UHD Review Batman UHD Review (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

I had no problem with the corporate creation route. Because the first split between Nolan and Burton was Nolan wanted to set his in a real-ish world setting vs. Burton's Gotham was straight from the pages of the comics in look and feel. So with Nolan rooting it in real-world'ish conditions, he had to come up with how a billionaire could construct all of these things under the radar. And with Bruce in hiding and traversing the world, he wouldn't have had time to construct those vehicles. The choice Nolan opted for made perfect sense to me, given the setting he'd chosen for his films. Burton's worked for his chosen setting.

 

[Carlo_M]

And to be clear, I loved Batman and Batman returns. They came out when I was in high school. After Star Wars OOT, Godfather 1-2, and the Indiana Jones trilogy, those were my most watched films of my youth. And there are plenty of examples of films that have held up well for me over the years, and those that have held up terribly (Top Gun, likely right behind the Batmans in terms of youth viewing). I don't think Batman aged poorly. I just think that what I want out of comic book movies has changed dramatically from what I wanted in my teens. And that's a highly personal choice, not meant as a slight to any genre of comic book movies. Nolan I think for me redefined it, but his brutal, real, stark world would have wearied on me eventually, and the Marvel films have taken some of the seriousness from Nolan but re-infused the fun and humor that I also read comics for.

This is not a criticism of Burton's film. Rather, my personal tastes have moved away from it.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I thought this was the best I've ever seen the film look on home video. For a film that relies on inky blacks the disk delivers in spades

 

[Osato]

Thanks for the review!

I love all 4 of these films. Will get the box set in September!!

 

[Wayne_j]

My theory on why this movie doesn't live up to people's past experiences is that prior to this movie the only live action Batman people have seen was the Adam West one which was way campier than Michael Keaton. And to follow up Michael Keaton the series got campier again after he left the role.

Now after seeing the Nolan movies in comparison the 1989 Batman was much campier than people remembered.

 

[Keith Cobby]

The pre-Nolan films provided some entertainment at the time but I doubt I will watch them again. Also the Nolan films (Dark Knight/Rises) have beautiful cinematography. I find I prefer the mortal superheroes (Batman, Ironman) rather than the more fantastical immortals. On the subject of outfits, I thought Anne Hathaway looked very good indeed!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

While I do enjoy the Nolan films, Burton's Batman will always hold a special place in my heart. Burton's version was just so much fun, and Jack Nicholson gives a memorable performance as The Joker (and that's not meant to slight Health Ledger's performance, which was also terrific). I am a fan of Burton's work, and this was one of the few films I actually bought on VHS (not to mention DVD and BD).

 

[Keith Cobby]

Jack was one of the three memorable (and very different) Jokers. The others are, of course, Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero.

 

[Osato]

While I do enjoy the Nolan films, Burton's Batman will always hold a special place in my heart. Burton's version was just so much fun, and Jack Nicholson gives a memorable performance as The Joker (and that's not meant to slight Health Ledger's performance, which was also terrific). I am a fan of Burton's work, and this was one of the few films I actually bought on VHS (not to mention DVD and BD).

Agreed.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Jack was one of the three memorable (and very different) Jokers. The others are, of course, Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero.

I'd have to add Mark Hamill to that list, of course.

 

[English Invader]

I'd have to add Mark Hamill to that list, of course.

For a classic example of Mark Hamill's Joker see The Joker's Favour episode from series 1 of Batman: the Animated Series.

 

[ponset]

I saw BATMAN 23 times back in 1989.
Probably only seen it 5 or 6 times since then. Its a good film.

Bob Kane is nothing without Bill Finger.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-how-awful-batman-would-be-without-the-existence-1507373880

 

[Colin Jacobson]

My theory on why this movie doesn't live up to people's past experiences is that prior to this movie the only live action Batman people have seen was the Adam West one which was way campier than Michael Keaton. And to follow up Michael Keaton the series got campier again after he left the role.

Now after seeing the Nolan movies in comparison the 1989 Batman was much campier than people remembered.

I wouldn't call the 1989 film "campy". It's not as somber as the Nolans and has more fantasy/humor, but I don't see much about it that I'd call "camp"...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The pre-Nolan films provided some entertainment at the time but I doubt I will watch them again. Also the Nolan films (Dark Knight/Rises) have beautiful cinematography. I find I prefer the mortal superheroes (Batman, Ironman) rather than the more fantastical immortals. On the subject of outfits, I thought Anne Hathaway looked very good indeed!

I prefer Pfeiffer's take on the character, but Hathaway's Catwoman =

 

[Colin Jacobson]

While I do enjoy the Nolan films, Burton's Batman will always hold a special place in my heart. Burton's version was just so much fun, and Jack Nicholson gives a memorable performance as The Joker (and that's not meant to slight Health Ledger's performance, which was also terrific). I am a fan of Burton's work, and this was one of the few films I actually bought on VHS (not to mention DVD and BD).

It's funny to recall the hubbub that came when WB put out "Batman" so rapidly - less than 6 months after it debuted!

 

[Carlo_M]

I wouldn't call the 1989 film "campy". It's not as somber as the Nolans and has more fantasy/humor, but I don't see much about it that I'd call "camp"...

I agree. We have to remember the state of comic book adaptations at the time this came out, and the only previous Batman iteration we'd had. Burton's was definitely as step in the more serious direction, and even though Nicholson had moments of really chewing up the scenery, his depiction of the Joker was--for the time--disturbing. Certainly in comparison to the 60s TV show version of the Joker. I wasn't really into the DC comics at the time (was more of a Marvel kid) but I did enjoy The Killing Joke. Well Burton didn't go full Killing Joke, but his Joker was much closer to that in tone than it was to Cesar Romero.

 

[Carlo_M]

You know, I'll say this. With all this talk about this movie, and someone else mentioned Pfeiffer's Catwoman (one of my early teen crushes over an "older woman")...I'm actually changing my mind and thinking I'll probably pick these two films up. Todd admitted he hadn't owned Batman on BD, so when I read his review I took it with a little grain of salt because of how good to my eyes my recent viewing of the BD was.

But Bill H. over in his review on The Bits claims it's a marked improvement over the BD...so once again, a fool and his money are about to be parted...

 

[Traveling Matt]

I agree. We have to remember the state of comic book adaptations at the time this came out, and the only previous Batman iteration we'd had. Burton's was definitely as step in the more serious direction, and even though Nicholson had moments of really chewing up the scenery, his depiction of the Joker was--for the time--disturbing. Certainly in comparison to the 60s TV show version of the Joker. I wasn't really into the DC comics at the time (was more of a Marvel kid) but I did enjoy The Killing Joke. Well Burton didn't go full Killing Joke, but his Joker was much closer to that in tone than it was to Cesar Romero.

While opposing views are too strong to make unpacking Burton vs. Nolan worth it for me as I alluded to earlier, one easy aspect that goes beyond these films is the Joker. The thing about the Joker is his seriousness should have a limit because he's supposed to be a clown. You can't go too far in one direction without compromising the other. He's a dapper clown who hurts people because he thinks it's funny. That's the character. Romero was clearly like this to a fault, and Nicholson and Hamill took that premise to a darker place while keeping the basic character stance intact. For whatever reason it's become acceptable to abandon that. The modern comics and Ledger's portrayal have made him a street punk psychopath, which is not really the Joker.

This is coming from someone who likes Ledger's performance anyway and generally enjoys the Nolan films for what they are.

 

[Jason_V]

I have no horse in this race, but I bristle when someone says a certain portrayal of a character isn't "real." Characters evolve over time and what WAS the Joker (or Batman or whoever) in the 1960's isn't who he became in the 90's and who he is now. If the Joker was the same guy since Day One and never changed or received a new interpretation, that would be boring as sin.

I grew up on Romero in syndication and then Hamill and Nicholson. Ledger, Leto and all the actors who have voiced him in animation...they're all different interpretations. And they're all valid in their time period for me.

 

[Traveling Matt]

Well I thought a little unpacking would be safe lol.