Batman Returns is the masterpiece out of the too.
Love this film but there is still something kinda realistic about it, to the city and stuff. Batman Returns is just visual poetry.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Batman (1989) Discussion > Batman Returns is the masterpiece out of...
*Two
shareBatman's an art deco 1940s gangster movie meets a touch of 1960s Batman meets the 1980s.
Batman Returns is a German Expressionist Batman meets Edward Scissorhands meets The Nightmare Before Christmas (I know that didn't exist yet) meets the circus/freak shows. Selina Kyle, with her girlishly pink bedroom, turning in to fiesty, sexual, Catwoman, reminded me of the two sides of Madonna.
Whilst your observations are correct, and Returns is more polished in some ways, I still don't want to agree that one's necessarily superior to the other. What I will say is that Jack Nicholson was a hard act to follow so they took the wise decision not to 'go bigger'. Instead, Returns is an intimate character study primarily between 3 villains. Burton shows that, since he'd already exposed Batman's personal demons in the first film, Batman was now largely a bystander to the board game going on around him. (You can get a board game of Batman Returns and it feels like ideal material for one to me).
The first film easily feels like the more epic in a Hollywood sense, with more memorable lines and memorable kills. So even though I admire the aesthetics of Returns more and Pfeiffer and Walken are a treat, I still feel that Batman (1989) is easily the most true Batman film, because of its realism, whereas Return is like a twisted fairytale spinoff for villains/the misunderstood.
Returns was possibly the best way Burton could have done a sequel so it's masterpiece-like on those terms , just a shame that, by largely leaving Batman out of the picture, the overall tone of the movie is that he's little more than a party pooper. But I'd guess that Burton didn't bank on being able to keep making Batman movies without seeming derivative so he did just make what he wanted, being drawn to the villains . Is Batman Returns his only sequel in fact? (not including Frankenweenie remake).
but there's still a lot of Batman in it. I also agree, Returns does feel more intimite, more character driven, I love that.
shareI liked Returns, but it had a complete lack of cohesion of tonal shifts. It wants Penguin to be taken as a serious threat, yet DeVito is about a 0.9 Frank Reynolds in most of his scenes. It wants to present Selina Kyle as this tragic figure then has her saying meow and trying to eat birds and stuff. In fact, it's a movie with a literal penguin-man and cat-woman. Burton doubles down on not giving a damn about Batman himself; the first half hour is all DeVito/Pfieffer/Walken (isn't the movie called BATMAN RETURNS?).
As a matter of fact, both this film and Batman Returns seemed to focus more on the villains than Batman himself. Hell Commissioner Gordon didn't even have a big role in either film. Especially in Returns where he had only like three or four lines.
Its amazing how people hang around message boards of movies they dont like
and what is wrong with that? And she is a tragic figure.
shareSomething I like about Batman Returns is that, for all its stark tragedy- the Penghuin, Selina Keyle, you get the sight of a large man going around in a yellow motorised duck and the camp death of the ice queen. It's all quite high pop art.
Andy Warhol might have liked it. It gives an uneasy tone though, particularly the seemingly casual way in which the penguins drop the Penguin in to his watery grave.
I guess everyhting would be all right if they've called this movie "Gotham" or "Tim Burton's Gotham City" or something.
shareI loved both Michael Keaton Batman films. They are just magnificent.
I will never watch any other versions of Batman. These films were made when they were actual movies, not cooked up CGI.
And the casts in both! Who can top Michelle Pfieffer and Kim Basinger? Jack Nicholson, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito.
Amazing films.