Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Batman Movies Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul L View Post
    I'm on board with this, Scott. I love Burton's BATMAN; I really like Keaton's performance in the lead role, which was something of a shock given his association with comedy to that point. And I like Nicholson's performance as the Joker. It's not quite as deranged as Cesar Romero's but there's something deeply unpredictable and utterly slimy in the way that Nicholson plays the part. Some great supporting actors too (eg, Palance).

    I like the Nolan pictures too but they're a different beast entirely - very 21st Century, an age of high sheen surfaces and the smell of new electronics as opposed to axle grease, typewriter ink and petrol fumes. 'Gritty' means something different in the 2000s as compared with '89.

    What Dom said about saturation marketing rings true in my memories of '89. It seemed Burton's BATMAN was everywhere during that year. I've still got the foldout poster magazine that I bought in the foyer of the cinema when I went to see the film.


    I remember two things about that year; The Who's reunion tour, and BATMAN. And yeah, that advertising was everywhere; the updated logo on t-shirts, toys, etc. And of course, the massive fan freakout over Keaton being cast.

    I would disagree that it's surprising the studio let him do what he did aesthetically with BATMAN RETURNS; by that point, Burton had been hugely successful with Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, and especially Beetlejuice. By the time he rolled his vision around to his first BATMAN film and made the studio a gajillion dollars, I guarantee they weren't looking at set design for the sequel, saying, "It's too German Expressionist". It's a Burton film, and that had obviously worked in spades a few times over. Anyway, I've seen the first one recently, and felt it didn't age well at all, even if the performances aren't bad. I'll give the second one a go again.

    Leave a comment:

  • Paul L
    Scholar of Sleaze

  • Paul L
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott View Post
    Burton's films have interesting sets in every frame. All the actors have interesting costumes and are full of character. It has a sense of wonder and craft that the modern films just don't have. I guess by grit I mean Burton's films feel tactile and lived in, everything's a little dirty. Artificial, but real. Nolan's films feel glossy, distant and cold. Realistic, but without soul.
    I'm on board with this, Scott. I love Burton's BATMAN; I really like Keaton's performance in the lead role, which was something of a shock given his association with comedy to that point. And I like Nicholson's performance as the Joker. It's not quite as deranged as Cesar Romero's but there's something deeply unpredictable and utterly slimy in the way that Nicholson plays the part. Some great supporting actors too (eg, Palance).

    I like the Nolan pictures too but they're a different beast entirely - very 21st Century, an age of high sheen surfaces and the smell of new electronics as opposed to axle grease, typewriter ink and petrol fumes. 'Gritty' means something different in the 2000s as compared with '89.

    What Dom said about saturation marketing rings true in my memories of '89. It seemed Burton's BATMAN was everywhere during that year. I've still got the foldout poster magazine that I bought in the foyer of the cinema when I went to see the film.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dom D
    replied
    I actually like the Burton films better now than I did as a kid. I had the McDonalds toys but I still didn't much like 'em much when I was young. Now they are still a bit bland but they're made at a moment where special effects had gotten really good but CGI was still yet to really make its mark. So it's got a lot of charm and production value on that front. I don't know if it's true but in my memory Batman was the first film to get absolute saturation marketing. Every where you turned for a while there it was Batman.

    Leave a comment:

  • agent999
    Senior Member

  • agent999
    replied
    I was a bit underwhelmed when I saw Burton's Batman again recently. What seemed groundbreaking in 89 now seemed a bit pedestrian to me. However, Batman Returns is still pretty fucking amazing. I just love the whole German expressionism feeling and can't believe that a major studio let him do that.

    Of the Nolan movies, I think The Dark Knight is pretty great. It's like a Michael Mann superhero movie. The other two had their merits but were a bit of a mixed bag and I haven't felt the need to rewatch them.

    The only other live action Batman that I enjoy is the 66 movie, but that's for entirely different reasons. I haven't seen many of the animations, but The Dark Knight Returns was pretty good.

    Leave a comment:

  • Scott
    Intellectual Carrot

  • Scott
    replied
    Originally posted by Darcy Parker View Post
    If you seriously don't think there was any style or grit to The Dark Knight or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I would seriously question if you've even seen them.
    I thought DARK KNIGHT was well done.

    I have not seen WINTER SOLDIER. The Marvel movies just don't interest me. The few I've seen have been good but forgettable. Fun maybe, but not stylish. Rather bland, actually.

    Burton's films have interesting sets in every frame. All the actors have interesting costumes and are full of character. It has a sense of wonder and craft that the modern films just don't have. I guess by grit I mean Burton's films feel tactile and lived in, everything's a little dirty. Artificial, but real. Nolan's films feel glossy, distant and cold. Realistic, but without soul.

    I realize I'm in the minority and that's ok. It's just a preference.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    I definitely enjoyed the first two Nolan films, though I found The Dark Knight a little on the long side.

    In any event, I'll rewatch Batman Returns. Somebody mentioned the penguin's makeup being gross, and I definitely remember that. For some reason, the only other thing that stands out is that you can't scratch a CD like a record.

    Leave a comment:

  • Darcy Parker
    Senior Member

  • Darcy Parker
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott View Post
    I find the two Burton flicks way more rewatchable than the Nolan films. Hell, I'd put them above most modern superhero flicks. They have style and grit. I can't think of any modern Marvel or DC movie that has either. They embrace the sillier comic booky elements instead of shunning them. I also really like the soundtrack even though it's easy to joke on (I guess?). Certainly more interesting than the bland music in the modern flicks.
    If you seriously don't think there was any style or grit to The Dark Knight or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I would seriously question if you've even seen them.

    Leave a comment:

  • Tom Clark
    Senior Member

  • Tom Clark
    replied
    Batman Returns still holds up wonderfully. Burton really struck a great balance in that one. It's got a legitimately ominous tone thanks to the fucking sublime gothic design. It feels properly dark and brooding, but at the same time he knew being a superhero movie it had to still have mass appeal yet it doesn't feel like a compromised film. DeVito's Penguin make-up is actually pretty gross looking. Michelle Pfeiffer owns the whole movie, though.

    Leave a comment:

  • Toyboy
    like a hole in the head

  • Toyboy
    replied
    Burton produced BATMAN FOREVER and I feel like that one ports over some of the tone and look of the first two movies he directed, but with a big dash of the 60's TV show. I never understood why Tommy Lee Jones chose to play Two-Face as though he was The Joker. That character was never portrayed that way in the comics or cartoons - I would guess that nobody involved in the production ever bothered to look at the comics for reference in that one.

    BATMAN AND ROBIN comes off like a filmed amusement park attraction, and that is not at all meant as praise.

    Leave a comment:

  • Scott
    Intellectual Carrot

  • Scott
    replied
    I find the two Burton flicks way more rewatchable than the Nolan films. Hell, I'd put them above most modern superhero flicks. They have style and grit. I can't think of any modern Marvel or DC movie that has either. They embrace the sillier comic booky elements instead of shunning them. I also really like the soundtrack even though it's easy to joke on (I guess?). Certainly more interesting than the bland music in the modern flicks.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    Originally posted by Headless Body View Post
    I think Batman Returns has aged wonderfully. It's the only Batman film I'll ever need.
    Huh. Maybe I'll give it another go.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    Originally posted by Ian Jane View Post
    Bat Dance!
    VICKI VALE. VICKI VALE.

    Leave a comment:

  • Headless Body
    Senior Member

  • Headless Body
    replied
    I think Batman Returns has aged wonderfully. It's the only Batman film I'll ever need.

    Leave a comment:

  • Ian Jane
    Administrator

  • Ian Jane
    replied
    Bat Dance!

    Leave a comment:

  • Mark Tolch
    Senior Member

  • Mark Tolch
    replied
    They sure were. The only other one I haven't watched since I saw it in the theatre is Batman Returns, but I disliked it so much when I saw it, I've never felt the need.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X