Batman vuelve

To the person(s) who almost immediately rates my user-comments as "non-useful" as soon as they are published: why? Are you so sad and miserable that only diminishing the work of others brings you joy? Try contributing something yourself, first.

One could certainly state that, around the time "Batman Returns" went into production in 1991/1992, Tim Burton was quite powerful, and he could set his own demands. The original 1989 Batman became a crazy box office hit, and his more personal films that came just before and after - "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands" respectively - were also hugely successful. So, for "Batman Returns" he could do whatever he wanted, and he did! It became a very dark film with no less than three important villains (yes, Catwoman is a villain), and it revolves mainly around them while the returning Batman seems to be just a side character.

Penguin/Oswald Cobblepot is a freak who grew up in a sewer (but was able to build an evil empire there) and wants to take revenge on the Gotham where his parents lived. The beautiful Selina struggles with schizophrenia and only feels self-confident as the destructive Catwoman. Max Schrek is simply a ruthless businessman and philanthropist who wants to bend Gotham to his will to become even richer. The plot lines are actually not that well developed, but it all looks very sinister and gloomy... Especially all the scenes with the great Danny DeVito as Penguin and his circus full of terrorists and bandits (including the phenomenal Vincent Schiavelli). For fans of traditional superhero movies, this may be a disappointment, but for fans of dark fantasy, it's a feast; - and perhaps Burton's best film along with "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd".

There were a lot of things that were excellent about this movie, like the cinematography and the performances, though it isn't as good as the first film. Michael Keaten is suitably brooding as the Dark Knight, better than George Clooney in Batman and Robin (considered as the worst out the franchise)though he is overshadowed by the villains, namely Danny DeVito as the Penguin, who looked as though he was having a ball, and brought a sense of sadness and grotesquesness to the role. Christopher Walken was effective also as Max Schrek. Stealing the show, with her flawless delivery of not-so special lines, is Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexy and manipulative Catwoman. The film looks lovely, with the sets and effects, and Tim Burton directs with detail. However the film does drag, and while there are some intelligent lines from the villains, the script could have been developed a little more. All in all, a dark and entertaining film. Whereas Batman Forever is funnier and more fast paced, Batman Returns is darker, but just lacks the sophistication of the first film. 8/10 Bethany Cox.

Equally magnificent sequel has Michael Keaton returning as Bruce Wayne/Batman, only here is opposed by the double threat of Catwoman(marvelously played by the sultry Michele Pfeiffer) who starts off as harried secretary Selina Kyle, who is transformed into Catwoman after a betrayal. They develop a close relationship, since they both have a great deal in common...

Danny DeVito portrays Oswald Cobblepot/the Penquin, who was a deformed child brought up in the sewers of Gotham, and now heads a criminal gang. DeVito effectively plays the pathos of this man, who can't decide if he wants to re-enter society or not, but a dramatic turn-of-events pushes him over the edge... Christopher Walken co-stars as ruthless businessman Max Shreck.

Filled with fantastic action, set design, and music score, this production is another triumph, one of the few sequels to match the original, even though some feel it is too dark, the subject matter suits this.

A great pity that star Michael Keaton and director Tim Burton stopped here, and didn't get the chance to do a trilogy, since the new team drove this series off the rails...A shame that.

I've enjoyed this movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. I also liked Batman forever back then but the real difference is that THIS movie didn't date when I grew up. I did notice a few scenes in this film that didn't make any sense like: 'Hhmm... the crowd is angry. Hey! Where did they get those tomatoes from?' Then I thought: 'who cares? This movie is not 100% serious anyway!'

The original Tim Burton Batman was great as well but it was a bit cheesy at some parts and I didn't like all the actors. This movie improved on almost every aspect with a wonderful cast, a more Gothic style and no involvement of Prince.

Nowadays, many fans of the Christopher Nolan movies dislike Burton claiming that the Nolan movies are more serious and therefore more loyal to the comics. I don't think this is entirely true: -There has never been an adaptation of the original concept of Batman which was a vengeful criminal killer with a gun. -Batman has taken many forms over the years peeking its silliness in the 60's (and a bit with Batman & Robin). A director is free to choose what kind of Batman he's going to portray as long if it's good.

My opinion: Batman doesn't necessarily have to be serious. It's about a man in a rubber suit with pointy ears. Burton managed to create a perfect balance between the silliness and the darkness surrounding the whole idea.

I just recently watched the Nolan movies and I love those ones as well (especially The Dark Knight). There's simply something about this movie that interests me more. Nolan's goal was to give the character much more depth and in doing so, he looked for an explanation of nearly every aspect of Batman. That's a bit too much for me, I'm a bigger fan of the more abstract version of Batman. The Burton movies are more theatrical and centered around the atmosphere.

My conclusion is that you shouldn't compare the Nolan with the Burton movies. They're just different and it's up to you to decide which one you like better. My respect is for both directors.

Ah, heres a movie I remember fondly from my childhood. Man I had it all, the toys, the McDonald's happy meal toys (not to mention those cool large plastic McDonald's cups my mom bought me) the sega video game, the trading cards, the t shirts, the batmobile candy dispensers, all kinds of neat merch based on the movie. of course in retrospect, this is not at all a kids movie, despite the fact its batman and was aimed at kids who bought happy meals. but that doesn't mean its not a great movie. not every superhero movie has to cater strictly to the kids. nevertheless, my 6 year old self was too in love with batman to care about how dark it was, I still loved anything and everything having to do with my favorite superhero and I must have watched this movie, along with the other 2 movies (1989 batman and batman forever) a zillion times on video.

here's the premise. Batman truly does Return in this sequel to the 1989 mega hit, and this time hes better then ever. hes got some new toys (like the electronic self-targeting Baterang), vehicles and even has 2 new classic villains to contend with.

penguin is a classic Tim Burton character in this one, but that can only be a good thing. in this movie, Burton makes the characters very ambiguous. is the penguin really half animal, half human? is cat woman part cat, part woman? these questions never really get answered. personally, i don't believe they are part animal at all. the penguin is all human albeit a VERY deformed and ugly one, and is only called Penguin because of his deformities. Catwoman is always human but the whole "9 lives" thing makes it ambiguous whether she has supernatural powers or whether shes just very lucky. its debatable. Batman is the only normal guy in this. in fact, Keaton being the calm cool hero both as Bruce Wayne and batman, grounds the movie and keeps it together whereas the 2 villains are completely crazy and psychotic nut cases. it seemed Keaton didn't have it all together in the last movie, he had a a lot of demons to fight with, but by the end you got the feeling he found his purpose in life, now that hes got a bat-signal and the law on his side. so naturally, in this one he seems more together and knows what hes doing. its the villains who are not together and have all these obvious mental problems, so much so that they actually make batman look normal. if it was anyone else playing batman, it wouldn't have worked. but Michael Keaton has a unique screen presence that when he puts on the bat suit, he literally IS batman and lets face it, no one before or since has had the manly swagger that Michael Keaton had as batman. he was a bit older, getting some greys, was this sort of gruff everyman but has this seriousness and "normal guy" look that makes you take him seriously as batman. other actors who have played batman seem too pretty boy or hand picked and thus don't feel real. Keaton is like the everyman normal looking 40 year old gruff guy and he demands you take him seriously. this is a very artsy film, compared to its blockbuster brother from 1989, which was basically a cut-&-dry blockbuster action/adventure. but it really didn't have any emotion or depth to it, despite Keaton's sincere efforts. Thats where Returns comes in. all the characters are very interesting and in a way, they all echo Batman. Catwoman is the dark vigilante side of him, while the Penguin shows what Bruce Wayne could have been if he turned bitter against the world.

I've heard many ppl say that this batman film is not really about Batman himself, and that too much attention is given to the villains, but i will say again, its not a bad thing, and doesn't ruin this film. batman himself is really not a very interesting character when you think about it. hes essentially a guy who's see's his parents get killed as a kid, he trains for X years, then decides to becomes batman for revenge purposes. OK. thats it. there's no more to it really. certainly not something i want to watch for a whole 2 hours. i really didn't see a point in making a whole movie about his origin a couple years ago, i think it was a waste. i was always kinda hoping they would bring back the Burton style of filmaking for batman movies, or maybe even get Burton back to direct. but alas, we got something that felt like a lesser version of the 1989 film. sad. but hey, we always have the Tim Burton films to enjoy. those, IMO, captured the real batman, beyond the facade of "comic book" movie looks (which, in Burton's case, is actually a good thing). as far as i'm concerned, Burton is the only guy to have directed Batman movies. hes the only one who i believed truly understood batman, as you can see in his various films. the other directors never really...got it. they just don't get batman. they only got him as a character, thats it. but Burton KNEW batman, he understood his plight in life, and the darkness inherent in the material. thats why this is to me, the best, and most personal, Batman film. it shows batman, and his villains, at there most raw. they are all hurt individuals, and thats what makes this film so powerful. this is what a batman film should be. serious, witty, playful, phycological, and DARK. while still retaining the comic book style that we all expect. this film also paved the way for the wonderful Batman: The Animated Series, which also shares Tim Burton's dark, Gothic look and feel from both of his Batman films. it even uses the same theme!