बैटमैन

If you were around in summer 1989 then you'll remember that Batmania was EV-ER-Y-WHERE! You couldn't look anywhere without seeing the Bat Logo in some incarnation. The film was a mega-hit. People were queueing up around the block for hours (the literal meaning of a blockbuster). I remember being in a car, driving up Lothian Road in Edinburgh and seeing a long line of people queuing at the box office of the Cannon Cinema (as it was then) and being jealous that I wasn't old enough to see it. My lot of movies that summer was restricted to Ghostbusters II and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, both of which I saw in Florida. Batman had a 12-rating in the UK, and was upped to 15 for video. This "grown up" rating gave it an alluring mystique as was always the case with such movies to my hungry, impressionable mind.

The marketing team at Warner succeeded in immersing the public consciousness with the big-screen coming of the Dark Knight. Up until this point the Batman series from the 1960s is how the vast majority of the audience regarded the Batman character and universe. Tim Burton corrected all of that by giving us a dark, sinister and Gothic world with rich production design and a great score by Danny Elfman (who has made a career out of recycling the same old generic cues in nearly every movie he has scored). The original material is respected (to a degree), and the characters are deep instead of just campy. Burton also retained a lot of the noir elements that have been present in the old Batman serials and many of the comic books.

Michael Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne in my opinion. He's a rich, socio-phobic megalomaniac who has more money than sense and is often bumbling and clumsy, very different from Adam West's turtleneck playboy. As Batman he's silent and imposing, the polar opposite of Christian Bale's overplayed attempt, which I don't think anyone was really impressed by. Batman needs a counterbalance and I believe that Heath Ledger helped up Bale by accident

Jack Nicholson is a "good" Joker too, not quite as iconic as Ledger's take on the character, but still a role that has defined his career. I like that they acknowledge his intelligence and gave him a new edge by making him artistically gifted, but not much is done with it when it should have been a heavier driving force behind his insanity.

Anton Furst's Oscar-winning design of Gotham City is, to me, THE aesthetic that all other attempts failed to match. The smoke-blackened, cramped, and claustrophobic buildings look and create a very oppressive atmosphere, like a New York City that has not had planning permission for 200 years. The matte paintings are gorgeous and create pure escapism in a way that green screen digital mattes just cannot replicate.

It may not be as mature as Nolan's work but it has an edge that no other recent comic-book movie has. It's just a shame that the late-80s writer strike happened just a few days after Sam Hamm submitted his script to Warner. He was unable to make further drafts and rewrite scenes so Burton had some British writers make changes to the script (it was shot at Pinewood) which involved making Jack Napier/Joker the killer of Thomas and Martha Wayne. Sam Hamm was against this, as well as every single Batman fan on planet Earth. If there is one major, and valid, fault that audiences rightfully complain about then this major change to the established lore is it.

Rightfully a classic, and, aside from some weak writing, it's better than ALL of today's comic-book movies (please just make them stop!). If Batman had failed, then the sub-genre would be written-off forever. It's just a shame that Warner squandered this lightning in a bottle after two movies.

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 is truly a Fantasy/Comic movie-masterpiece. First of all- the excellent cast- Jack Nicholson shines in the role of the manic and crazy Jocker. Nicholsons character is truly amazing- like a mixture of his former roles/characters in "Chinatown" (Jake Gittes), "One Flew Over the Cuchoo`s Nest" (Randle McMurphy), "Prizzie` s honor" (C.Partanna), "the Witches of Eastwick" (Daryl Van Horn) and of course "The Shining" (Jack Torrance)- but (the character) still keeps his own style. Michael Keaton also proves to be the ideal type for Burtons`s Batman. He reminds on the dark Batman from the "Dark Knight" Batman comics, and is the exact opposite of Batman introduced by Adam West in the 70`s. Second, Tim Burton created a unique athmosphere, exactly matching to the characters. Some people say that this movie is to dark, but I wouldn`t agree. I must not forget to mention the exciting Batman Theme composed by Danny Elfmann. Burton`s Batman, differnt from all the other Comic-hero movies, like Spiderman, Superman, Flash or Hulk, provides a refreshing character dimension.

One of the best movies in the 80`s.

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.

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.