1992 comic book movie
Rating: 13/20 (Abbey: 16/20)
Plot: The titular dark knight has to save Gotham from a penguin man and a cat woman, the former which he's also trying to have sex with. Ok, the latter. But wouldn't a Danny DeVito/Michael Keaton sex scene have made this the best Batman movie ever?
I am too immature to watch a movie in which Christopher Walken says "balls," especially when the actor's got the kind of hair he has in this. If you're trying to decide whether or not you're mature enough to watch this movie, here's a little test. Scroll through these pictures of Walken. If you can make it through them without giggling and peeing a little bit, you can watch this. If not, then you're not allowed to watch it.
Ready? Begin.
Balls.
Balls.
Balls.
.jpg)
Balls.
Balls.
Balls.
Balls.
Balls.
Balls.
Did you make it? And are you still confused about why my blog is so popular?
I like this as much as the first Burton Batman movie, and its good qualities and bad ones are about the same as the ones from its predecessor. Danny Elfman's score is about perfect, Burton's imagery and sets are always intriguing, and there's a quirk to this that puts it someplace between the complete goofiness of the original Batman television series and the later Nolan trilogy. The bad guy, just like in the original, is more intriguing than Michael Keaton's Batman/Wayne. DeVito, who I'm not even sure had any make-up for this, is more of an ugly misshapen man instead of a cartoon character, although DeVito overdoes things a little and does his best to make him into a cartoon character. And he leaks. Walken's character is fine, and Pfeiffer's probably perfect for the Catwoman character (though I'd take Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, or Eartha Kitt over her) even though almost everything she says is stupid. When almost all of your lines are puns, your character probably doesn't have much of a chance. There's probably too much plot. I got a little bored trying to follow along after a while, and the cool and creative sets--especially that dilapidated amusement park and the sewer--and all the auxiliary characters and penguins kind of lost their appeal after a while. It's fun, but it feels like it goes on a little too long.
Balls.
It's hard for me to be subjective when talking about anything Batman, but it's nearly impossible for me to not have an edge over Burton's two films. I have such a history with those movies. It was my childhood. I made Audrey watch it about 3 weeks ago, and I think it still holds up; especially as a movie from the 90s. I like what you said about the 60s TV show/Nolan spectrum. You're right. It does fit nicely in there as it tries to be a live-action comic book and a serious film.
ReplyDeleteElfman's score as it sets the stage and scenes for Gotham and the characters is unmatchable, in my mind.
But more importantly, how did you do with the Christopher Walken Balls Challenge?
ReplyDeleteIn a better mood, I could see myself giving both the Burton Batman movies 14's. I sort of want to anyway with the recent interview where Burton talked about how this movie pissed off McDonalds.
Probably the most entertaining of the four pre-Nolan Batmans, which really is not saying much. A 14, I guess, mainly because of DeVito.
ReplyDelete