"Batman" is a franchise with a gigantic mythos that has spanned across various mediums with hundreds upon hundreds of contributors over the years, so naturally with each iteration there are going to be new ideas and variations. Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" film is no exception, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of this is done very right- the scene design is very classic Gotham, and very intriguing, maintaining that signature gritty and gray smoggy city image while still architecturally interesting. The costume and prop designs are very comic book, Joker and Batman really pop out and look how they would in a comic, instead of having their colors muted to be more "realistic". There are some choices made here and there that are just kind of brilliant to me- when the news anchors have to not wear makeup and hairspray, I thought it was such a nice and darkly funny touch. As far as the acting goes, the performances here range from okay to phenomenal, with Jack Nicholson being the standout. His performance here is absolutely fantastic, and the range he maintains as Joker is amazing. Kim Bassinger's performance as Vikki Vale is also very good, and she makes good use of her plentiful screen time, with Robert Wuhl, Michael Gough, and Pat Hingle deliver solid performances as Alexander Knox, Alfred Pennyworth, and Commissioner Gordon, respectively. Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne, however, doesn't do much for me. Keaton is by no means a bad actor, but he fails to deliver a lot of the personality traits that make Wayne and Batman so interesting as individual parts of the man's personality, and the way that these roles are portrayed are both very level with very little variation between the two. Keaton barely talks throughout the whole film, which doesn't help as he's on screen almost the entire time, and when he does speak, he doesn't really say anything that's very interesting or helpful. This becomes a problem as the film mostly just cycles between focusing on Wayne/Batman, Joker and his gang, Vikki Vale, or Knox, and because Joker is the most fun to watch, I found myself just waiting for him to be on screen again. My whole impression of this film is that it's just strange. It makes a lot of variations to the Batman mythos (no spoilers here, don't worry), that aren't necessarily bad choices, but they don't add a whole lot, particularly the changes made to Bruce's origin story. I do like some the changes that they made to the Joker, although the whole "secret identity" piece for him doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I actually didn't realize until AFTER I watched it that it was intended that people except for Bruce didn't know who he was- that really makes no sense. Come to think of it, the way that Bruce Wayne's identity is handled really makes no sense to- especially from the people in his inner circle (Alfred, seriously?) The biggest thing I had with this film is that I couldn't figure out the tone it wanted to have. Nicholson's Joker is great, but he's not extremely menacing per say, as he's just a big goof with a gun. And chemicals. And a bunch of goons. We can tell he's dangerous, but he's still kind of predictable. He mugs at somebody, makes some jokes, and then kills them, rinse repeat. The film has a gloomy tone, but it's shot a lot like a mainstream film, not doing a whole lot particularly new in the cinematography department, and the tone is kind of all over the place, so the emotion that's trying to be instilled is never really achieved, but this kind of seemed on purpose? This is what really confuses me. There's a lot of quiet talking, and then all of sudden Joker just kind of pops up with a bunch of dudes playing some Prince music and dances around, and you can tell Nicholson's really putting in his all here, but it just doesn't hit the mark I think that they should have been going for. He's not scary, really, he's just fun. There's also a handful of plot inconsistencies, as well as full on plot holes, that don't necessarily bring the film down, but they are certainly there. With the addition of a few hammy lines, a runtime that feels a little bloated, as well as some under utilized supporting cast (it feels like Harvey Dent and Commissioner Gordon are just here because you're supposed to have them for a Batman story, and I really think Dent could've been dropped altogether, although I did want to see more of Gordon), the movie gets dragged to just being a strange, yet fun time. Really what this comes down to, for me, is style over substance- the design is great, and fits the intent well, but the acting is just overall good, not great, and the plot really couldn't get me to care a whole lot at all. I would recommend this film for any Batman fan, and any film fan, really, if not just to see Nicholson's performance, because as I keep saying, he is SO fun to watch. 7.2/10

Tim Burton's Batman holds up surprisingly well after all this time. The action, sets, acting, score, and casting are all excellent. It was definitely a cultural phenomenon bringing an icon to life after the long-lived campy Adam West Batman series.If you're looking for modern action on par with things like the Bourne Ultimatum, the Dark Knight, or John Wick, you're not going to find it in Batman (1989), but you will find an enjoyable product of the time. Consider that Die Hard came out the year prior. Die Hard was awesome, but you have to admit that most fight choreography wasn't especially kinetic or intense. Batman is old, but, if you take it as it is, it's a really enjoyable super-hero romp that is both tense and dark and campy and fun.

It took several years for the producers to get the green light to make this first blockbuster "Batman" movie. All the hard work was certainly worth it. The tone and style of the film reflects that of the graphic novels "The Killing Joke" and "A Death in the Family." The Gothic look embues the film with power and imagination. There is no way that any fan of the comic book can call the 1989 movie self-mocking or camp. There is some humour but of a more dark and macabre kind. As the director Tim Burton wasn't yet established as a major talent in Hollywood, the producers didn't really permit him a long filming schedule or overly extravagant budget in order to make the film. As a result, it was decided to go to Pinewood studios in England where the production values would be of a high calibre and the producers could save money into the bargain. The set designers did a tremendous job of creating a Gothic-looking Gotham City. Photographing the sets with low lighting adds to the atmosphere that Tim Burton wanted and got. The Joker is the ideal villain with which to begin the "Batman" film franchise. You can't mention Batman without including the Joker in the same breath. Comic book sales are attributed to that particular villain. Jack Nicholson is the Joker personified. His evil and sadistic personality, along with his criminal activities are all executed with a twisted kind of humour. He is easily a match for Batman in the struggle in Good vs. Evil. Michael Keaton came under some criticism in his being cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Personally, I thought he did quite well but his lack of height is a handicap. As Batman, he is fairly effective and carries a hard edge. As Bruce Wayne, he is good enough. Michael Gough is excellent as Alfred (far better than that over- rated Michael Caine). Character actor Pat Hingle is ideally cast as Commissioner Gordon and Billy Dee Williams does well as District Attorney Harvey Dent. Jack Palance shows he can still be menacing at the age of 68 and he is, as the crime lord Carl Grissom. The screenplay is a fine one, with much memorable dialogue. The narrative is very good on the whole. The scene where Grissom is holding a conference in his office is a telling one. Jack Nicholson in his previous life as psychopathic thug Jack Napier, is casually flicking through his deck of cards. The moment he is entrusted with the job of robbing the payroll at the Gotham City chemical plant, he turns one card to see what it is. A Joker card is staring back at him. I noted how Napier stares at it, looks quickly to his colleagues, leans back to think for a moment, then dismisses whatever he was thinking. What the character may suspect but not know, is that his fate is beckoning....... The scenes at the Chemical plant are great as the gangsters shoot it out with the police. Of course, Batman intervenes to offer the authorities some assistance. I won't give away any more details of the plot but this is a film which any fan of Batman will enjoy.

Remember that scene from an old "Simpsons" episode where a movie producer was shuddering at the memory of a scene from the 60's live-action series "Radio-Active Man", when in the middle of a fight (naturally punctuated with these onomatopoeic card-boards), everyone, villains included, broke into a hilariously campy monkey-dancing choreography. That scene summed up the general conception of "Batman" (with the late Adam West) at the dawn of the 90's, before Tim Burton and the animated series changed the face of the popular superhero forever.But to give each one the overdue credit, the trigger was the consecutive publication of Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's "The Killing Joke" and Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" in 1988 and 1989, that contained the "noir" and "Gothic" elements Tim Burton would associate with his aesthetic instinct and sense of exuberance he initially displayed in "Beetlejuice". Burton would even recast Michael Keaton as the legendary Dark Knight, igniting a controversy among the fans since the actor was mostly known for comedic roles. The film isn't flawless but I don't think that today, the casting of Keaton is regarded as a flaw, maybe it would if the film was focused on it, but based on the scene-stealing performance of Jack Nicholson as Napier, Keaton is almost relegated to a secondary status.Speaking for myself, I have never read a Batman comic before, I'm more into the French-Belgian school of comic-books and (forgive the blasphemous ignorance) I still I haven't watched the Nolan's movies, but that's just a matter of a few weeks, by the time you read this review, I might have reviewed them already. I just felt like in order to judge the quality of the reboot, I had to get back to the first significant cinematic adaptation, the one I saw when I was a kid in the early 90's and all I can say is that I remember I was impressed by Burton's "Batman" and that Jack Nicholson's Joker scared the hell out of me. I guess what scared me the most besides the face, the grin, the make-up and the killings was how totally oblivious to his own vileness he was, how he was actually enjoying it, not to mention that creepy laugh. At twelve, you're not quite accustomed to psychopaths.Watching the movie again, the special effects are a bit overplayed but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Nicholson's performance hasn't aged badly and hasn't lost its relevance. It's also worth mentioning that his performance works like a double-edged sword, because he's obviously the main player in the film. Batman is the hero but he's more of a "reacting' agent than a 'protagonist' in the real meaning, when there's no crime, he's the handsome socialite Bruce Wayne. You might say that's the purpose of any "superhero" is to keep a low profile until the call of rescue but Bruce Wayne is no superhero as purist will point out so a "Batman" movie can't totally focus on a villain, no matter how charismatic he is (well Burton's film gets away with it, to a certain extent). So "Batman" injects a sort of childhood trauma in Bruce's memories, involving the death of his parents, a relationship with butler Alfred (Michael Gough) and a romance with journalist Vicki Vale, played by Kim Basinger.The interactions are predictable and allow to take a few breaths between two Joker's stunts, but the romance does work in an awkward and puzzling way, adding to that aura of weirdness that surrounds the film although Keaton doesn't have the 'heroic' look though he's quite efficient as Batman, just like Basinger impressed me with her vocal abilities as a scream queen. Globally, the animated series which I grew up provided a more believable Wayne but despite these technicalities, a rather passive hero and a too simplistic plot relying on cosmetics, Tim Burton proves that he took Batman quite seriously, the Gothic settings of Gotham City are rendered with even more impressive design that we weren't at the time of CGI, something Nolan could benefit from. And the result is a delightfully weird mix of film-noir 30's elements where men wear hats and dress like people from old-fashioned comic-books with modern gadgets and Prince's music.So, if you judge a movie on the basis of its villain, its atmosphere, marvelously rendered by Danny Elfman's operatic score (re-used for the animated version) and the believability of its world, "Batman" is a winner. Indeed, can you make scarier than a villain who claims to be the unique "homicidal artist". I know Ledger's performance has been praised as the best, but there's just something about Nicholson's acting that drives the film and transcends it. It's to be noted that the film is one of the few whose hero and villain have been listed in the AFI's Top 50 Heroes and Villains, but I suspect Batman was there because you couldn't have a list with Superman and Tarzan and not Batman. Now, if the list was to be remade, I doubt Keaton would be there, I'm sure Ledger's Joker would but oddly enough, I'm sure there would still be room for Nicholson's Joker as well.Nicholson's clauses to play for Batman were quite expansive but he played it as if his life depended on it. His performance was pivotal to the film's appeal, as the man who made us wonder if we ever danced with the devil on the pale moonlight. It is possible that Nolan totally changed the cinematic vision of Batman forever, and now Batman fans might remember the Burton's version and react the same as that producer from "The Simpsons" but the film is really good in its own right, just watch the sequel "Batman Returns" and you'll appreciate it even more.