MovieChat Forums > Batman Returns (1992) Discussion > I've always liked it better than part on...

I've always liked it better than part one.


I've always preferred the gothic feel of this one. It's so much more dark and the score is haunting.

reply

It feels more like a Tim Burton movie than the '89 movie. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Keaton's portrayal but he has so much more to do in Returns. But I do still like the first one a bit better.

reply

It was alright until the last thirty minutes. The rocket-launching cyborg penguins were just stupid. The ending ruined an otherwise decent movie.

reply

I agree about the penguins. It was very unnecessary.

reply

I definitely preferred Batman (1989). Batman Returns was just way too "Gothic Quirky". It felt far too much "Burton" & not enough "Batman" compared to the first film. I didn't like it at all as a kid & I'm pretty lukewarm about it as an adult.

reply

While I didn't think it was as great as the first Batman movie with Michael Keaton but it is definitely better than the next two Batman movies.

reply

This is the Batman movie that I felt was the most Batman. Gotham had a gothic feel.

reply

Fantastic set design by Bo Welch and another incredible score by Danny Elfman. Only downside was the two villain setup (three really if you count Schreck). DeVito and Pfeiffer were both great, but it would've made for a tighter film if the script had focused on one instead of both.

reply

I also didn't like the mind controlled penguins. It was too over-the-top.

reply

Agreed, that ending was too silly. If you had pick just one villain would you have preferred Penguin or Catwoman? It's a tough call for me, but I would've gone with Catwoman. Selina could be both sweet and vicious...like most cats.

reply

Yeah, tough call. Maybe I would choose Penguin because he had other people to help him out which made him more of a threat. But I love how Selina turns into Catwoman, in particular the scene where she comes home and starts smashing everything.

reply

I prefer the first but did like this one. Wish Burton hadn't been fired.

reply

Was he fired? I always thought the studio wanted to go in a different direction.

reply

Wikipedia says he was "asked to step down". So, probably not truly fired. It was likely a mutual breakup. They wanted their Happy Meal tie-in friendly movie and Burton wouldn't have wanted to make it.

reply

I don't blame him for agreeing to step down. The series went from a legitimate series to a parody.

reply

He stayed on as producer for Batman Forever, which explains why that one still has some shreds of grimness in it. I always lament the waste of Kilmer - a fine actor and good choice for Batman - on that film. It's just so...frankly mediocre. It's pulling towards a Schumacher neonworld, but it's still teetering in Burtonland.

I actually might prefer Batman & Robin, which is at least taking its coat off in the lobby of the full-out parody building. If they'd pushed a little further they could have entered Adam West territory and had a really funny picture on their hands with that one.

Warner Bros. should have just reduced the budget and let Burton do whatever he wanted. "What might have been" with Burton's idea for a black-and-white Two-Face played by Billy Dee Williams is one of the great unmade films.

reply

I've seen Batman & Robin so many times. I think it's because it reminds me of the 60s TV series. The film is not good at all, but it's so entertaining in its badness.

reply

It's entertaining, yes. I do think they should have pushed it more. Just go whole-hog with it. Somebody should have told Clooney they were doing a comedy; he's very funny with that kind of thing when he wants to be. They should have actually put back the "BAM!" "POW!" stuff and gotten Adam West to cameo.

reply

Same here. It's nice to see others think so too. The first one was good too but with 2 super villains, it changed the dynamic and I really liked it better. And just as Nicholson was perfect for the first movie, I always thought Pfeiffer, DeVito, and Walken too, were also great choices.

reply

For me it's all about the mood. It's more dark and gothic. It's what Gotham is all about. It's even creepier.

reply

You're right. And the very beginning of the movie sets the tone right away.

reply

The gothic feel is what makes me love '89 and Returns. Well, one of many things. The performances are out of this world good, too (Nicholson, Keaton, Pfeiffer, et al.) I don't think they've topped Michael Gough's Alfred, much as I dig Michael Caine.

You ever read the comics? There was a run in the '90s with Doug Moench writing and Kelley Jones doing the pencils and it is super-stylized and gothic. It's my favourite batch of main-title Bat-comics out there. (Though, for one-offs, I prefer Arkham Asylum by Grant Morrison and Dave McKean, which is sublime

reply

I only had a few of the comics. As a kid I had the toys and I loved the 60s TV series. Whenever I think about the Batman world, part 2 is always the first thing that pops into my mind. It feels like the proper tone.

reply

If you ever get the urge to read a few, definitely go with Arkham Asylum. The Moench-Jones run of the comics was 515-552, or so Google tells me.

reply