The Magic Of Burton’s Batman, In Retrospect
I don’t want to make too much of this, but…
Last night, on the local PBS station (for now… turning into a commerical station… horrors… different conversation) was running Tim Burton’s Batman. I own the Blu-ray of Batman and Batman Returns, as well as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I have a great deal of nostalgia for the Burtons and a modern appreciation of the Nolans. So I am already a little in love.
But what hit me last night was how Batman, which I loved, but which had many of the limitations of being shot on stages in a time before CG, was now looking quite beautiful because of the limitations of shooting on stages and being without CG. It’s was like watching a relatively recent time capsule of truly elegant and crafty and intimately beautiful studio production. It wasn’t as REAL. It certainly was nowhere close to being as visually dense. But it is almost impossible to imagine a major studio action film in 2010 that would get so much out of shadows and things happening in the back of frames and simple sets.
I think the depth of connection to Ledger’s Joker was that he was a throwback to this period and the decades before it… he was the special effect… just as Jack Palance was the special effect… Keaton’s eyebrow was a special effect… Basinger’s skin and hair… the nearly fetishistic interest in the toys… the sound…
It was really fresh and new then, but Burton, being Burton, was also making an homage to the great German expressionists and to film noir. And without probably knowing it, he was documenting the end of a kind of big-budget filmmaking… one that Mr. Schumacher may have killed off with Batman & Robin… one that Bryan Singer seemed to be trying to get back to with Superman Returns… something we feel, I think, in the Bourne movies, though we don’t think of those as the same kind of spectacle. Perhaps it was what The Wachowskis were after with all of the beaten-up wool and the overly moist sex in the Matrix films.
Anyway… it really struck me… it was like looking at a different form of the action film art… not necessarily better or worse, but so much something we just don’t see anymore.
Huzzah.
Burton’s Batman has as much in common with Coppola’s Dracula as it does Nolan’s Batman. That, IMO, is why Nolan was able to re-tool almost every Nicholson Joker scene for Ledger and not polarize either performance.
The Joker is Actor Proof.
i love burton’s batman. i love batman returns even more.
such great pieces of self contained madness.
Well, my email handle is JckNapier, so you know how I feel about the Burton Batman films. They are less realistic than the Nolan pictures, but are surely more haunting and dazzling in their surreal pitch-black glory. And, in their own ways, they are every bit as faithful to the comics (the joker venom, the flowers on crime alley, the early intro of Harvey Dent, the use of Vicki Vale) as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. One of the reasons I was impressed but not dazzled by Ledger’s work is that I recognized so many little bits (especially the mouth work and the laugh) from Nicholson’s truly trend-setting performance (Batman and Die Hard set the template for the next 22 years of onscreen villainy). To be fair, the one thing that Nolan got so right (that Burton/Schumacher did not) was the serious and sober portrayal of James Gordon, which is probably why Gary Oldman is my favorite component of the new series. And there is a weird realism to Burton’s clumsy fight scenes and car chases, such as the first film’s Batmobile chase, where no one goes above 30 mph, the streets are full of people and other cars, and the chase ends because another truck pulls out and into their way. But Batman and Batman Returns hold up because they aren’t really traditional blockbusters, but basically arthouse tone poems that happen to feature Batman and the gang. That the massive success of Batman (hey, let’s dust off all every pre-established property from every conceivable medium!) and the relative disappointment of Batman Returns (better make sure those PG-13 would-be blockbusters don’t have too much adult sensabilities!) did huge longterm damage to Hollywood in the long run does not diminish their ageless appeal.
they should make a new batman with CHLOE MORETZ AS BATGIRL.
GOOD IDEA.
There are only two Batman films. That is all.
For all the talk about Burton having a distinctive visual style, I still think he doesn’t really get enough credit for his mastery of composition, texture and contrast. BATMAN is one of two films (the other being Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN) whose images rooted themselves in my subconscious.
I saw Batman 89 at a midnight screening. I still remember being shocked at what Burton thought a Batman movie should be. Thanks to Nolan and time, it’s obvious more and more that not only had Burton never read a comic, he also did not get Bats, and that alone is why there’s only two live action Batman movies.
Just waiting for one of you to bemoan the fact that they’re making a third movie because it’s so ‘unnecessary’, like we’re talking about JGL signing up Nolan to make ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD 3.
I’m kind of split on the Burton Batman films. Yes, there is a distinct visual grandure to the first one that almost rivals Blade Runner – I remember reviews at the time noted that. But structurally, I just found it a weak movie – there is no real drive or focus to the thing. Not an unusual problem with a lot of Tim Burton films, obviously. That said, I loved Danny Elfman’s music – he’s become a real imitator of himself in recent years, especially with the Spiderman movies. But man, that score just cooked – made the movie for me.
Nice to see a continued revisionism and appreciation for Batman Returns – I can confidentally say it’s my favorite Tim Burton movie. Just a wacked out character-driven action epic that never bores, kind of reminds of Matrix Reloaded actually. Not much more focus than the first one, but wow – all the lead actors are at the top of their game: DeVito is probably the best he has ever been, Pfeiffer is amazing, Keaton is given more to do than the first one and brings a nice sense of absurdity to the role, and Walken is basically doing his shtick (a year before he would get the raves for True Romance) before it got universally recognized.
The film truly goes off on tangents and feeds into individualized scenes more than driving the plot, but those scenes and flourishes make it really work – it’s almost as if Spike Lee was allowed to direct a superhero film.
Schumacher’s filsm do not hold up really, but Jim Carrey actually did a nice job as the Riddler.
Batman Begins is truly my favorite of the whole series – Nolan got a lot of criticism for the action scenes, but sorry, but that first real Batmobile chase is the action highlight of the whole series. Plowing down Lower Wacker, amazing sound design, and just a neat way to show that even in a more grounded setting, that Batman owns Gotham like a bull in a China shop – I don’t get how so many folks still dismiss Nolan as “too serious,” – he has a lot of fun. And watching Morgan Freeman basically play the “Q” role as Lucious Fox is just a kick.
Nolan NEEDS to do a Bond film; it’s what his whole career is leading up to.
I think the Burton films works in their own way because they fucked with the mythos. i remember my fellow geeks freaking out because they made the Joker the guy who murdered Bruce Wayne’s parents.
But it’s a movie. It works. For most people, that’s a very tidy way of tying up a story. Batman Begins gives you the anonymous killer, and in the last 5 minutes you have Ras Al Ghul imply that economic warfare that the league of shadows engaged in led to their deaths.
More complex, yes. Easier for audiences to understand, no.
Burton made a Batman movie for people who knew nothing about Batman, himself included. But i still like Batman and i really love Batman Returns. Chris Connely summed it up when he described it as “A trojan horse story about loneliness”. That’s what it was. It was a movie about ugly people and the ugly things that drive them. It’s not really a Batman movie, because you learn nothing about the character. At all. You learn about Selina Kyle. You learn about Oswald Cobblepot. But Batman is just this dark presence. I can’t think of a film where the title character has so little to do with the progression of the story.
And yet, i love the movie. It’s such a great example of Burton when he’s allowed to go batshit crazy. And i love that.
Batman Returns is an interesting beast. I could never get past the absurdity of the last act, the penguins outfitted with helmets and missiles on their backs just lost me completely.
Anghus, good stuff about Batman Returns – I remember that quote from Chris Connelly back in his “Big Picture” days on MTV too, he was dead-on.
However, I disagree about Keaton and the Batman character – he basically learns about himself and grows a bit through the other two characters. It’s pretty obvious: Cobblepot in that he was a kid born into privelege, yet orphaned and became a freak, sort of like Wayne. And Kyle in that she has a liberating double life, but that is slowly taking over her more “normal” original person. None of this is really that original or ground-breaking, but Burton and writer Daniel Waters really bring a kick to it. Just some great quotable dialogue that pushes the limits of a PG-13 movie – “Just the pussy I’ve been looking for….”
And that scene with the Siouxsie & the Banshees song playing in the background at Shrek’s party when they finally recognize each other – best scene in any Batman movie! “Mistletoe can be deadly when you eat it……”
One other point – does it seem like ’92 was the summer of misunderstood sequels? I also have a soft spot for Alien 3.
Geoff,
I too have a soft spot for Alien3. I thought it had greatness within its grasp but was a flawed film, as if the studio was now the alien eating away at the inside of what Fincher was trying to produce. But I am still very pleased (smug?) to have recognized genuine dazzling talent in the director. Sure there was technical wizardry and Gothic chills, but I remember also the tenderness of the love scene and also the tragedy of the autopsy.
Batman Returns is favorite of the early films. Thanks Anghus for the Chris Connolly quote. Nailed that one.
I’ve said it before – the greatest bit of Batman characterization in any of the movies is in the first Burton movie. Vicki Vale wakes up in the middle of the night to find Bruce Wayne doing hanging situps.
Everything you’d ever need to know about the character right there.
Yes, Pope – Alien 3 is very flawed, but you see the talent there. That autopsy scene showed real chops and I would put it up there for sheer terror along any other Alien movie set piece. Unfortunately, it’s early on and there’s nothing on that level for the rest of the movie including scenes with the actual alien running around.
Still a solid movie and did not deserve the beating it got – I know it pissed a lot of people off to see Hicks and Newt killed off during the opening credits.
Actually, the whole ‘the League of Shadows caused an economic collapse’ was one of the few things I hated about Batman Begins. I loved the idea that Nolan was honestly dealing with how poverty and economic despair naturally led to crime and people like Joe Chill. But then to turn it around at the end and say ‘it wasn’t just a normal and tragic economic recession and the crime-wave that is occasionally a byproduct, it was just the super-villains pulling off an evil plot all along!’ reeked of pointless, comforting bow-tying at best, some kind of free-market propaganda at worst (‘see, only super-villains cause the otherwise flawless capitalistic system to flounder!’).
Not saying I’ve ever bought into the line that Nolan’s Batman films are Heritage Foundation propaganda. If they are conservative, they are certainly the kind of genuine compassionate conservatism found in A Christmas Carol (how those who are wealthy need to pick up the slack in helping those less fortunate so they don’t have to rely on government help) or Veggie Tales (‘today’s episode is about FEAR, and about how it can be overcome with COMPASSION and MERCY’). But that one late-in-the-game element always annoyed me, for both idealogical and narrative reasons.
As for not learning anything about Batman/Bruce Wayne in the Burton (and Schumacher) films, I have to respectfully disagree: http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2008/06/looking-back-on-batman-narrative-arc-of.html
Not a fan of Nolan’s action either, but I never read comic books for the action, but for the character interaction. I do agree that I’ve never understood Batman Begins being discussed as such a dark and grim movie. Depending on how you interpret Inception, Batman Begins is actually Nolan’s most overtly optimistic film. Batman overcomes evil without corrupting himself, Bruce Wayne takes back the reins of Wayne Enterprises for the good of the city, the people are filled with hope for the first time in ages. Yes, there is Gordon’s Debbie Downer-speech about escalation (‘gee, Jim, I just saved the entire city from madness and death, and you’re worried about a guy who killed two people and left a playing card at the scene?’), but the film leaves you with the idea that Batman, Gordon, and Rachel have a decent shot at restoring Gotham to its former glory. As for the rest of the film, it’s not so much dark as it is serious-minded. It’s not nearly as violent as the first Batman or as The Dark Knight, with very little blood and a single-digit onscreen body count. And yes, the film is filled with laugh-out-loud humor from several of the principals (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman). Nolan said back in 2004/2005 that Batman Begins was intended as an adventure that 12-year old boys could enjoy, and the film bears that out.
I think you may be mis-remembering. He’s not doing sit-ups, he’s just hanging there, fluttering his arms a little, like an actual bat. It was one of the scenes that bothered me most in the movie, as it seemed to be Burton taking things far too literally.
I’ve always felt a little cold towards Burton’s first Batman, and I felt vindicated reading a book about Burton many years later where he basically said he’s always felt a little cold toward it, too. I appreciate it on a technical level, and it’s certainly a movie that I’ve seen an awful lot of times for something I don’t completely love (another similarity to Blade Runner, though BR is ultimately a much better movie). I’ve gone back and forth on it a lot: on the effectiveness of Nicholson’s Joker (true to the character or just more over-the-top Jack mugging?); on whether the changes to the comic book really matter; on whether the story lacks momentum and plot (Batman Returns lacks both in some scenes, but I love it anyway). To me, it feels like Burton bringing a lot of his visual brilliance and thematic interests into a big, elaborate, but ultimately kind of empty spectacle, even though it’s far more beautiful than most of today’s big summer movies. Nicholson overwhelms the movie a bit in a way that Ledger never really did.
I do love Batman Returns, though: THAT is what a Tim Burton version of Batman looks and feels like to me. Funny, freakish, and certainly off-comics (Batman isn’t supposed to kill), but many of the changes to Catwoman and the Penguin are for the better, and Burton makes his themes work wonders for the character (whether this is by accident, as Burton has never been a huge comics fan, doesn’t really matter).
So Batman Returns is one of my very favorite Burton movies (and maybe my favorite Batman movie, even though the Nolan movies are closer to the overall spirit of the comics and great movies themselves, and I might like Dark Knight just as much as Returns). And Batman ’89 is one of my least favorite of Burton’s. Everything he made around then (Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands) works better for me.
It could also be a Vicki Vale problem — she’s incredibly dull while the Burton/Pfieffer Catwoman is probably the best interpretation of that character I’ve ever seen.
I was 11 when Burton’s first Batman came out, and even though I hadn’t yet seen it, I was already wearing the black and yellow t-shirt and reading through the Starlog Movie Magazine for it as I waited in line with my mother for tickets. While I don’t think the film is as good as The Dark Knight, I do have a certain fondness for it, and I do agree with most of what you said regarding the way it was shot and produced, and how the differences between it and the modern Batman can be both negative and positive. Also makes me wonder if Burton still has any real originality and magic left in him, or if Ed Wood was his final masterpiece.
For me, Batman Returns is the best of all Batman films, with due respect to the monumental work in The Dark Knight.
It is high drama, high kitsch, sexy, funny, black-souled, and fearless.
At first, I had serious problems with the penguins at the end, but that section has come to be one of my favorite movie sequences. Oswald is one of them, not one of us.
And Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is her best work ever. Deeply sexy and vulnerable at the same time, while whip smart and funny.
Plus they skewer the political process as well as any movie has. It is more fitting now than ever, with the Tea Party standards being so personal and virtually devoid of any idea of the repercussions of any rhetoric.
I feel a similar love for Temple of Doom, which also was the one when Spielberg did more of what he wanted and less of PG-ing it to what he needed to do. Perhaps the same is true of the beloved Empire Strikes Back.
Never liked the sequel. Batman was barely there, window dressing for the Edwards Penguinhands story.
BATMAN & ROBIN POWER.
Poison Ivy = BONER.
Hrm… that’s possible. The idea that “He’s hanging there because he’s a bat” didn’t even enter my mind – it always made far more sense to me that she’d caught him between sets of a workout.
Uma Thurman = Boner. Poison Ivy = Boner. Uma Thurman playing Poison Ivy somehow = weird unsexy camp that I’d think you’d hate, Lex. Thurman would’ve been an excellent Poison Ivy in a movie that made a lick of sense.
I wasn’t aware until recently that there are nerds who find Batman Returns “ruined” by the penguins with missiles and stuff. Tools, absolute tools. That is in fact, as DP mentions, a great sequence in the movie and something that only adds to it.
Dave, I’m also wildly pro-Temple of Doom and prefer it to Last Crusade. Given that Raiders is the perfect movie in that series and the rest are all retreads at different levels (and mostly delightful; even the first half or so of Crystal Skull is crazy fun), Temple of Doom brings more interesting stuff into the formula (than the other sequels, I mean).
Interesting how — assuming the third Nolan Batman movie isn’t as good as Dark Knight, which I think is a fair assumption even if it’s awesome — in the Batman franchises, it’s the second movie that completely rules, creatively. There are other sequels I like more than some or even most (Temple of Doom, Matrix Reloaded, Attack of the Clones), but those Batman sequels both improve upon their predecessors in a way that few big-budget genre/nerd-appeal sequels do, except, as Dave mentioned, Empire Strikes Back. When I first saw Dark Knight, actually, I thought of it as basically The Empire Strikes Back cut together with the momentum of the last 40 minutes of Return of the Jedi.*
*I would just as easily say the last 40 minutes of Attack of the Clones here but I realize that would make the comparison sound a lot weirder, even though the last 40 minutes of Attack of the Clones is completely fucking awesome.
Oh, and Christian, Batman is way more present in Returns than he is in the original. Maybe less screen time (I really have no idea), but since Selina Kyle out of costume is actually interesting and sexy, there’s stuff for Bruce Wayne to do that doesn’t involve awkward, hollow dates with Basinger’s Vicki Vale. As someone mentioned above, the scene with Selina and Bruce, out of costume, at that ball, where they realize each other’s secret lives, is as good as anything in the movie, and it’s all about those characters. Bruce Wayne is completely awesome and weird in Batman Returns and Keaton’s take on the character makes far more sense in it.
Also, since Ed Wood, Burton has made the following excellent movies: Big Fish; Sweeney Todd. And the following really fun movies: Sleepy Hollow; Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He’s one of those people like Woody Allen or Robert De Niro where because a few of his projects in recent years haven’t been stellar (and fewer of those for Burton than for Allen or De Niro or any number of people), bitter movie fans reach farther and farther back to say “hasn’t had a really good movie since…” until suddenly they’re saying Woody hasn’t made a good movie since 1989, De Niro hasn’t made a good one since 1990, and Burton hasn’t made a good one since 1994. Hyperbole: fun to say, stupid if you think about it.
The main problem I have with Burton’s Batmans is how he is much more interested in the villains than Batman. This is the big correction that Nolan made. Nicholson’s Joker is the main star in the first and Pfeiffer is the main star in the second. Burotn’s profound misunderstanding of Batman is most clearly shown when at the end of Batman Returns he shows that it is Catwoman, not Batman, as the reason why they cannot be together. No, no no. Batman is the reason why they can’t be together. Batman’s rogue gallery are all metaphors for different parts of Batman’s psyche. Joker is his opposite, but also a reflection of himself. Batman and antibatman. Two Face is a representation of how thin the line is between sanity and madness. Scarecrow represents fear. Killer Croc, rage. Catwoman represents his impotence. Batman could never be with a woman. He is too consumed with his demons. Ledger’s Joker is so good because Nolan uses him as a true supporting character. And he wisely doesn’t kill him at the end, because when the Joker dies Batman dies. Nolan obviously thinks the most interesting character is Batman.
But Batman Returns does have a great line: “You’re just mad because I’m a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask.”
“You may be right.”
I can recall standing in line for over an hour to get tickets to the first showing of Batman. The theater was packed and people were cheering the opening credits. When the Batmobile appeared, the crowd roared so loud you couldn’t even hear the movie. It was a singular event.
As for Batman Returns not really focusing on Batman, there is a short scene with Batman in the Batmobile and Alfred comes on the video screen. He is talking like he would to Bruce Wayne, but Michael Keaton stays in full Batman mode. I thought that spoke volumes about the character. He’s known Alfred his whole life, but when he’s Batman… he’s Batman.
This is why anyone liking Batman Returns over any other Batman film, does not get Batman like Burton did not get Batman: BATMAN FREAKING KILLS A GUY! BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! NEVER EVER NEVER EVER! Once you have Batman out and out killing a dude, you sort of miss the point all together of what Bats is all about.
Now, if I were a betting man, I would put money down that Nolan throws Catwoman in the next Batman film just to show us everyone how the character should be on screen. The Penguin would be a great villain but we all know why Tom Hardy is in this next film… Black Mask.
He’s actually just sleeping upside down like a bat isn’t he?
And yet Lex doesn’t do camp. Have you seen the film?
Exactly — I don’t recall anything of Keaton except for his funny rejoinder to Alfred about letting Vicki into his secret lair. Burton is far more interested in the goth Penguin, who’s so sad and pathetic how can he be seen as a villain? I’ll take Burgess Meredith anyday. And I never liked Pfieffer’s Catwoman – superforced. Give me Julie Newmar anyday.
“BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! NEVER EVER NEVER EVER!”
Except that he has, both intentionally and unintentionally.
First year of Batman and Frank Miller Batman have both deliberately killed opponents, while the use the Batwing to shoot vehicles on the ground was lifted almost directly from Batman #1.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/BATMAN001-Gun.jpg
The 1989 Burton Batman was a blend of the 1960’s surreal setting and the gritty 1986 Dark Knight Returns, both of which were riding high in popularity during the time which Burton was developing his flick. He “got” Bats, it was just the hyperstylized version of the times rather than the more realistic version that is the descendent of the Bruce Timm/Paul Dini animated series.
FoamySquirrel has it right. Bruce Wayne was in between chin up reps. Google “gravity boots.”
the production design for burton’s ’89 bat is quite stylistically faithful to particularly the early incarnation of the comics and gotham city (if someone has already mentioned this above, apologies i skimmed a bit).
‘batman returns’ is a fascinating movie, a film people either seem to love or hate. it veers quite wildly from the reverential tone of burton’s first film into some truly dark, weird, sculpted gothic german impressionistic flights of fancy in which to examine the themes of duality and the damage caused by the need for retribution in the psyche, inevitably twisting those who allow it to consume them.
keaton’s wayne/bat may not have a big character arc but we see quite a bit of the severe nature of his duality; in the comics he never thinks about himself as ‘bruce’, wayne is his mask/alter ego and the bat is his true self, and this is subtly apparent in the film. at one point he says to selina, “i mistook ME for someone else” in a freudian slip, a telling moment, as is the scene pete mentions above about batman talking to alfred. just after conversing with alfred as bruce wayne moments earlier in his kind, affable manner, as the bat he is completely different, not wayne at all, a quite separate subtly menacing personality even when talking to his longest friend and confidant. he does revert back to bruce at the end in a last-ditch effort to ‘save’ selina, as is his penchant (selina is wayne/batman’s enduring love interest thru all the incarnations of the batman comics as he struggles with his compulsion to save her from herself, contrary to what someone stated above; in the alternate or parallel world or whatever it is, he and selina even marry and have a child), but the mental split and struggle between his two personalities is vivid.
the penguin’s duality is as the grotesque, shunned child/angel of death; his arc is rife with biblical references such as moses floated on the water to an uncertain fate to be raised by outsiders, from victim to avenger, cobblepot as the wannabe killer of all first-born sons as an old testament-esque angel of death with a bit of the pied piper thrown in for good measure (dark stuff, not for the little kiddies).
max shreck’s duality is philanthropist/protective father by day, metaphoric vampire (shreck being the actor who played nosferatu) and political puppet-master by night. sucking/trading in the life blood of the city as lord of the power plant longing to suck gotham dry, he even ascends from the fabric-lined walls of his ‘coffin’ up the stairs to kill selina to protect his own interests, inadvertently ‘creating’ a creature that proves his undoing.
and finally, the tour-de-force of duality that is michelle’s selina, the feminist allegory, violent rebirth from the meek and mousy subservient woman suffering under patriarchal domination and forced conformity to the deliciously outrageous bundle of nerves and moxy, sultry and self-determined but doomed to suffer from her explosion of repressed emotions and desire to punish the man who treated her as insignificant and disposable, her arc complete when she chooses to fulfil catwoman’s destiny over the (possible) happy, comfortable life selina thought she always wanted (i gather originally her death was left ambiguous but the powers-that-be forced the happier ending for catwoman, perhaps understandably in what is such a dark and bizarre movie; i always wondered how michelle’s career trajectory would have differed had burton’s planned spin-off for her as catwoman come to fruition instead of languishing in development hell for the next 100 years until it really screwed the pooch, but that’s akin to me wondering how alec baldwin’s career would have differed had he continued on from his most excellent turn in ‘hunt for red october’ as ryan going forward – a big waste of time but i do it anyway)
now i can’t remember how i planned to sum up this thing, but to say love or hate ‘batman returns’, it’s at the very least a bold, interesting exercise in the pain and duality of human nature executed in a distinctive way. the story isn’t its strong suit but there’s so much weird shit going on, it’s easy for me not to care.
well said leah. that sums it up nicely. it’s still my favorite batman film. i love dark knight, but it always plays out like an episode of LAW AND ORDER: GOTHAM to me.
The visuals is Batman Returns still blow me away.
Disney/Marvel should take note and make a Daredevil TV series using Dark Knight as a template. The Cop, the D.A., a masked vigilante. Self contained weekly stories, two or 3 parters every so often. That would be great television.
For the record, I said Ed Wood was his last masterpiece. I’ve liked a few of his movies since (Corpse Bride and Sweeney Todd, offhand), but I wouldn’t call any of them masterpieces. And overall, I feel he’s really gone downhill. I mean, c’mon, let’s be honest. He’s doing various big-budget remakes and literary adaptations, none of which are very good. And Depp playing the over-the-top weirdo in most of his recent films is just making them seem even more uninspired and repetitious. Depp was probably my least favorite part of both Factory and Wonderland. He’s also gone downhill, but that’s beside the point. Burton needs to take some time off, realize that he already has plenty of money in the bank, and just go back to the drawing board.
Batman Returns, meh. I remember at the time that Gotham City seemed to only have about 20 residents in the “city” scenes, and that Keaton seemed like a guest star in his own movie.
Thank Buddha that Burton had yet to fully indulge his Johnny Depp fetish at that point, think how much more insufferable the two films would have been.
KRISTEN STEWART FOR BATGIRL PLEASE.
I love Kristen Stewart.
I love Kristen Stewart.
I love Kristen Stewart.
(and Dakota Fanning.)
thanks man
(or law & order: chicago. in nolanworld, gotham is no longer the stylised ‘character’ of the comics, just ‘big city USA’, really)
Foamy, you are such the little instigator. Seriously, I know the history but Bats had a code back in the 90s and the code is still the same: BATS DOES NOT KILL.
Now, if you want to continue to be antagonistic towards me Rich, that’s fine, but all you seem to do is miss the point time and time again. Batman Returns is a nice Tim Burton movie but it sure as hell is not a Batman movie.
Yeah, Returns is still not a very good BATMAN movie and that’s the point a lot of people miss but if you find whatever you find in it, good for you, but nothing Burton has ever put on film with Batman in it touches the animated series. Everything Leah writes up there about Returns. The animated series did it better.
Also, Nolan has a lot of respect for big cities. He sees them in a way that you two my not be getting. Seriously, to him, cities are characters, and Gotham is a REAL CITY not a stylized hunk of junk, and it has character like a real city should.
That guy keeps calling Batman “Bats” because he really knows him.
No, any fan who buys a comic, which I doubt you do, refers to him as Bats. Sort of like how folks refer to Superman as Supes. Seriously man, don’t mess with Bats. It’s not cool or funny.
I love Nolan’s use of the real city in his Batman films, gives them a sense of heft and gravity. IMO his use of real locations is the best of any action film since Die Hard with a Vengence.
And besides the Batman movies, couldn’t you also see The Prestige and Inception as Burton movies? I would think dueling magicians and road trips through the mind would be right up his alley, but there is no way he would be able to reach the depths that Nolan has. Burton has never really left Pee Wee’s Playhouse.
RILEYS POWER
BOW TO K-STEW