Reviews Comments: 89 Movie
I've decided to review each of the 'modern' Batman movies, starting with the Tim Burton legend. The film opens with one of the best themes of all time, a Danny Elfman masterpiece that would make the movie good by itself even if everything else was terrible. Thankfully, we are treated to a unique treat of the sort only Tim Butron could deliver. The film is beautifully shot and well acted. The writing of so many scenes is just incredible. But it is the look of Batman that stands out. Burton has a mind like no other, and when he is on his game, his movies are moving works of art. But Burton's weaknesses shine through as much as his strengths. While is is, as mentioned, an artist with a great visual flare, he is not known for his movies having good plots. At first glance one may wonder what the problem is. It's good vs evil. Batman vs the Joker. That's a plot in and of itself. No, it is not a plot in and of itself. All we know of Bruce Wayne is that he is a recluse who hasn't got over his parents' death and is beating up and even killing criminals at night. There is no attempt to explore his character or give him proper motivation for his crusade. With the Joker, as well, we are given both too much and too little. Jack Nicholson does a good job, but besides for being too old for the role his performance is hampered by the fact that the movie makes the Joker too human. By showing as much of the Joker's backstory and making his first act as the Joker one of revenge it makes him human enough that I cannot help but ask why he is doing what he is doing, a question that does not need to be asked of other versions of the Joker. With neither side having their actions or motivations explored almost at all there is only a series of events, not an actual plot. There are two hackneyed attempts to make a plot with the fight over the boring Vicky Vale and the revelation that Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents. Both are terribly forced. I guess because Batman is a sociopath dropping Joker into the acid would not make him feel guilty and make the conflict personal. Yes. Batman is a sociopath, waiting until after crimes are commited to punish the criminals and even killing many in cold blood. The character dresses like Batman, but he isn't Batman. In a movie with the name 'Batman,' that is very unfortunate.
No Batman is a sociopath and does kill all the time,Cracked did a friggin article on that and you should be ashamed of yourself for that part!. DO the research Beetle. Besides even if you didn't,it's far more realistic than all the Ass Pulls given to ensure he doesn't "kill in cold blood" I can mostly get over the fact that you have to everything spelled out for rather leave some aura of mystery concerning Bruce Wayne and The Joker. I can forgive you for wanting some kind of Ass Pull ling invincible force that makes Anton Chigurgh blush instead of a simple villain that does evil stuff for the lulz (which is what The Joker has always been). And if you criticized Alfred. I can even forgive you for that to But I cannot forgive you perpetuating this "Batman never kills" bullshit,that's an important part of the mythos,especially the original material from the 30's. Because of this you come to the most erroneous conclusion of all.
comment #18346 terlwyth 28th Feb 13
^I'm confused. Is Batman Never Kills an important part of his character or not? My copy of Batman Archives Vol. 1 (collecting the first four issues of Batman) flat-out says at one point that Batman never kills. Also, you talked of "forgiving" someone for preferring explanation to mystery, a stylistic choice. And who's talking about invincibility?
comment #18347 doctrainAUM 28th Feb 13
Batman did kill in the 1930s/1940s when he first came out. In the 1950s, Batman stopped killing in order to satisfy the comics code of authority. Since then Batman has mostly been against killing (and using guns). The "no killing" policy has been around for about 6 decades of Batman's publication history. So terlwyth is wrong, Batman use to kill but that was a long time ago.
comment #18348 son 28th Feb 13
As I said, my book reprinting material from the forties says that Batman never kills. So it was in effect even before the fifties.
comment #18349 doctrainAUM 28th Feb 13
In his very early appearences Batman would kill without remorse. By the time you get to any of the all time great Batman stories, even the ones that predate the movie like Dark Knight Returns and Year One, no killing was not only a defining character trait of Batman, but taken to an extreme it wasn't taken to with practically any other superhero.
comment #18350 uncannybeetle 28th Feb 13
I was intrigued by the "do your research" from terlwyth, so I have done so and have found this: That cracked article (I am assuming the "six murders") one is not good evidence for Batman killing people. If /you/ had done the research, of the six murders: 3 were 1940s batman, before they established his "no kill" character, one was the fact that in the eighties writers ran out of ideas and so villains kept dying in junk yards, one is an elseworld's story that isn't canon (All Star Batman and Robin). That leaves one death (The KG Beast) and that was retconned almost immediately. Cracked is not a good resource for the history of a figure who has been around since the 1940s. If you watch ANY batman film based on a canon story line (Under the Red Hood in Particular) they hammer the point home that batman doesn't (or doesn't want to) kill. As for the sociopath thing...A sociopath is a person with no conscience or sense of morals...so not someone who is out for justice. Revenge maybe, but not justice in the way batman is. But yeah, I'd use Wikipedia before I use a humor site as "research."
comment #18352 fenrisulfur 28th Feb 13
And that's what '89 seemed to be going for,it was emulating the 30's/40's,...everything about it except for The Joker screams back to that era. Therefore to get the Adaptation Distillation in tact,that was very much necessary. And besides '89 Batman killed only necessary,he didn't kill that crook at the beginning (sure it was for a message),and even in the Axis Chemicals he made sure not kill anyone. At the end he had to blow it up to stop the gas from spreading,there was no choice there. I'll concede he went off the deep end in Returns
comment #18353 terlwyth 28th Feb 13
In order to post comments, you need to