Login


email:

password:



Media > Movies > 1989 > Batman

Information

Batman

  • Director: Tim Burton
  • Distributor: Warner Bros. Inc.
  • Release Date: June 23, 1989
  • MPAA Rating: Rated PG13

User Contributions

No Screenshots

No Tags

Review Stats

Advertisement


Login or sign up to hide this ad.

This is better than the sequels. Of course. - 13 January 2009

overall: 6

DCBargas's Avatar

DCBargas (movie profile | personal site)

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:26 am EST
69 Movie Reviews

When you go to someone and talk about the original Batman movie, they think about this one. Then you go on to say that there was another one with the same title that came out way before this one. Not that you have to, but it's what I usually tend to do. I do want to mention that this is better than the 1966 movie, that was a follow-up to the Adam West TV show. This movie is good, not the greatest, and certainly not better than the reboot series that Chris Nolan directed so far ("Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight"). This movie seemed to be rushed, which of course they had only a certain amount of time to finish it before it was released back in 1989. Still a good decent movie. There was a few things that made me twitched though, of how they chose Jack Nicholson as the Joker? Really? He was okay, but he didn't gave me that whole scary and very evil vibe like Heath Ledger established so well as The Joker in "The Dark Knight". He was okay, and for Michael Keaton. What the heck? Ok, not a bad choice, but he doesn't suit as Batman for me, or Bruce Wayne for that matter. I see George Clooney as the caped crusader, more than seeing Michael Keaton or Val Kilmer as Batman. If only they went with him instead, y'know? The effects were okay too, and the acting wasn't too bad either. The plot was okay as well. I didn't like the fact that the Joker was once a mob gangster...before he became the Joker. *sighs* Why? I understand they were trying to stay true to the comics, even though that graphic novel they based off for Joker's origin is not what I consider to be the actual source of his origin. I like it when Joker is shown as a serial killer, not a mob that suddenly becomes a serial killer after his skin turns perma white. The origin story of the Joker wasn't necessary for the movie's plot, and Joker wasn't the actual killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. What was up with that? It was Joe Chill, and it has always been Joe Chill, not some clown in a mob outfit. Jeez.

All in all, good movie. It's still fun for some Batfans out there. It's enjoyable, it's fun, and the action scenes aren't too bad either. I just wished, as a Batman fan saying this, that they could've done better with the plot and the actors. Oh well.

mathuran - 7/14/2009 (reply)
haaa

New Comment:


Interact:


Was this review well written? yes yes

Please login or sign up to have full access to these features.