Batman 1989

Let's get this out of the way: This film is older than me. This is the first time I've seen it. I can totally see why, in the context of being the first "dark" superhero movie, it would have been a great moment in the late 80s. But time has not done this movie well, and watching for the first time, it just feels like an unfocused film thats more whimsical than it is dark.

5 Comments

  • I five-starred "Batman," but I agree it's more about look, tone, and idea than it is about a focused narrative. Check out the sequel if you haven't.

  • Yeah, I wasn't at all a fan of the look, and I appreciate that's completely subjective, but the obvious soundstage, weird gothic architecture mashed up with cheesy colourfulness in a fake 1930s type thing didn't do it for me. Explains a lot!

  • That look won an Academy award! But, if you're schooled in the semi-realism of Nolan's Gotham, I can appreciate how Burton's gothic-amalgam Gotham may not work for you.

  • are you high? lol j/k i disagree but do your thing dude.

  • I used to love this movie as a kid and was so extremely disappointed when I rewatched it last year. It just felt off in so many ways. But there are two things that are still great about the movie: Kim Basingers legs and the very last shot in the movie with the great score and those bell sounds in the background. Instant goosebumps for me.

Please to comment.