Batman (1989)

Washington Post 7 of 10
...an exhilarating mix of cartoon lore, screen presence, psychological murkiness, and demented Gothic goofiness...the lowliest and the funniest of them all is, of course, Jack Never-Fails-Ya Nicholson as...the Joker - Desson Howe
 
ReelViews 7 of 10
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
 
Chicago Sun-Times 6 of 10
The Gotham City created in "Batman" is one of the most distinctive and atmospheric places I've seen in the movies. It's a shame something more memorable doesn't happen there. "Batman" is a triumph of design over story, style over substance - a great-looking movie with a plot you can't care much about. All of the big moments in the movie are pounded home with ear-shattering sound effects and a jackhammer cutting style, but that just serves to underline the movie's problem, which is a curious lack of suspense and intrinsic interest..."Batman" discards the recent cultural history of the Batman character - the camp 1960s TV series, the in-joke comic books - and returns to the mood of the 1940s, the decade of film noir and fascism...The movie is set at the present moment, more or less, but looks as if little has happened in architecture or city planning since the classic DC comic books created that architectural style you could call Comic Book Moderne. The streets of Gotham City are lined with bizarre skyscrapers that climb cancerously toward the sky, held up (or apart) by sky bridges and stresswork that look like webs against the night sky...Director Tim Burton and his special effects team have created a visual place that has some of the same strength as Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" or Ridley Scott's futuristic Los Angeles in "Blade Runner." The gloominess of the visuals has a haunting power. Nicholson has one or two of his patented moments of inspiration, although not as many as I would have expected. And the music by Prince, intercut with classics, is effectively joined in the images. The movie's problem is that no one seemed to have any fun making it, and it's hard to have much fun watching it. It's a depressing experience. Is the opposite of comic book "tragic book"? - Roger Ebert