Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2012, 10:14 PM
Batman Returns is grossly overrated.

I'm a Batman fan (obviously) and I'm always hearing people say great things about Batman Returns and how it's better than Batman '89. Not only is it not better, it's hardly better than Batman and Robin. Returns is a mess of a movie, Pheifer is the lone bright spot, but the rest is garbage. Penguin might be the most misused villain in any Batman movie ever aside from Bane. Does anyone else agree or am I just crazy?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-17-2012, 10:53 PM
I think some people go a bit too far saying it's a misunderstood masterpiece but I definitely think it's a damn good movie. Better than 89? Well...I think it's about on par, it kind of depends on your mood.

And I actually liked the approach they went with with The Penguin. Way different and it worked for the movie that it was. And for the longest time I thought the 'classic' penguin as the short mobster dude just wouldn't work in a movie anyway, that is until I played Arkham City. As a reference prior to that I had Burgess Meredith from the 60s show and the Penguin from TAS, so I wasn't hugely enamored with the character. But playing Arkham City made me realize what a badass motherfucker he could be and at that point I completely understood why many fans have been recommending/hoping for Bob Hoskins to play him, and I guess that is as close as we're going to get. It would be interesting to see a movie with a more faithful Penguin adaptation and something more similar to Arkham City. That said, I loved how Burton went about the character and I loved Danny Devito's portrayal.

Leagues ahead of Batman and Robin. I mean I really hope that was just an exaggeration.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:00 PM
The penguin is such a monumentally uninteresting character. It's not Danny De Vito's fault. He does what he can with the role. I just don't like the character.

I did like the rest of the movie. Love Michelle Pfieffer particularly but Christopher Walken, as usual, rocks as well.

It's nowhere near as good as the first one. I also like Batman Forever a lot more too. That's a very underrated movie that unfairly gets picked on because of Batman & Robin. But it's an infinitely better movie than the wretched Batman & Robin.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek237 View Post
I think some people go a bit too far saying it's a misunderstood masterpiece but I definitely think it's a damn good movie. Better than 89? Well...I think it's about on par, it kind of depends on your mood.

And I actually liked the approach they went with with The Penguin. Way different and it worked for the movie that it was. And for the longest time I thought the 'classic' penguin as the short mobster dude just wouldn't work in a movie anyway, that is until I played Arkham City. As a reference prior to that I had Burgess Meredith from the 60s show and the Penguin from TAS, so I wasn't hugely enamored with the character. But playing Arkham City made me realize what a badass motherfucker he could be and at that point I completely understood why many fans have been recommending/hoping for Bob Hoskins to play him, and I guess that is as close as we're going to get. It would be interesting to see a movie with a more faithful Penguin adaptation and something more similar to Arkham City. That said, I loved how Burton went about the character and I loved Danny Devito's portrayal.

Leagues ahead of Batman and Robin. I mean I really hope that was just an exaggeration.
Ok, well maybe that was an exaggeration but I still think it's overrated in general. My biggest problem is that it doesn't feel like a Batman movie, it feels like a Tim Burton movie with Batman in it. Everything about it just has Burton's stamp all over it, unlike Batman '89 which is far less strange and dark.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
The penguin is such a monumentally uninteresting character. It's not Danny De Vito's fault. He does what he can with the role. I just don't like the character.

I did like the rest of the movie. Love Michelle Pfieffer particularly but Christopher Walken, as usual, rocks as well.

It's nowhere near as good as the first one. I also like Batman Forever a lot more too. That's a very underrated movie that unfairly gets picked on because of Batman & Robin. But it's an infinitely better movie than the wretched Batman & Robin.
I feel like Burton could have done something interesting with Penguin without making him a monster but after wrangling in his overbearing style and focusing on making a good film in Batman, he seemed intent on letting his artistic side just absolutely subdue Returns.

I think Forever is better than Returns. Sure it's goofy and Two Face is a waste but it feels like a live action version of the animated series, which is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2012, 09:15 AM
I like it better then the original. I can see why people feel it's just a Tim Burton movie with Batman in it, but for me that's the strongest aspect. It's like if Burton wrote a Batman comic.

It's paced much better then the original and it's tragic, melancholy tone is totally right up my alley. This film and the animated series cemented my love for the character that I still have today.

Ya, Burton totally put his stamp on the villains but didn't Nolan do the same thing?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2012, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
I like it better then the original. I can see why people feel it's just a Tim Burton movie with Batman in it, but for me that's the strongest aspect. It's like if Burton wrote a Batman comic.

It's paced much better then the original and it's tragic, melancholy tone is totally right up my alley. This film and the animated series cemented my love for the character that I still have today.

Ya, Burton totally put his stamp on the villains but didn't Nolan do the same thing?
Ditto. This was one of my favorites as a kid, and while it doesn't hold up quite as well today, I think it's a really solid film and the tragic, melancholic tone is perfect.

As for it feeling like a Burton movie, well sure, but like you said, poop, Nolan did the same thing. Batman has never been a character that has stuck to one style. There have been dozens of variations of the character through its comics, graphic novels, movies, and live action and cartoon TV shows. It's fine to not like Burton's take on it, but it's not like he was totally disrespecting the mythology. The mythology has never really been set in stone.

Last edited by Bourne101; 02-18-2012 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-18-2012, 04:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKnight81 View Post
I'm a Batman fan (obviously) and I'm always hearing people say great things about Batman Returns and how it's better than Batman '89. Not only is it not better, it's hardly better than Batman and Robin. Returns is a mess of a movie, Pheifer is the lone bright spot, but the rest is garbage. Penguin might be the most misused villain in any Batman movie ever aside from Bane. Does anyone else agree or am I just crazy?
Im glad there is at least ONE poerson out there that has logic on this.God I thought i was the only one who didnt refuse to take off the blinders to see how horrible batman returns is and realise its not much better than batman and robin.excelent post.well said.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-18-2012, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I also like Batman Forever a lot more too. That's a very underrated movie that unfairly gets picked on because of Batman & Robin. But it's an infinitely better movie than the wretched Batman & Robin.
I agree with you on this. I actually really liked Kilmer as Wayne/Batman. Second behind Bale, honestly. Notta huge fan of Keaton as an actor (Jackie Brown excepted) and Clooney was just miscast in the pile of shit that was Batman & Robin.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-18-2012, 06:32 PM
Catwoman in that flick has to be the sexiest villain of all time. Any challengers?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
Catwoman in that flick has to be the sexiest villain of all time. Any challengers?
Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Famke Jensen in Goldeneye?

But yeah, Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman is definitely up there!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-19-2012, 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKnight81 View Post
I'm a Batman fan (obviously) and I'm always hearing people say great things about Batman Returns and how it's better than Batman '89. Not only is it not better, it's hardly better than Batman and Robin. Returns is a mess of a movie, Pheifer is the lone bright spot, but the rest is garbage. Penguin might be the most misused villain in any Batman movie ever aside from Bane. Does anyone else agree or am I just crazy?
Pfeiffer's Selena/Catwoman duality & surprisingly good chemistry with Michael Keaton saved that movie! Comparing any of the Batman films from that time to Christopher Nolan's modernized trilogy is pointless! Tim Burton assumed he had an embarrassment of riches with this one, overloading us with three villains in Catwoman (who was really a vigilante), the Penguin & Max Schreck...too many cooks spoil the broth? Is that the old saying? Upon viewing it years later I only watch Pfeiffer's scenes! So its a fourth or a third of a decent superhero movie from a cheesy era of filmmaking!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-20-2012, 02:46 PM
I'm not a big fan of the movie, but it's still better than than the Schumacher Batman movies. Keaton, Pfeiffer, and Devito were good, but I think it's a tad obvious that the movie was rushed . . . for starters, the 3 stars only share one scene together, and that scene lasts about 30 seconds. It's a decent sequel, but not better than Batman in '89.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-20-2012, 03:06 PM
I think the movie is underrated.

People complained about the dark and violent tone but isn't that the idea of Batman?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-20-2012, 04:30 PM
I feel that this movie is tragically underrated. Yeah, this is very much Tim Burton leaving his stamp on Batman, but like someone else pointed out, Burton's 'gothic - German expressionism' style fits Batman.

To me Returns feels like an else-worlds comic, an almost fairy tale take on Batman. What made this take work is that Burton understands the character of Batman, or at least he gets that Batman is the real persona and Wayne died long ago. He perfectly reflects Batman's themes through visuals (which is the direct opposite of Nolan's style of explaining Batman's themes through exposition). Burton got the heart of the character right, and that is what makes his more "out there" ideas work. Plus, he actually made Penguin interesting.

Do I think Returns is a perfect Batman movie? No way. Mask of the Phantasm is the only Batman movie to hold that title for me. But I do think Returns is a great movie, and I'd rank it every bit as good as The Dark Knight.

I feel that Returns is underrated because for some reason, the internet feels the need to overly bash the old to make room for the new.

Last edited by Silverload; 02-20-2012 at 04:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-20-2012, 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
I feel that Returns is underrated because for some reason, the internet feels the need to overly bash the old to make room for the new.
I think this is partially true but there's also been a notable growth of backlash towards all of Burton's projects over the last decade. I think he alienated some fans with his recent films and they're going back through his filmography and realizing that his good films are quickly becoming the minority. Also a lot of people are turned off by the lack of originality in the projects he's been choosing and the fact that his movies have been embraced by the "Hot Topic" culture. I've always felt that the man was style over substance, and that Ed Wood was easily his best film.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-20-2012, 05:16 PM
I agree that Ed Wood is perhaps Burton's best film.

Though I don't agree that Burton is style over substance (more specifically classic Burton). Burton is a very visually minded guy. He speaks primarily through his visuals. Look at his Batman movies (since that is the topic here) and see what all his visuals have to say about the characters. Sure it is easy to look at Wayne standing in an massive hall within Wayne Manor and think that it was just a cool Burton-ish shot. But every scene in Wayne manor depicts an empty lonely mansion, which is a reflection of the character. Even when he has dinner with Vicki Vale they sit at a massively long table, visually depicting the metaphorical distance at which Wayne keeps other people at. We are never told this through dialog, we are only ever told through visuals. This is how Burton communicates.

And one thing you'll notice is that the majority of Burton fanboys are all visually minded people. Artists & such.

I do agree that Burton doesn't seem to have much to say anymore. A good chunk of his modern films now lack the visual impact and visual dialog that his older films had. That added to, as you said, him becoming part of the Hot Topic culture. Too much of something can certainly make you sick of it. Nightmare Before Christmas is one of my favorite films, but I really can't stand to watch it anymore.

Last edited by Silverload; 02-20-2012 at 05:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-20-2012, 05:23 PM
Beetlejuice will forever be my favorite Tim Burton film.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Batman Returns scared me a few times when I first saw it, Christopher Walkens dead body being one moment.

It's been a long while since I've seen it, but Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman made that movie. I can remember a lot of her scenes, so she definitely made an impression.

I agree that the Penguin storyline was the weakest part of the film, but I really dug the beginning of the movie with the parents dumping him in the sewers.

That was some pretty dark shit right there.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-20-2012, 09:16 PM
I don't have a problem with Tim Burton, like I said I love the original Batman. I don't have a problem with the darkness either, I don't think Returns was as dark as TDK. I just think Returns is an abomination of a movie from an all around perspective. Seems like he lost sight of making a good movie and made a Burton monster movie instead.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:58 AM
How I rate the Batman films from 1-6, (1 being the best)

1.The Dark Knight
2.Batman Begins
3.Batman 89'/Batman Returns (tied)
4.Batman (The Adam West version)
5.Batman Forever
6.Batman and Robin.

Calling Returns an abomination is going a bit overboard, I think. It's theatrical and a bit over the top at times and, although I prefer Nolan's approach, I have since been reminded of the value and uniqueness that Burton brought to the franchise.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:34 AM
I totally agree with this rant. Burton went all Burton and fucked Batman up in Returns. What I remember from this movie was the giant smiling cat like faces totally out of place. I remember before the movie came out Keaton sayign Burton fingerprint are all over the movie. At first, I thought that was good, but when I saw the movie, I understood it was not. I like Burton, but not his vision of Batman.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:50 AM
Its been forever since I've seen Batman Returns but I remember Christopher Walken being fucking awesome in it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-21-2012, 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
I agree that Ed Wood is perhaps Burton's best film.

Though I don't agree that Burton is style over substance (more specifically classic Burton). Burton is a very visually minded guy. He speaks primarily through his visuals. Look at his Batman movies (since that is the topic here) and see what all his visuals have to say about the characters. Sure it is easy to look at Wayne standing in an massive hall within Wayne Manor and think that it was just a cool Burton-ish shot. But every scene in Wayne manor depicts an empty lonely mansion, which is a reflection of the character. Even when he has dinner with Vicki Vale they sit at a massively long table, visually depicting the metaphorical distance at which Wayne keeps other people at. We are never told this through dialog, we are only ever told through visuals. This is how Burton communicates.

And one thing you'll notice is that the majority of Burton fanboys are all visually minded people. Artists & such.

I do agree that Burton doesn't seem to have much to say anymore. A good chunk of his modern films now lack the visual impact and visual dialog that his older films had. That added to, as you said, him becoming part of the Hot Topic culture. Too much of something can certainly make you sick of it. Nightmare Before Christmas is one of my favorite films, but I really can't stand to watch it anymore.
I agree with you about Burton's early films, and I must stress that I don't necessarily think there is anything inherently wrong with films that emphasize style over substance. It often has a negative connotation but sometimes it's the right approach. A good example of Burton's style working is Edward Scissorhands, some of the best moments of that film are free of dialogue. I just think that Batman was more successful at visual storytelling than Batman Returns. The examples you gave were from the original Batman, not Returns. I mean Batman/Wayne as a character is practically non-existent in Returns, so you don't get close to the same level of visually inspired character depth. But I haven't seen the film in years so I may not be remembering some of the more substantive elements of the movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Beetlejuice will forever be my favorite Tim Burton film.
I agree that Beetlejuice is simply an awesome movie.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-22-2012, 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
I agree with you on this. I actually really liked Kilmer as Wayne/Batman. Second behind Bale, honestly. Notta huge fan of Keaton as an actor (Jackie Brown excepted) and Clooney was just miscast in the pile of shit that was Batman & Robin.

Me and you are on the same page.I also liked Kilmer the best as Batman after Bale.I have nothing against keaton as an actor but he was so miscast in the role.He did not have the physical build and he is a short dude with a receding hairline so I could not take him serious in the part. The thing that I hated so much about Batman 89 more than anything was how boring it was and how they had the joker be the villian to kill his parents.after Batman killed the joker, he might as well hung up the cape and cowl because thats what motivates him to keep fighting crime is he cant get revenge against the criminal who killed his parents.

Last edited by Mr Parker; 02-22-2012 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-22-2012, 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I also like Batman Forever a lot more too. That's a very underrated movie that unfairly gets picked on because of Batman & Robin. But it's an infinitely better movie than the wretched Batman & Robin.
Yeah Batman Forever is not anywhere on the same wave length as batman and robin and thats so true,it gets unfairly picked on because of the monstrocity of batman and robin and is very underrated by many Batman fans.Batman Forever is personally my favorite of the batman films made before Batman Begins.It had lots of action in it like you would expect a batman movie to have,the first one the majority of the time they just stood around talking most the time and you couldnt understand why he fought crime or why he dressed up like a bat since the movie was mostly about the joker and batman only had a supporting role in it.

That was my beef about the Burton Batman films is the majority of the screentime was devoted to the villains with Batman being just a supporting character.This thread starter was right,Batman Returns really isnt that much better than Batman and Robin.Danny Devito who is normally great in his movies,acted really stupid in this movie and it was stupid that he looked like a monster with all that stupid makeup on.Phieffer is the only saving grace of this film.Thank God for Nolan because the sad truth of it all is prior to Batman Begins,all the Batman movies sucked. Nolans Batman movies are the only Batman films that should not be burned.

Last edited by Mr Parker; 02-22-2012 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-17-2012, 08:18 PM
This thread made me watch Returns again for the 100th time and I loved it just as much as the last 99.

It is, without a doubt, much better than 89 imo. A technical level its better in every aspect. The pacing is much more fluid, the cinematography is gorgeous and the action is slicker and more entertaining to watch.

Returns is a perfect mix of dark and absurd. Some say it's only a few steps shy of being Batman and Robin. I couldn't disagree more. Yes, it definitely has its absurdities, but it never betrays the tone of the film. I can completely except an army of Penguins with rockets on their backs because the movie credibly establishes its comic book tone right from the start. I like the think of Returns as a live action episode of the animated series, because that's what it feels like a live action comic/cartoon.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-02-2012, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio141 View Post
Tim Burton assumed he had an embarrassment of riches with this one, overloading us with three villains in Catwoman (who was really a vigilante), the Penguin & Max Schreck...too many cooks spoil the broth? Is that the old saying?
I thought that at the time of release and still do. Too many villians. Not enough Batman. Too much Tim Burton (and I like Tim Burton!) It's better than the Schumacher movies but out of the pre-Nolan movies I'll only watch the first one.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-06-2012, 06:50 PM
You misspelled "Batman Begins."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-08-2012, 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
You misspelled "Batman Begins."
You bite your tounge!

Spoiler:


Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:05 PM
I love batman returns!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-19-2012, 05:35 AM
Batman Returns was bad, I didn't know it was rated to be overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-19-2012, 06:00 AM
I haven't even seen it. That's how much I'm interested
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lister View Post
I thought that at the time of release and still do. Too many villians. Not enough Batman. Too much Tim Burton (and I like Tim Burton!) It's better than the Schumacher movies but out of the pre-Nolan movies I'll only watch the first one.
I personally think Batman Forever is easily the best Batman movie to the pre-Nolan movies and thats because of what you mention.Thats the thing that sucked about those god awful Burton Batman movies is the villains had the majority of the screentime and Batman was just a supporting character.

Thats just ONE of the major problems with those movies.Thats okay for a television episiode but not for a movie for crying out loud.A movie is a special case.They spent so much time on the character of the Joker you never understood why he faught crime or why he dressed up like a bat.

Batman Forever they finally explained it all and were able to since it was mostly about Batman.I loved the special effects much better than the Burton Batman films as well.For me,Batman Forever is the only pre-Nolan Batman movie I will watch.As I said before,I thought Kilmer made a much better Bruce wayne than Keaton did.Keaton was so miscast in that role.Also like i said before,I think it gets a very unfair bad rap because of how Schumacher ruined Batman and Robin.He went overboard on that movie.That one is easily the worst of the bunch.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:13 AM
I did enjoy Batman Returns, however, I don't think it's overrated--if anything Batman 89' fits that description. Batman Returns offers a much darker tone and a greater sense of complexity than that of its predecessor, but it often feels crowded because it doesn't feel like a structured linear story is present. On the other hand, Batman 89' is not even really a Batman' movie, but instead a movie about the Joker with Batman just playing the supporting character. Vicki Vale is an annoying love interest, Keaton seems confused about what he's trying to bring to the table, and the scene where the Joker shots down the Batwing with a revolver still makes me roll my eyes to this day. Finally, I think Batman Returns gives a greater balance between characters--which is ironic because it has more characters than 89'--but most importantly, the relationship between Catwoman and Batman is so nicely done that I can forgive the ridiculous penguins with rockets strapped to their backs plot.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Parker View Post
I personally think Batman Forever is easily the best Batman movie to the pre-Nolan movies and thats because of what you mention.Thats the thing that sucked about those god awful Burton Batman movies is the villains had the majority of the screentime and Batman was just a supporting character.

Thats just ONE of the major problems with those movies.Thats okay for a television episiode but not for a movie for crying out loud.A movie is a special case.They spent so much time on the character of the Joker you never understood why he faught crime or why he dressed up like a bat.

Batman Forever they finally explained it all and were able to since it was mostly about Batman.I loved the special effects much better than the Burton Batman films as well.For me,Batman Forever is the only pre-Nolan Batman movie I will watch.As I said before,I thought Kilmer made a much better Bruce wayne than Keaton did.Keaton was so miscast in that role.Also like i said before,I think it gets a very unfair bad rap because of how Schumacher ruined Batman and Robin.He went overboard on that movie.That one is easily the worst of the bunch.
Batman Forever, is a guilty pleasure of mine because I saw it when I was a kid and instantly fell in love with its over-the-top flamboyancy--something completely different from Burton's dark and melancholic films. However, I have to disagree about Kilmer. I think he's the second worst incarnation of Bruce Wayne/Batman after Clooney. It seems like Burton and Schumacher made the first movie to get a feel for Gotham, but when they made a sequel they go overboard with their creativity.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-29-2012, 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Parker View Post
I personally think Batman Forever is easily the best Batman movie to the pre-Nolan movies and thats because of what you mention.Thats the thing that sucked about those god awful Burton Batman movies is the villains had the majority of the screentime and Batman was just a supporting character.

Thats just ONE of the major problems with those movies.Thats okay for a television episiode but not for a movie for crying out loud.A movie is a special case.They spent so much time on the character of the Joker you never understood why he faught crime or why he dressed up like a bat.

Batman Forever they finally explained it all and were able to since it was mostly about Batman.I loved the special effects much better than the Burton Batman films as well.For me,Batman Forever is the only pre-Nolan Batman movie I will watch.As I said before,I thought Kilmer made a much better Bruce wayne than Keaton did.Keaton was so miscast in that role.Also like i said before,I think it gets a very unfair bad rap because of how Schumacher ruined Batman and Robin.He went overboard on that movie.That one is easily the worst of the bunch.

IMHO, I think batman forever was a huge step backward for the batman films. It's literally a de-evolution: taking batman back to the hokey/cheesy tone that defined the Adam West batman. Everything, right down to the set design and costumes, was like a cartoon. Though steeped in fantasy, Burton was able to achieve a more serious/dark tone for Batman, which was something that hadn't been brought to the film franchise before. For me, Keaton was so intimidating and uncompromising as Batman that hearing Val Kilmer's first words in Batman Forever back in 94 caused me to respond with the child's equivalent of "WTF?" Yeah...in response to Alfred's question about eating dinner before fighting crime he actually responds, "I'll get drive-thru." Good grief...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-29-2012, 05:47 PM
They should have quit after the first Batman movie in 1989. And it was good only because of a young Kim Basinger.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:44 PM
I actually think Batman Returns was an underrated film. People will disagree, but I didn't like The Dark Knight much at all and think it's one of the most overrated films ever made.

EDIT: 9/23/2012: Just wanted to say that this was a dumb post. Rewatched TDK and I love it, still think it's overrated but it's a great movie

Last edited by daltonio823; 09-23-2012 at 03:37 AM.. Reason: stuffz
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-25-2012, 10:29 AM
I agree with this rant. I think Batman Returns is just as bad as the Schumacher ones

I'm curious as to how many people who like Returns have watched it recently? I was a fan of it, hadn't watched it since I was young & recenetly revisited it last week...its just sooo terrible. Like others have said...Batman has all of 20min of screen time in the movie, the characters are just way to ridiculous, I mean...the Penguin gives a Patton like speech to his penguin minions...comeon!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump