Batman
- 1989
- Tous publics
- 2h 6min
Le Chevalier noir de Gotham City commence sa lutte contre le crime avec le Joker meurtrier, son ennemi principal.Le Chevalier noir de Gotham City commence sa lutte contre le crime avec le Joker meurtrier, son ennemi principal.Le Chevalier noir de Gotham City commence sa lutte contre le crime avec le Joker meurtrier, son ennemi principal.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompensé par 1 Oscar
- 13 victoires et 30 nominations au total
Mac McDonald
- Goon
- (as Mac Macdonald)
Avis à la une
Although today it can be seen as something of a flawed work - compromised somewhat by continual studio interference - Burton's first Batman film (1989) remains a surprisingly vivid comic-book style action adventure film, peppered throughout by the director's continual quirks and characteristics, which for me, makes the experience all the more unique. I know it's almost the accepted opinion these days to reject Burton's vision, post Batman Begins (2004); with many critics dismissing this as closer in tone to the retro 60's TV series, which is bull, as we all know. At the time, this was considered the darkest knight of all, and the continual shift into more violent and lurid psychological territory presented by its sequel, Batman Returns (1992), saw Burton dismissed from the series indefinitely. Although Nolan's subsequent Batman films have attempted to take the franchise into more credible areas - and with great success - they for me lack that certain spark of imagination and subversive sense of humour that made the Burton films so radical and so much fun.
Here, the world of Batman - as presented by Burton - gives the film much of its power. Whereas previous adaptations of the character had placed him within the context of a recognisable present-day environment, this Batman creates a dark, Gothic underworld that is part Metropolis (1927), part Gilliam's Brazil (1985). You could also argue that there's a touch of Blade Runner (1982) presented here as well, with the retro-futurist look of distressed exteriors and Art Nouveau creating an odd juxtaposition; suggesting an almost timeless setting that is falling rapidly into despair. With these references in place, Burton goes wild with strokes of German Expressionism and references to film-noir, as he plays not only with an excellent use of shadow and composition, but also with a sly and irreverent use of colour. For example, with this presentation of the Joker (still a contentious factor for some viewers), Burton gives us a screaming, pop-art inspired lunatic - again, part Warhol, part Edward G. Robinson - with the typical charm and caddish likability that only Nicholson could truly convey.
I have no problem with this presentation of the joker. Ledger's variation exists in a different world with a completely different tone, so such comparisons are ultimately faulty! The only similarity is that in both films the Joker dominates the proceedings, more so than Batman himself. In Nicholson's hands, the Joker is dangerous *and* amusing; his charm combined with his insanity making him even more fascinating. He is, as he proclaims, an "artist"; someone willing to disfigure their own fiancé for the purposes of creative expression. "I create art until someone dies", he says, and we believe him. The introduction to the Joker - post-transformation - is still a completely iconic scene, as he aggressively demands a mirror from his plastic surgeons and then smashes it in a fit of mad giggles and inevitable hysterics. This scene - like the following one in which he reaps revenge on a former partner that betrayed him - is straight out of the best of post-war Noir. Admittedly, Batman, by comparison, seems less interesting; with the limitations of a character who essentially hinges around the absurd idea of dressing up in a rubber costume and fighting crime, always requiring a great leap of faith on the part of the audience, as he is forced to become even more brooding and serious in order to remain somewhat plausible.
Regardless of what more obsessive comic-book fans might suggest, I thought the style of this film - with its use of framing and composition - was pure comic-strip. It's not a graphic novel adaptation, but a proper comic book style adventure; with the skewed angles and tight editing creating that feel of reading from one panel to the next. It benefits from the team that Burton surrounds himself with, from the cinematographer Roger Pratt, who shot the aforementioned Brazil and turned the seedy side of London into a screaming inferno for Neil Jordan's great film Mona Lisa (1986), as well as composer Danny Elfman and the late production designer Anton Furst. The only thing that really lets us down are a couple of somewhat dated optical effect shots, such as the introduction of Batman looking down on the city from a high-rise tower block, to some obvious miniature work that probably ties in with Burton's fondness for the work of Ray Harryhausen or director Mario Bava. Nonetheless, these are minor flaws that we face in numerous films and ones that are easily overlooked.
Ultimately, the argument of realism offered by many detractors of Burton's Batman films makes very little sense; again, we're talking about a film in which a billionaire playboy dons a head-to-toe rubber costume and fights crime at night - how much more plausible can this get? Burton's approach to Batman, drawing on some of the more revisionist comic book works of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, conveyed a darker, more personal slant to the character, but still retained that sense of colour, fun and imagination that the more recent Batman films seem to have lost. They're still great films, but for me, the two Batman projects from Burton capture the spirit and tone of the character perfectly, as well as conveying a naturally intuitive approach to film-making that resulted in some genuinely interesting cinematic work. The follow up, Batman Returns would be even better, and remains probably my favourite Batman film, if not my favourite Tim Burton film of all time.
Here, the world of Batman - as presented by Burton - gives the film much of its power. Whereas previous adaptations of the character had placed him within the context of a recognisable present-day environment, this Batman creates a dark, Gothic underworld that is part Metropolis (1927), part Gilliam's Brazil (1985). You could also argue that there's a touch of Blade Runner (1982) presented here as well, with the retro-futurist look of distressed exteriors and Art Nouveau creating an odd juxtaposition; suggesting an almost timeless setting that is falling rapidly into despair. With these references in place, Burton goes wild with strokes of German Expressionism and references to film-noir, as he plays not only with an excellent use of shadow and composition, but also with a sly and irreverent use of colour. For example, with this presentation of the Joker (still a contentious factor for some viewers), Burton gives us a screaming, pop-art inspired lunatic - again, part Warhol, part Edward G. Robinson - with the typical charm and caddish likability that only Nicholson could truly convey.
I have no problem with this presentation of the joker. Ledger's variation exists in a different world with a completely different tone, so such comparisons are ultimately faulty! The only similarity is that in both films the Joker dominates the proceedings, more so than Batman himself. In Nicholson's hands, the Joker is dangerous *and* amusing; his charm combined with his insanity making him even more fascinating. He is, as he proclaims, an "artist"; someone willing to disfigure their own fiancé for the purposes of creative expression. "I create art until someone dies", he says, and we believe him. The introduction to the Joker - post-transformation - is still a completely iconic scene, as he aggressively demands a mirror from his plastic surgeons and then smashes it in a fit of mad giggles and inevitable hysterics. This scene - like the following one in which he reaps revenge on a former partner that betrayed him - is straight out of the best of post-war Noir. Admittedly, Batman, by comparison, seems less interesting; with the limitations of a character who essentially hinges around the absurd idea of dressing up in a rubber costume and fighting crime, always requiring a great leap of faith on the part of the audience, as he is forced to become even more brooding and serious in order to remain somewhat plausible.
Regardless of what more obsessive comic-book fans might suggest, I thought the style of this film - with its use of framing and composition - was pure comic-strip. It's not a graphic novel adaptation, but a proper comic book style adventure; with the skewed angles and tight editing creating that feel of reading from one panel to the next. It benefits from the team that Burton surrounds himself with, from the cinematographer Roger Pratt, who shot the aforementioned Brazil and turned the seedy side of London into a screaming inferno for Neil Jordan's great film Mona Lisa (1986), as well as composer Danny Elfman and the late production designer Anton Furst. The only thing that really lets us down are a couple of somewhat dated optical effect shots, such as the introduction of Batman looking down on the city from a high-rise tower block, to some obvious miniature work that probably ties in with Burton's fondness for the work of Ray Harryhausen or director Mario Bava. Nonetheless, these are minor flaws that we face in numerous films and ones that are easily overlooked.
Ultimately, the argument of realism offered by many detractors of Burton's Batman films makes very little sense; again, we're talking about a film in which a billionaire playboy dons a head-to-toe rubber costume and fights crime at night - how much more plausible can this get? Burton's approach to Batman, drawing on some of the more revisionist comic book works of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, conveyed a darker, more personal slant to the character, but still retained that sense of colour, fun and imagination that the more recent Batman films seem to have lost. They're still great films, but for me, the two Batman projects from Burton capture the spirit and tone of the character perfectly, as well as conveying a naturally intuitive approach to film-making that resulted in some genuinely interesting cinematic work. The follow up, Batman Returns would be even better, and remains probably my favourite Batman film, if not my favourite Tim Burton film of all time.
In a Gotham City overrun by crime a new menace exists. In the shadows and rooftops a giant bat is terrorising the criminals who live in the night. Elsewhere crime boss Grissom's right hand man Jack Napier is trapped in a chemical factory by police. With Batman's intervention Napier is accidentally dropped into a vat of chemical. Considered dead he later turns up, scarred and twisted with a new sense of humour. Calling himself the Joker he takes over the city's gangs and begins to terrorise the city. Millionaire Bruce Wayne begins relationship with reporter Vicky Vale and finds himself personally drawn into conflict with the Joker as both himself and his alter-ego.
This was very much a huge blockbuster and had a great deal riding on it in terms of merchandising and a possible franchise. As such Burton always seemed like a risk - although his dark toned work and complex characters probably made him a great choice. The film starts promisingly, many questions are asked - is Wayne totally balanced? What drives him to become the bat? etc - and the tone of the movie is darker than a friendly blockbuster. This is continued by the investigation by reporters Vale and Knox, but starts to wane (pardon the pun) with the development of Vale as a love interest and the hamming of The Joker. At some point the film loses the character complexities and decides to become a straight up good v's evil with plenty of effects and gadgets. That said it's still very dark and the set pieces are well handled. In fact it's the best of the Batman franchise so far.
The problem is that it lacks a bite for Batman fans. I've always felt that Batman was always a few steps away from the criminals he's chasing, surely he can't be totally balanced and right in the head? Here these questions are half touched but never developed.
Keaton is an unlikely Batman, but is the best so far. He deals well with Wayne's past when it is brought up, but is an unlikely action hero. Nicholson is pure ham, but is good for it. He hogs all the best lines and is clearly enjoying himself - the only downside being that he regularly eclipses Keaton's Batman. Basinger's Vale is built up far too much and should have been cut out of the story rather than become a key part of it. The rest of the cast are good and I always like to see Tracey Walters in a big screen film!
Overall this is a good stab at the Batman legend. It's dark tone gives it the feel of the comics without the characterisation, but at the end of the day it comes down to good guy v's bad guy.
This was very much a huge blockbuster and had a great deal riding on it in terms of merchandising and a possible franchise. As such Burton always seemed like a risk - although his dark toned work and complex characters probably made him a great choice. The film starts promisingly, many questions are asked - is Wayne totally balanced? What drives him to become the bat? etc - and the tone of the movie is darker than a friendly blockbuster. This is continued by the investigation by reporters Vale and Knox, but starts to wane (pardon the pun) with the development of Vale as a love interest and the hamming of The Joker. At some point the film loses the character complexities and decides to become a straight up good v's evil with plenty of effects and gadgets. That said it's still very dark and the set pieces are well handled. In fact it's the best of the Batman franchise so far.
The problem is that it lacks a bite for Batman fans. I've always felt that Batman was always a few steps away from the criminals he's chasing, surely he can't be totally balanced and right in the head? Here these questions are half touched but never developed.
Keaton is an unlikely Batman, but is the best so far. He deals well with Wayne's past when it is brought up, but is an unlikely action hero. Nicholson is pure ham, but is good for it. He hogs all the best lines and is clearly enjoying himself - the only downside being that he regularly eclipses Keaton's Batman. Basinger's Vale is built up far too much and should have been cut out of the story rather than become a key part of it. The rest of the cast are good and I always like to see Tracey Walters in a big screen film!
Overall this is a good stab at the Batman legend. It's dark tone gives it the feel of the comics without the characterisation, but at the end of the day it comes down to good guy v's bad guy.
(94%) My favourite Batman movie, and indeed my favourite superhero movie ever made. The studios took a big chance and allowed a young Tim Burton to take on their biggest asset and he made a movie like no other directer could. Along with Christopher Reeve as Superman, Michael Keaton will always be my top choice for the role as he plays the haunted and lost Bruce Wayne so fantastically well that I doubt it will ever be bettered. Jack Nicholson was born to play the joker, the score is epic, the set design is wonderful. And although not everything runs smoothly, as far as I'm concerned this will always be the superhero movie to beat.
Despite the sequels and the fanfare of the reboot, this remains my favorite Batman movie.
I admittedly had initial concerns over Michael Keaton in the role, but I quickly warmed up to the actor as Bruce Wayne, and once the suit went on, his performance was spot on. Nicholson as the Joker was solid casting, and he gave a brilliant performance.
This movie was just fun, and a completely different feel from "The Dark Knight". Whereas Dark Knight was endlessly gritty and tense, "Batman" was both dramatic and fun. There were plenty of light moments to break the tension of the Joker's murder and mayhem. In Dark Knight, there were no tension breakers at all. I'm a tremendous Batman fan (the comic character) and during Dark Knight I felt like I was sitting through an endurance contest rather than something I'd assumed would be entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Dark Knight ... it was a tremendous achievement. But the mood was very different than the original "Batman", and I just find that I preferred the mood of the original.
I admittedly had initial concerns over Michael Keaton in the role, but I quickly warmed up to the actor as Bruce Wayne, and once the suit went on, his performance was spot on. Nicholson as the Joker was solid casting, and he gave a brilliant performance.
This movie was just fun, and a completely different feel from "The Dark Knight". Whereas Dark Knight was endlessly gritty and tense, "Batman" was both dramatic and fun. There were plenty of light moments to break the tension of the Joker's murder and mayhem. In Dark Knight, there were no tension breakers at all. I'm a tremendous Batman fan (the comic character) and during Dark Knight I felt like I was sitting through an endurance contest rather than something I'd assumed would be entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Dark Knight ... it was a tremendous achievement. But the mood was very different than the original "Batman", and I just find that I preferred the mood of the original.
No radioactive spider bites or guys turning green or supermodels painted blue here. Campy television series aside, Batman has always seemed the most serious, the most grounded, the most real of all the comic book sagas. Our hero has no magical, mystical superpowers...he's just a guy in a suit. But where does he get those wonderful toys? In this film Tim Burton does a very good job of bringing the Dark Knight to life while also seemingly giving the dark, foreboding city of Gotham a life of its own. Gotham is dark, gloomy, and dreary...almost oppressively so. The city is almost a character unto itself in the film...dark, mysterious and somehow quite real. The brilliantly conceived, stunning visuals are the perfect backdrop for the story which will unfold.
The story follows our Caped Crusader in his quest to clean up Gotham which is in the midst of a frightening crime wave. There was much unnecessary angst when comic actor Michael Keaton landed the title role with fans feeling that was a sure sign the film would lean towards the campy style evident in the famous television series. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Batman would be a serious film (well, as serious as a comic book movie can be) and Keaton was perfect in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. Keaton's Wayne comes across as an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things. Keaton brings all the required seriousness to the role but also can add a little comic touch when necessary. Inspired casting pays off big time.
Good as he is Keaton is actually overshadowed in the film. Who else but Jack Nicholson could cause the actor playing Batman to get second billing in a movie titled Batman? Nicholson's performance as the Joker is simply terrific. Maybe a little over the top at times but, hey, it's the Joker...he's supposed to be over the top. Nicholson livens up every scene he's in, he simply owns the screen. With two terrific actors doing outstanding work bringing our hero and villain to life the film can hardly go wrong. It's certainly entertaining enough but the film as a whole doesn't quite match the brilliance of the two lead performances. The supporting cast, led by Kim Basinger as the requisite love interest, doesn't add much. Instead of leaving well enough alone with a fantastic Danny Elfman score the whole movie comes to a screeching halt a couple of times while we're forced to listen to some inane Prince songs. And the story just seems to lack a certain zest. We want to see the conflict between Batman and the Joker, these two great characters played by two great actors. And for too much of the film that conflict simply isn't there. But all in all, Batman is certainly a worthy effort. Some top-notch acting, stunning visuals and a story that does just enough to draw you in and hold your attention throughout. To call this film great might be a stretch but one could say it is very, very good. Certainly good enough to be worth your while.
The story follows our Caped Crusader in his quest to clean up Gotham which is in the midst of a frightening crime wave. There was much unnecessary angst when comic actor Michael Keaton landed the title role with fans feeling that was a sure sign the film would lean towards the campy style evident in the famous television series. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Batman would be a serious film (well, as serious as a comic book movie can be) and Keaton was perfect in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. Keaton's Wayne comes across as an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things. Keaton brings all the required seriousness to the role but also can add a little comic touch when necessary. Inspired casting pays off big time.
Good as he is Keaton is actually overshadowed in the film. Who else but Jack Nicholson could cause the actor playing Batman to get second billing in a movie titled Batman? Nicholson's performance as the Joker is simply terrific. Maybe a little over the top at times but, hey, it's the Joker...he's supposed to be over the top. Nicholson livens up every scene he's in, he simply owns the screen. With two terrific actors doing outstanding work bringing our hero and villain to life the film can hardly go wrong. It's certainly entertaining enough but the film as a whole doesn't quite match the brilliance of the two lead performances. The supporting cast, led by Kim Basinger as the requisite love interest, doesn't add much. Instead of leaving well enough alone with a fantastic Danny Elfman score the whole movie comes to a screeching halt a couple of times while we're forced to listen to some inane Prince songs. And the story just seems to lack a certain zest. We want to see the conflict between Batman and the Joker, these two great characters played by two great actors. And for too much of the film that conflict simply isn't there. But all in all, Batman is certainly a worthy effort. Some top-notch acting, stunning visuals and a story that does just enough to draw you in and hold your attention throughout. To call this film great might be a stretch but one could say it is very, very good. Certainly good enough to be worth your while.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesRobin Williams was offered the role of Joker when Jack Nicholson hesitated. He had even accepted the role, when producers approached Nicholson again and told him Williams would take the part if he did not. Nicholson took the role, and Williams was released. Williams resented being used as bait, and not only refused to play Riddler in Batman Forever (1995) but also refused to be involved in any Warner Bros. productions until the studio apologized. His next project with the studio would be Drôles de pères (1997).
- GaffesNeither Vicki Vale and Alexander Knox recognize Bruce Wayne until he tells them his name. This is understandable for Vale as she has just arrived in Gotham, but Knox is an established Gotham journalist and should know what Gotham's most famous son looks like.
- Citations
The Joker: Tell me something, my friend. You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Bruce Wayne: What?
The Joker: I always ask that of all my prey. I just... like the sound of it.
[shoots him]
- Crédits fousThe opening credits appear as the camera goes through/around a giant Batman symbol.
- Versions alternativesIn order to put the 126m. movie in 120m. video cassette, South Korean video distributor cut two scenes when the movie was first released on VHS. The first one is a whole sequence where The Joker kills Vinnie Ricorso with a quill pen in front of the city hall. The second is the arrival of Batman on the rooftop of the cathedral and a few fight scenes with the goons. After the police sweeps the cathedral with searchlights, the scene abruptly cut to the scene where a goon with rope (the third goon that attacks Batman) desperately seeks Batman. Also, the initial South Korean DVD release has only widescreen version of the movie, so it featured a strange cut where Vicki pretends to tempt The Joker. This scene has been fixed on the special edition DVD.
- ConnexionsEdited into 5 Second Movies: Batman (2008)
- Bandes originalesThe Future
Written, Produced and Performed by Prince
[Heard while the tourist family is trying to hail a taxi]
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Batman?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Betmen
- Lieux de tournage
- Knebworth House, Knebworth, Hertfordshire, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Wayne Manor; exterior)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 35 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 251 409 241 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 40 489 746 $US
- 25 juin 1989
- Montant brut mondial
- 411 569 241 $US
- Durée2 heures 6 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant