. Napier creates Batman. Batman creates Joker.

The true flaw of this film is its heavy blockbuster approach to the plot. It isn?t exactly that complex. Its successor would correct that in making the villainous schemes less about blowing things up and more about character relationships. However, the ?summer movie? plot balances out for one only truly needs this plot to be stable and engaging enough to entertain the comic book themes of good guy vs. bad guy because the true meat of the film comes from the richness and mysteriousness of the principle character, Batman.

In conclusion, I believe BATMAN is a film that leaves a mark on those who view it and no matter how many Batman films get made and I?m sure we will see many more, it will always be there, whether you love it or hate it. It?s always waltzing in your memory. It lasts?so try to show a little respect.

[Gotham Knight]

I'm open to all comments and critiques

[Paul (ral)]

Re: Jack Nicholson :
"Probably one of the most hated comic book performances among fan boys now, with the biggest complaint usually being ?he?s fat and old.?"

is that really true?

[Batman]

Re: Jack Nicholson :
"Probably one of the most hated comic book performances among fan boys now, with the biggest complaint usually being ?he?s fat and old.?"

is that really true?

Same here. That's quite an exaggeration.

[shadowbat69]

The only ones I really read saying that is the Burton haters. Seriously. Its always the ones that dont like 89. The same ones that call Keaton too short and bald.

[Paul (ral)]

Good exploration of the themes in the movie, but at times it does seem to become a review of Begins.  I think the best way is to review without as much comparison.

[Gotham Knight]

Re: Jack Nicholson :
"Probably one of the most hated comic book performances among fan boys now, with the biggest complaint usually being ?he?s fat and old.?"

is that really true?

Same here. That's quite an exaggeration.

It's true. It's not exaggerated. I hear it constantly.

Also, this is probably my last review for a long time. This one took a lot out of me and it didn't get much of a response other than negativity.

[Paul (ral)]

Actually, I thought it was quite good.  You nailed alot of the character motivations - personally I can never find the right words to express those sorts of things.

You said you planned on re-visiting the other reviews - I would like to read them if you have the time.

At the moment I am working on a review of the soundtracks.  I leave my dictaphone on in the car while the music plays and say what ever comes into my head - so far so good.

[shadowbat69]

I also enjoy reading your reviews. I dont think we've had negative responses to your review, just a negative aspect of it. The critisizm of some fans on Nicholson. Something that Ive heard myself. Its nothing against you, bro.