Batman-Motion Picture Anthology 1989-97 Special Edition (Blu-ray)

ReelViews 7 of 10
[Batman] The superheroes of DC Comics have been very good to Warner Brothers. In 1978, Superman became a major motion picture event, packing theaters and resulting in a franchise that generated three sequels before collapsing under the weight of bad writing, bad acting, and bad special effects. Then, only two years after the release of the movie that killed the Superman series (Superman IV: The Quest for Peace), Warner Brothers turned to DC's other venerable hero, Batman. From the moment the announcement was first made, fans were ecstatic, especially when it was revealed that the tone of the film would more closely resemble the dark nature of the comics, as opposed to the jokey, campy feel of the '60s TV series starring Adam West. This Batman was intended to be a different breed from any previous live-action incarnation. Like Superman, Batman spawned three sequels, and, like the saga of The Man of Steel, the Caped Crusader's adventures were eventually ended not by the successful plots of his enemies, but by the inept plots of those who helmed the series. Batman and Robin ended the profitability of a franchise that had been teetering since installment #3, Batman Forever...Looking back at Batman from a distance - after all the hype has dried up and the franchise has at least temporarily been abandoned - it's easy to see the movie for what it is: a moderately diverting motion picture that should have been shorter and better paced. There are a lot of things wrong with Batman, but it still makes for decent entertainment in the fine tradition of the typical low-intelligence summer movie. The best thing that can be said about Batman is that it led to Batman Returns, which was a far superior effort. - James Berardinelli
 
Rolling Stone 8 of 10
[Batman Returns] "Batman Returns" matches up the Caped Crusader with Catwoman. Wait'll you get a load of Michelle Pfeiffer's ravishing kitten with a whip. "How could you -- I'm a woman," she says to Batman when he slugs her, meeting his apology with a kick in the groin. Meow, indeed. Though her lusty licking of Batman's face may arouse kinky thoughts, Catwoman is no bimbo in black leather. Pfeiffer gives this feminist avenger a tough core of intelligence and wit; she's a classic dazzler...The follow-up to the blockbuster of summer '89 is faster and funnier, but that's not always a plus. To keep this astounding fun house humming with frenzied action, director Tim Burton spends less time investigating the Dark Knight's dark side...Still, the gifted Burton hasn't lost his subversive spirit, and the script, by Daniel Waters ("Heathers"), puts a sharp edge on the fun. Michael Keaton's manic-depressive hero remains a remarkably rich creation. And Danny De Vito's mutant Penguin -- a balloon-bellied Richard III with a kingdom of sewer freaks -- is as hilariously warped as Jack Nicholson's Joker and even quicker with the quips...Still, the movie's heart resides in two creatures who feel uneasy in their normal skins. Keaton plays Bruce Wayne, Batman's alter ego, as a moody playboy. And Pfeiffer brings the same discontent to Selina Kyle, the mousy assistant to corrupt Gotham City tycoon Max Shreck (a fiendishly funny Christopher Walken)...To the crashing chords of Danny Elfman's score, Burton trots out every gimmick, from a Batskiboat to a Penguin umbrella-copter. But the best gimmick is neurosis: Everyone has one. Batman and Catwoman, unable to function without dressing up their psychic wounds in fantasy, are a dysfunctional Romeo and Juliet. Burton uses the summer's most explosively entertaining movie to lead us back into the liberating darkness of dreams. - Peter Travers
 
Chicago Sun-Times 6 of 10
[Batman & Robin] Because of my love for the world of Batman, I went to Joel Schumacher's ``Batman & Robin'' with real anticipation. I got thrilled all over again by the Gothic towers of Gotham City. I was reminded of how cool the Batmobile is (Batman has a new one), and I smiled at the fetishistic delight with which Batman and Robin put on their costumes, sheathing themselves in shiny black second skins and clamping on lots of belts, buckles, shields, hooks, pulleys, etc...But my delight began to fade at about the 30-minute mark, when it became clear that this new movie, like its predecessors, was not *really* going to explore the bizarre world of its heroes, but would settle down safely into a special effects extravaganza. ``Batman & Robin,'' like the first three films in the series, is wonderful to look at, and has nothing authentic at its core...There is a scene that illustrates what I mean. It comes during the dreary central section of the film. Bruce Wayne (George Clooney) dines at home with his fiancee for the past year, Julie Madison (Elle MacPherson). Julie says she would like to spend the rest of her life with Wayne. Bruce hems and haws and talks about his bachelorhood and the complications of his life. Julie looks as if she has heard all of this before. The scene is interrupted by an emergency...Watching it, I realized why it makes absolutely no difference who plays Batman: There's nobody at home. The character is the ultimate Suit. Garb him in leather or rubber, and he's an action hero--Buzz Lightyear with a heartbeat. Put him in civilian clothes, and he's a nowhere man...My prescription for the series remains unchanged: scale down. We don't need to see $2 million on the screen every single minute. Give the foreground to the characters, not the special effects. And ask the hard questions about Bruce Wayne. - Roger Ebert